Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a personal statement. In terms of your request, I wish to apologize to this House for the statement attributed to me as reported in The Daily News of 19 October 1974 in the following terms—

On further consideration I realize that my remarks could be interpreted as reflecting upon members in such a way as to undermine public respect for this House as an institution. This was not my intention and I accordingly wish to apologize to members and the House and to withdraw any such reflection.

Mr. Chairman, above the noise of the kindergarten last night, I was trying to convince the hon. the Minister of Tourism to make a larger grant to the Natal Anti-sharks Board. I want to convince the hon. the Minister of the need and desirability for such a grant. I quoted last night from the report of the Anti-sharks Board, and I feel that the money allocated to this board is very necessary because it maintains safety on our beaches. In the seven years since the Anti-sharks Board has been functioning, nearly 10 000 sharks have been caught in the nets off the Natal South Coast. During that period, we have not had one fatality. We have only had two minor incidents but if one is to judge from the furthur which these incidents cause, one would realize how important it is that the safety of our beaches be maintained. People seem to forget that the Natal roads are far more dangerous during the tourist season than are the beaches. The slightest rumour that there is a shark in the neighbourhood is sufficient to make people cancel their hotel accommodation.

Another good reason why an increased grant is required, is the rising costs of maintaining the shark nets. The local authorities are finding it impossible to meet the costs involved. As the beaches are extended and as the crowds grow larger, so more nets have to be installed, each of which costs R175. It costs roughly R80 per month to maintain a net and from this one can see how quickly the costs escalate. We have seen recently that it is planned to make more beaches available for the different race groups in accordance with the request of this Government. This means that more beaches are going to have to be provided with anti-shark nets. I know that there is a feeling among some people that the non-White beaches do not require anti-shark nets, but I do not think that this would be very good propaganda for South Africa. Whatever beaches are provided will have to be supplied with anti-shark nets. The desirability of this is reflected in its effect on tourism generally. People then know that the beaches are safe. We have people coming from all over the world to see how these shark nets operate. Australians particularly are very interested. Our record of safety has made the Natal Antisharks Board internationally known as an institution which is successfully coping with this problem. For this reason alone it is very important that this image be maintained.

I just want to refer briefly to the statement made by the hon. member for Somerset East last night when he said that he would like to see our national parks taken over by the Department of Tourism. While I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. member said, I do not think that this party would be in favour of the Department of Tourism taking over any such organization. In our opinion the Department of Tourism’s function is to liaise with the different departments and to tell them what is required for the furtherance of tourism; for example, in regard to parks, to recommend what the tourists require and, as far as the Railways are concerned, to recommend what is needed to promote tourism; but not, in fact, to run those particular departments. I think that it would be a retrogressive step if we were to overload the Department of Tourism with all these different departments.

Sir, I think we should all like to associate ourselves with the appeal made by the hon. member for South Coast that the beaches of South Africa should be made as safe as possible. When one bears in mind the disruption of holiday facilities which might take place in neighbouring countries, I think it is clear that in future there might be a greater need than ever before for all kinds of facilities to promote safety at our beach resorts, for more and more South Africans and people from neighbouring countries will be wanting to make use of them. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as this side of the House is concerned we will make our beach resorts safe for all races in South Africa.

Sir, I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Minister not only on the fact that he is now holding this office, but also that he has been elected as the new chairman of the organization known as SARTOC. Sir, since 1966 I have been pleading in the debates on this Vote for the establishment of a regional board for Southern Africa which may serve as one of the major means of co-operation and which may also ultimately ensure that not only South Africa but all the countries of Southern Africa, will be able to derive their rightful share of foreign exchange from this industry. I hope the hon. the Minister will have the privilege of seeing this organization grow as an instrument not only in the service of our country but also in the service of the whole of Southern Africa.

Sir, to leave the international sphere and come back to the local, I should like to make an appeal here today, under the new circumstances which have developed in the world today, for consideration to be given anew to the Boland mountains. Shortly before his death the late Field Marshal Smuts made a plea for the preservation of Table Mountain in the following words. He said—

Mr. Chairman, we know that a report appeared 23 years ago from the Committee for the Preservation of Table Mountain, as it was known at that time, and that the Table Mountain Preservation Board was subsequently formed. Sir, in today’s circumstances, where a fuel crisis has not only arisen in the past few years, but might be with us for generations, a new need has now arisen for people living in major urban complexes such as Cape Town. Here in Cape Town itself we already have close on one million people and we can expect this number to grow to perhaps 2 or 3 million in the next few decades. We have seen that the first foundations have already been laid for a second major city, Saldanha. Therefore, in the course of time, millions of people will be living in this small area of the Western Cape. Probably 60% of them will be Brown people and the rest mainly Whites. We here in Cape Town and its environs are fortunate in the sense that we not only have the most beautiful beaches in almost the entire world, but also have some of the finest mountains and the finest rivers which any country can boast of. Sir, since it is also the task of this department to look ahead in order to see what the requirements will be not only for this year but also for the generations to come, I want to express the hope that this department will make a study of the Boland mountains, mountain gorges and rivers in order to see how these beautiful natural assets could be used for the benefit of the inhabitants, especially of this area, for daily excursions and holidays, and how they should on the one hand be utilized and on the other preserved. Sir, if an exhaustive study were to be made I believe that many departments would have to be involved in it—the Department of Forestry, which owns vast parts of these mountain regions, the Department of Water Affairs which has already constructed a number of large dams and is constructing others, major municipalities such as that of Cape Town, which also own large dams in these mountain complexes, and many other municipalities and divisional councils, but also private bodies which in some instances have spent millions of rand in order to develop these natural assets for recreational purposes, not only for people from Cape Town but also for tourists who visit South Africa. What I want to advocate today is that renewed consideration be given, particularly in the light of the fact that people will no longer want to travel long distances for their recreation, to these wonderful assets which nature has given to Cape Town and its environs in particular. I believe that a study of this nature would have to be carefully directed, firstly, at examining the assets as they exist today and, secondly, at seeing to what extent the animal life, plant life, bird life and also aquatic life in the mountains and streams may be further stimulated. I believe we shall have to determine which facilities can still be established by man himself in the way of rest camps, picnic spots and other kinds of recreational resorts. A fine balance will have to be struck somewhere between preservation on the one hand, the preservation of that which is sacred to all of us, that which was quite rightly called the soul of South Africa, the soul of Cape Town, the soul of the Boland, i.e. its mountains, and on the other hand the utilization of those assets, without which man cannot be enriched. Sir, just as that study, 23 years ago, led to the Table Mountain Preservation Board, I believe that if an exhaustive study were to be made of the Boland mountains, valleys and rivers, it might perhaps lead to the establishment of a park such as the one the Transvaal boasts of, the Kruger National Park, in other words, something which will include these wonderful natural assets. I believe that the generations to come will look back with grateful recognition at a wise step and the work which we have the privilege of doing at this juncture.

Mr. Chairman, following on what the hon. member for Vasco has said, I must say that I agree with him entirely when he calls upon the department and the Minister to plan ahead and to look ahead with regard to the establishment of tourist places in South Africa itself. I believe that the hon. the Minister has had a rather easy time up to now, and I know that he will not take it amiss of me if I cross swords with him this afternoon. We have crossed swords in the past, and undoubtedly we will cross swords also in the future. Sir, what I would like to say about tourism is that it is perfectly clear not only from the statement made by the hon. the Minister last night, but also from the statements made by other hon. members in this House, that this department is of very great interest and importance to South Africa in general. Quite apart from the foreign exchange that the promotion of tourism generates for this country, there are three other factors which I believe are important to the country as a whole in regard to the development of tourism. The first one is that there is a dispersion of development in the country itself; in other words, there is development in the areas where tourists would normally appear and to which they would be attracted as opposed to the development in the ordinary industrial and urban areas in this country. Secondly, the amount of money that actually comes into the country and is spent by the tourists themselves, generates economic activity; in other words, the money passes from hand to hand and it actually means that there is more economic activity as a result of that flow of money. Thirdly, it creates employment opportunities to enable otherwise undeveloped areas to provide employment for people in that area where they would not normally be able to obtain employment. In addition to the foreign exchange aspect, therefore, there are also other advantages to be derived from the promotion of tourism. Mr. Chairman, I believe that tourism is a major tool of success available to the Government itself. I believe that it was in 1953 that a start was made with the campaign of promoting tourism from abroad, because in that year the “charter inclusive” tours were introduced in Britain and the people who were hungry for holidays overseas found that they were able, at a fairly cheap fare, to speed to far distant countries and enjoy holidays in that way. Sir, it must have become fairly apparent to the Government itself that it should plan to attract some of this tourist traffic to South Africa. It should, therefore, have involved itself in a complete survey to establish what the trends were likely to be in the future. I believe that it is the normal procedure for any business to conduct a survey so as to be able to plan for the future. Sir, research is undertaken to be able to forecast and to plan ahead. In fact, research I believe could be described as being the bridge between objectives and strategy, the objectives which the department wish to reach and the strategy being the manner in which it proposes to reach that objective. It should also ascertain the size of the total market, the tourist market available to the country, and also ascertain the best manner in which to obtain a share of that market. But what do we find in regard to Government action in this regard? It was some 11 years after the explosion of the foreign tourist industry that the Department of Tourism was first established by this Government, i.e. in 1964, despite the fact that as early as 1950 some 100 000 foreign tourists visited the country and must have generated in the region of £10 million worth of foreign exchange per year. Despite the fact that these signs were on the wall, we find that in 1965 when the department was first formed a sum of R1 million, approximately, was devoted towards running this department. There were no funds whatsoever allocated that year for research. In 1968 for the first time it appears from the estimates that research was taken into account, and although research became an item in the estimates the sum of R100 only was devoted towards research, a nominal sum, and then for seven consecutive years thereafter this Government took no steps whatsoever to devote any funds towards research in regard to tourism. It is only this year, 1974, that a sum has for the first time appeared in the estimates, in the amount of R25 000, which, if one takes into account the cost of a properly conducted research scheme, is an absolutely miserable sum and inadequate in the extreme. I believe that this amount of money is going to be devoted towards research in the internal sphere only. The hon. the Minister should not shake his head now. That is what he said last night. I have his Hansard right in front of me and I will quote it.

I did not say it would be restricted. I have not replied to the debate yet.

The hon. the Minister cannot get out of it. He said last night—

There can be nothing clearer. That is what he is going to use this money for.

Now, Sir, let us go back a little further. I believe that if the Government had devoted more time and attention to research, we would obviously have attracted far more foreign tourists than we have had over the past years. I believe also that the total budget is completely inadequate, as was said also by other hon. members here, and I believe that expansion is necessary and that we should establish in the internal sphere of tourism an organization on similar lines as Satour. Now, I know that this does not fall into lines with the hon. the Minister’s thinking in regard to the operation of the department itself, because last night I believe he made a statement which indicates that he has a complete misconception of the functions of the Department of Tourism. He said that the Department of Tourism was responsible for internal tourism and that he was prepared to leave the question of external tourism to Satour. His words are quite clear. I believe that he was making a mistake. I believe that he does not really believe that that is the picture, but what I would like to suggest to him is that he applies to his Cabinet colleagues for more funds next year and that he sets up a similar organization to Satour, which is operating very efficiently, to operate inside South Africa itself, and that the department operates as a co-ordinating influence between those two organizations and also as a link between them and the other Government departments in South Africa.

Finally, I just want to refer to a statement which was made by the hon. the Minister recently and which I believe he should explain to this House. In this statement he had the following to say—

I agree with these words whole-heartedly. I do not believe that we in South Africa needed to be reminded that we are a hospitable nation at all. But then he goes on to say this—

What does the hon. the Minister mean by these words? Why is it necessary for him to say such a thing to the people of South Africa? To whom is he referring when he says, “our attitudes leave the tourists the impression that they are barely being tolerated”? Does it mean that we offer petty insults to our visitors? I believe it goes a bit deeper than that. I believe that what he was really referring to was the fact that we have in this country today a Government policy of petty apartheid, in terms of which insults are given to visitors to this country who are not White. I believe that that was the line of his thinking when he made that statement. I believe that he can best overcome this position by making use of his influence in the Government in order to do away with this, instead of sanctimoniously calling upon the people of South Africa to alter their attitudes. And then, Sir, the hon. the Minister had this to say earlier on in his speech—

I presume that is overseas. Now, Sir, I want to know what he means by “unfavourable circumstances” under which we have to compete in the market-place for foreign tourists. I believe there again that it is because the Government’s policy of apartheid is not acceptable in the rest of the world that we do not get foreign tourists. If he wants to do something about that, he should see to it that he uses his influence in the Government sphere.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not propose to follow the hon. member for East London City who has just sat down. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will deal effectively with the pseudo-arguments which he has tried to put across the floor of this House.

*Mr. Chairman, according to the International Union of Official Travel Organizations a tourist or visitor is any person visiting a country other than that in which he has his normal place of residence, for any reason other than following an occupation remunerated from within the country visited. From this it is apparent that the tourist industry deals not only with holiday makers, but in fact with virtually everyone who undertakes motivated travel. For the expansion of our tourist industry it is, therefore, essential for these motivating elements to be emphasized on all appropriate occasions.

I confirm and gladly associate myself with everything which hon. members have said in this debate about the importance of tourism, both as regards its financial benefits and as regards the fine image of South Africa which visitors could in that way take home with them and the goodwill towards South Africa which could in that way be promoted.

Without being parochial in my approach to tourism, I want to draw hon. members’ attention on this occasion to the exceptional tourist potential of the Southern Cape. I wish I were able to sing the high praises which the natural attractions of the Southern Cape deserve. I would really be able to become lyrical on that score.

The fact of the matter is that the Southern Cape, perhaps more than any other part of the Republic, has been endowed with natural attractions, which could serve to motivate people to visit this area. In 1973 an Auxiliary Committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council made the following findings in this regard (translation)—

So much for the Auxiliary Committee’s report. And then Oudtshoorn’s ostrich farms have not even been mentioned yet—according to statistics they are a greater tourist attraction than even the Cango Caves—the numerous places of historical interest, the spectacular mountain passes and the breathtaking splendour and profusion of wild flowers, of which the Southern Cape is justifiably proud.

These natural and other tourist assets do not belong to the Southern Cape only, but to the entire Republic and all its people. In addition, the full utilization of these assets will not be to the benefit of the Southern Cape only, but also to the benefit of the whole Republic of South Africa. South Africa simply cannot afford not to utilize the full tourist potential of these attractions. But for the full utilization of these attractions it is necessary to develop the natural attractions and establish the necessary facilities which will enable visitors to enjoy them.

I can assure hon. members that the people of the Southern Cape are fully aware of the importance of tourism for this region in particular and for South Africa as a whole. The said Auxiliary Committee found in this regard that (translation) “The local communities are aware of these natural assets of the Southern Cape and are, in addition, very eager to expand the industry. This industry, however, has not nearly been developed to its full potential and far more can be done to exploit this potential source of revenue.” For a number of years the Southern Cape has already had an active society for the promotion of tourism with a very zealous secretary who has made a study of tourism here and abroad and who could be regarded as an expert in this sphere.

Apparently the Department of Tourism, too, is thoroughly aware of the tourist potential of the Southern Cape; in fact, the department is actively engaged, with the means at its disposal, in promoting tourism in this region. I hasten to thank the hon. the Minister for the active co-operation and support of the regional representative concerned, as well as other officials of his department. I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the financial support which has made it possible for us to issue a folder with photographs and information about the natural and other attractions of the Southern Cape. But in order to realize the full tourist potential of the Southern Cape, it is essential for other government departments as well to be actively involved in this. Rail, road and air links are, for example, of cardinal importance in this regard. However, there are other Government departments, too, which could make a positive contribution to supplement the efforts of the Department of Tourism and to make it possible to implement what the department has in mind. I shall mention another example, with which I want to conclude. The Mossel Bay Growth Association is envisaging an angling competition, to be known as the “Mossel Bay Challenge”, which will seek to better the record black marlin record catch of 327,9 kg by Jackie Wheeler in the waters of Mossel Bay in 1957. A large money prize and other benefits are being offered in order to attract anglers from all over the world to Mossel Bay to take part in this competition. For the success of this undertaking it is essential, however, that adequate berthing facilities for deep-sea angling boats and other facilities will be available in the Mossel Bay harbour. The fact of the matter is, however, that although approximately R3 million has recently been spent on harbour extensions at Mossel Bay, there is still no adequate provision for pleasure boats. Mossel Bay harbour is controlled jointly by the S.A. Railways and the Departments of Commerce and Industries, and the active co-operation of these departments is absolutely essential in this regard. If justice is to be done to Mossel Bay in this sphere, these departments will also have to be made aware of the enormous potential which Mossel Bay has in this regard, potential which should be exploited in the interests of the Southern Cape and South Africa as a whole.

The people of the Southern Cape are grateful and proud of the fact that the present hon. Minister, a son of the Southern Cape, is at present in charge of the Department of Tourism. They expect a great deal from him in this regard as well. I am convinced they will not be disappointed in their expectations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to try immediately to deal briefly with the various aspects raised by hon. members. I think the best way in which I can do this, is to refer to the general and broad principles formulated by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Last night I referred to the question of a comprehensive financial grant to the department, but I should nevertheless point out that if he were to consider the amounts being made available to the department, he would see that this year’s increase represents an increase of more than 30%. And this does not even take into account the funds under the control of the Hotel Board, which also falls under the department. Those funds amount to R1 million. The hon. member referred to research, as did the hon. member for East London City.

† I will come back to that hon. member. I am quite prepared to cross swords with him but he is in a rather unfavourable position since he has no sword in his hand at all.

You are the last speaker. That is why my position is unfavourable.

I indicated that the concept of research was not something which resulted from the representations made by hon. members opposite. I said last night that, apart from market research locally—i.e. in respect of local tourist traffic a conference of all the managers of our overseas offices of Satour was held to discuss the responsibility of Satour as far as marketing and research were concerned. The hon. member should not quote my words out of context, or quote only part of what I said.

I did not do that.

I want to repeat that, as far as the domestic scene is concerned, we are conducting research aimed at furnishing us with answers to the following questions. The first one is: What are the holiday habits of South African tourists? Other questions are: How much does the overseas tourist spend here; what are his particular preferences; are there any things he does not like; how does he travel here; where does he stay; which places does he visit; and how did he like the services which were being made available? In other words, we also want to find out what the preferences are in respect of overseas tourists. What is more, one can only launch a proper marketing campaign when one is acquainted with the market and the requirements of the market in the first place. In the second place, this can only be done if one has available the tourist products required by the market. If one does not have these, adjustments have to be made for these to be provided. This department is carrying out research, not only in respect of the domestic scene, but also in respect of the overseas scene. This is not the first time research is being conducted by this department. This is the first time however that research is being conducted according to this pattern, form and detail. We shall most probably have the results of the research towards the end of the year, and during the next session of Parliament I shall be in a position to inform hon. members fully as to what our competitive position is in regard to the overseas tourist, and what our position is in respect of the local tourist. I want to say immediately that, as far as internal marketing is concerned, regional publications are being prepared at the moment for internal regional marketing. I agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn in this regard, i.e. that although regions will, from the nature of the case, emphasize those particular attractions each region has it will nevertheless give an indication of the communication routes to the next region, or from the preceding one, through which people have to travel. Not only will the marketing of these regions be undertaken in conjunction with the regions themselves, but also in conjunction with the travel industry operating outside and inside these regions. From the nature of the case, it goes without saying that tourism and for that matter utilization of facilities and opportunities, are not the right of the Whites alone. As a matter of fact, no one has ever suggested this. We do not regard the non-White traveller as being isolated from the rest in terms of requirements. To try to find a political argument in this debate however is to my mind inexcusable. Last year we had 32 000 non-White visitors in South Africa from abroad. This figure does not include the visitors from neighbouring states. We succeeded in accommodating and treating these people without there being any incidents whatsoever. Viewed against the background of the intricacies of our community, I think this is a story of success. The criticism and the spirit in which criticism is levelled should however be such that all of us will achieve positive results. We should not try to steal a march on someone simply to develop an argument. I am not referring specifically to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South now. I believe we have a duty towards all the citizens of the country, irrespective of the colour of their skins. In this particular regard we have to have the cooperation of all sectors, and we should not place the responsibility on the public sector alone.

†It is a fact that the hon. member for Sandton disagrees with the hon. member for Fauresmith when he pleads that the State has a particular function to fulfill in the development of tourist amenities and attractions. He believes that this should be left to the private sector. I should like to ask him if he pleads at one and the same time for provision to be made for non-European tourists and for the State not to have any function in this regard, for if he does, it is a contradiction in terms.

I pleaded for financial assistance.

Now we must give financial assistance. But such assistance is being given to the hotel trade, and is being given irrespective of colour.

I asked for more assistance.

The point is that no application in this regard has been refused.

Just relax!

No, Sir, the hon. member should not blame the Government for what he suggests is a lack of opportunities for these travellers on the one hand and come forward with contradictory arguments on the other.

Again, you were not listening.

I listened very carefully. [Interjections.] If this department could have found a functional leg and if it could have undertaken the development of certain areas which ought to be developed from a national point of view, it would have the opportunity of making provision for these people at the same time.

The hon. members for Fauresmith, Kimberley South and other posed the question as to whether the time had not arrived for the State to have to play a further role in respect of tourist attractions and facilities. It is true that the pattern according to which tourism has developed in the Republic up to now, resulted in great pressure being placed on certain areas—for example, the coastal area between Durban and Cape Town, the Transvaal Lowveld and the Kruger National Park. As against that, other areas, and our inland areas in particular, have to a large extent been left behind as far as development is concerned. This is understandable since the private sector, as far as this development is concerned, will automatically concentrate on those areas which have the greatest potential and where the maximum financial success possible can be obtained within the shortest possible time. In saying this I do not intend to criticize the private sector. I am aware of the fact that the profit expectation in the private sector, from the nature of the case, forms the initiative for the investment of its funds. I also believe however that if we were to try to bring about a geographically balanced development of the whole country we have areas in our country which are probably inaccessible to the private sector on the one hand, areas where the private sector is unable to obtain freehold and, on the other hand, where the investment of capital is so intensive that for many years profit expectations will be non-existent or negligible. I believe the State has a responsibility in this regard. Not only does the State have a responsibility in this regard; this it also accepts. The Government has decided that it should ascertain on a selective basis and after thorough investigation which areas have to be developed, the form such development should take and in which way it will be possible for these areas to be developed. The Government has decided that we may, in principle, initiate the establishment of a tourist development corporation. To my mind it will be the task of this corporation, in the first place, to assist the private sector as far as knowledge and knowhow are concerned. In the second place the corporation should be in a position to afford financial assistance to the private sector at rates of interest which are lower than the rates of interest prevailing on the market, for the periods this development is unremunerative. In the final instance and in a limited way the State itself should become the entrepreneur in cases where the capital investment is too substantial for the private sector to undertake, or it will take too long before any profit earned, and where it would be in the general interest for the State to enter this field. I want to quote an example to hon. members in this regard. The entire lagoon and lake area between George and Knysna with its splendid scenery and fine attractions cannot be developed by the private sector for the simple reason that they are unable to gain access to the area. The reason for this is that they cannot obtain land tenure. My attitude in this regard is that the State should not remain permanently in an industry such as this. When it becomes remunerative the State should hand it over to the private sector to operate. I do not think hon. members will find any fault with this. With this I think I have replied to what was said by the hon. members for Fauresmith and Kimberley South and other hon. members on this particular point.

†I have replied to the hon. member for Sandton. I agree with very much that he said and we are making every effort in order to try to achieve these objectives. The hon. member will know that a Bill containing amendments to the Liquor Act was introduced this session to make this possible. I think that the mere fact that this legislation has been referred to a Select Committee is proof and indicative of the fact that the Government is aware of the requirements in this particular regard and is prepared to do something about them.

*I also want to say that we can follow the example of the Coloured people. They established their own touring club along the guide-lines of touring clubs already in existence. I also want to say that the Government has regarded this matter as of such importance that the hon. the Prime Minister personally invited the directors of this club to meet him simply to prove how important this matter is. With regard to this particular aspect I just want to say in general terms that we have all the goodwill on the part of the Government to make it possible for all the citizens of the country to travel in as great comfort as possible. I am also aware of the fact that this touring club has had negotiations with petrol companies which are for the most part the owners of the filling stations along our roads and in our towns, in regard to the facilities which may be created for them in this respect. I believe we are proceeding in an systematic manner to do all these things to the best of our ability.

The hon. member for Bethlehem also associated himself with the remarks passed by the hon. member for Fauresmith, in regard to the establishment of a development corporation. I have already replied to this matter. Just as he, I also wax lyrical about the Free State. I believe splendid opportunities exist there.

†I should like to refer now to what was said by the hon. member for East London City. The hon. member is apparently not reading my speeches but merely trying to interpret them for me. Let me hasten to assure him that when I intend saying something, I say it. I do not need him to interpret my statements.

I heard you say it.

The hon. member is referring to a speech that I made in which I personally made an appeal to people to show hospitality to tourists. Did the hon. member not hear the speech of the hon. member for Bethlehem last night?

Yes, I did.

The hon. member for Bethlehem quoted from the Financial Gazette and underlined the complacency that is often to be observed in the private sector in respect of the treatment of tourists. Does the hon. member not know that my department receives these complaints from time to time? Does he not also agree that it is my duty, even though an unpleasant one, to appeal to our South Africans to receive these people in a friendly fashion?

Why did you use the expression “our attitude”?

Simply because I wanted to include myself in these discussions as well.

Well then, exclude me, please!

The only reason I shall exclude you is because you will probably not react to the appeal, judging from the spirit in which you have spoken this afternoon.

Your bell does not ring.

Sir, I now come to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. I want to compliment the Oudtshoorn Divisional Council with the splendid developments they are carrying out for Coloured persons in the Kloof there. I wish it were possible for this fine example of the Oudtshoorn Divisional Council to be extended to Natal so that they on their part may also make provision for the non-Whites there. As far as I know the Administration there is not a National Administration; it is being administered by the United Party.

Sir, the hon. member referred to pollution. I agree with him whole-heartedly that it is really shocking to see the rubbish dumps and motor vehicle graveyards at some of our main centres and along the main roads, even in respect of aspects over which the local authorities exercise control. We shall try to eliminate this evil as far as possible in conjunction with the other departments, which are responsible for this matter. Sir, the hon. member quite rightly said that we should not adopt an attitude of petty bourgeoise as far as our individual regions are concerned, but that we should consider the broad pattern; I agree with him. Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North wrote me a letter to apologize for not being able to be present here today. I am not going to reply to him in detail; I just want to reply to two facets of his speech which are of general importance.

†Many of the facts stated by the hon. member are facts with which I agree and I do not wish to comment on them at this stage. He referred to selective tourism and pleaded for greater numbers of tourists to be attracted to South Africa. The reply to this is that the mere fact that South Africa is a long-haul destination which brings about higher air fares, ensures selective tourism. We welcome everybody who can afford to come to South Africa. Sir, at this stage I would like to refer again to the hon. member for East London City. He interprets what I said in connection with the unfavourable conditions that prevail in South Africa in this particular trade as if I was intending to say that it was because of the politics of this country that we are at a disadvantage as far as tourism is concerned. Of course we are at a disadvantage in comparison with Europe because of the distance and the higher travelling costs involved. That was all I intended to say. The hon. member also referred to charter flights. Sir, I believe that charter flights are not necessary at the present moment, and I personally do not believe that they will be necessary in the future. We have at the moment 17 air-lines servicing South Africa and their seating capacity is such as present that we have enough space to bring more tourists to South Africa. Other countries, as you know, Sir, have had very sad experiences with charter flights. The Brazil tourism authorities found out this year that the tourists brought into the country by 374 charter flights had brought them no revenue whatsoever. These tourists had paid all expenses at the point of departure, and the country of destination received a mere pittance from them. Sir, when we have reached a reasonable saturation point as far as scheduled capacity is concerned, we will then consider whether it would be advisable to have charter flights to South Africa.

*The hon. member for Geduld made a particularly important contribution; the hon. member made an earnest request for a co-ordinating council for South Africa with regard to the developing homelands. I want to tell him immediately that we believe that this industry is also one of the important foundations in respect of which we may establish economic co-operation with our neighbouring state which are going to become independent. What is more, I personally believe that, should they prefer doing so, they would be welcome to join the Southern African Regional Tourist Council on a broad basis so that they may also have the opportunity to appear there. In the second place I want to tell him that I agree that we should also make available to these developing countries our know-how and expertise and knowledge in respect of tourism. I should also mention the fact that I had an interview with Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima in this connection and he asked my department whether he could not send some of his people to us to be trained, and I indicated that we would have no objection whatsoever should the Department of Bantu Administration approach us with a request of this nature. But I want to go further and say that, as far as the staffing of our overseas offices are concerned, we are going to train such staff in South Africa in future to equip them for the duties they will have to perform overseas, and that we are also prepared to do this for the Brown people and also for the Asiatics and to use them in our overseas offices, the same as in the other services of the State. I want to say that we have made good progress in respect of Satour. It was SARTOC’s second meeting. We have decided to draw up a work programme for the coming year and we have also decided to expand our collective and joint promotion and publicity work and to market this overseas as well. I believe that, also in this particular regard, this is one of the economic ties which may form a common basis for countries with totally different political policies to co-operate in those spheres where they have joint interests.

†The hon. member for Constantia, an old friend of mine, has pleaded for an advisory board. The hon. member knows that there was such a board in existence. He welcome the fact that it did not exist any more, and I agree with him. If at any stage in the future I consider that such a board is necessary, I will establish such a board. At present the liaison between the department and the organized tourist industry is very cordial and we can in all honesty say that we can call on any ad hoc combination of these committees to assist the department at any given moment. In fact that is what we are doing.

Secondly, the hon. member has referred to the Cape Festival and says that we must not consider this parochially as belonging to the Cape only, but as a national venture, if I understood him correctly. He also requested that we should assist the Cape Town city council as far as we can.

With promotion.

I hasten to assure the hon. member that my department will make every effort to do that. In fact, the regional director of the department took part in the original discussions and we have already promised the Cape Town festival committee every assistance that we can give them. But at present not much has been coming from them. I am not saying this derogatorily; I am just stating the facts. If the festival committee is serious in the marketing of this event abroad, I think they must pull up their socks, and I think the hon. member must tell them so. Programmes are worked out by tourist operators at least six months before the time. We already should have had all the relative details for dissemination to the travel trade through our Satour offices, to at least 5 000 travel agents throughout Europe, the Americas and Australasia. I would like to conclude my remarks in this regard by saying that the hon. member is most welcome to convey the remarks I have made in this regard to the city council.

*The hon. member for Somerset East expressed his gratitude to the department for its publications. I want to tell him that I believe that the publications of the department and of Satour are of the highest quality we can get. In this regard I want to refer in particular to an innovation initiated by the department which, I believe, will be of great value in future. We have decided to make available, in three languages, a pamphlet of welcome to overseas visitors to South Africa. From November this year every passenger coming to South Africa by means of one of the 14 airlines will receive a pamphlet of welcome. The department has had 40 000 of these full colour pamphlets printed and the co-operation of 14 airlines, including the S.A. Airways, has already been obtained to issue these pamphlets to passengers on the last leg of their journey to South Africa. These pamphlets have been compiled in such a way that they inform the visitors to South Africa as well as South Africans returning to their own country where to obtain information on tourist attractions throughout the country. The pamphlets also contain information in respect of accommodation, and where to obtain transport. There is also a list of national tourist bureaux. The purpose of these pamphlets is to give visitors an idea of our cities; to give them an idea of our fauna, our flora, our Bantu culture and customs, and also of our wine culture of the Boland; to give them an idea of the large variety of accommodation facilities and resorts, as well as an idea of our transport systems. The pamphlet also contains a lay-out of the airport to show visitors where to go to on arrival.

The hon. member asked for the National Parks Board to fall under the department. This is a delicate subject, because the National Parks Board believes their primary objective is nature and environmental conservation, while we are more tourism-orientated. In any case, this is a subject we shall discuss with the department concerned.

†The hon. member for South-Coast referred to the Anti-Shark Measures Board of Natal. He pleaded for a larger grant to the Natal Provincial Administration for this purpose. In this regard I wish to point out that the Government initially decided that this was the responsibility of the local authorities and of the administrations concerned. Nevertheless, just to indicate that it was serious in this regard, the Government made a token grant of R10 000 per year towards the administrative costs of this board. Since then we have not received any representations for an increase of this grant. In any event, I personally believe that this matter should be tackled on a national basis. Scientific research indicates that the danger is not limited to that particular area.

*On the contrary, the indications are that the temperature of the water over a much wider area than merely the Natal coast is of such a nature that it may attract sharks. I want to give hon. members the assurance however, that we are giving this matter our consideration.

The hon. member for Vasco made an earnest request in regard to Table Mountain. I agree wholeheartedly with the request made by the hon. member, and I want to confirm that the Table Mountain Foundation, on which I served, plays a very important role in this regard. As a matter of fact, he reminded me of a very pleasant song. In fact, while he was speaking the hon. member for Sea Point sent me a note in which he told me he felt like singing “My hart verlang na die Boland”. I found the hon. member’s thoughts interesting, and we shall do everything we can to ensure that the sound sentiments he expressed can be carried out.

I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his kind remarks. Personally I believe that the Southern Cape is to a large extent dependent on this industry for its development. In the second place, I believe it is a splendid area which can be exploited. If and when the Tourist Development Corporation has been established, we shall be able to render assistance on merit as far as this area is concerned. In the third place, I agree with him in respect of the fine potential Mossel Bay has as far as angling is concerned. The fact of the matter is that the waters around Mossel Bay have the greatest variety of fish in the whole world. I believe he mentioned a very important aspect here. He also referred to the question of the development of the harbour there. I want to say immediately that I agree with him that there should be some co-ordination between the various departments, and I want to give him the assurance that such co-ordination already exists in the form of an inter-departmental committee.

Sir, in conclusion I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation in this debate. I want to thank them for the fine suggestions they made. We shall consider those suggestions. I also want to address a word of thanks to our secretary and his officials. I believe they are fulfilling a gigantic and fruitful task in this regard. Sir, I see the hon. member for Sandton wants to ask me a question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his department is doing or intends doing in the future in regard to the promotion of tourism in the homelands and in regard to the possible establishment of departments of tourism in the homelands for the homeland Governments.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to that point in general terms. I have indicated that we have had discussions with Chief Minister Matanzima in respect of the Transkei. Tourism has already been delegated to them as a function. We are prepared to make our knowledge and training facilities available to them for the training of their own officials. We are prepared to co-operate with all the other homelands, because I believe that tourism is a very valuable asset to them. Relatively, it is of greater importance to them than it is to us.

Does the department have a plan according to which if intends doing this? [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 44 and S.W.A. Vote No. 25.—“Justice”, and Revenue Vote No. 46 and S.W.A. Vote No. 26.—“Prisons”:

Mr. Chairman, before we commence the discussion of the Vote, there are a few statements I should like to make. I think it is only fair, particularly to the hon. members of the Opposition, that I make these statements right at the outset so that they can take cognizance of them if they should perhaps wish to debate some aspects of them.

Before I make these statements, however, hon. members will permit me to say a few words in regard to my predecessor, former Minister Pelser. I should like to pay tribute to this hon. former Minister. I got to know him in this House in 1966 when I began working in the Justice group, of which I subsequently became chairman. I think I can say without fear of any contradiction that he is one of the finest gentlemen in the country, a person who has never deliberately hurt or harmed anyone. Now that I am myself occupying that position, which he occupied for more than seven, almost eight years, I can see how he must have worn himself out for his people and his fatherland. I wish him and his charming wife a very well deserved rest, and I wish to express the hope that he will be spared and enjoy good health for many years to come.

†I should like to make the following announcement about the commission of inquiry into allegations of improper conduct made against the hon. Mr. Justice Frederik Simon Steyn.

On 27 June 1974 the State President appointed the hon. N. Ogilvie Thompson, former Chief Justice of South Africa as chairman and only member of a commission of inquiry with the following terms of reference—

The commission’s report was submitted to the State President on 24 September 1974 and is at present being translated and printed. The indications are that the report will not be ready to be tabled during this session. In view of the nature of the allegations against the judge it will not be fair to keep the matter in abeyance until Parliament meets again. I have therefore decided to inform the House of the findings of the commission. The commission came to the following conclusion—

1. (a) None of the allegations of improper conduct against Steyn, J. made in Traut’s telegram of 25 April 1974 is correct; and
2. (b) No improper conduct within the meaning of the second term of reference relating to the financial interests of D. J. L. Walters in Paternoster Vissery (Pty.) Ltd, is attributable to any person.

*The second statement I want to make, concerns liquor facilities on university campuses. Representations were received from the Committee of University Principals for the creation of liquor facilities on university campuses. The National Liquor Board investigated the matter, and reported back to me. After thorough consideration I decided as follows—

1. (a) No case has been made out for creating a new kind of liquor licence for universities or for exempting them from the obligation of holding a liquor licence.
2. (b) The Liquor Board and I personally would have no objections to granting a wine and beer licence in respect of a university which has a centre where meals can be taken and where functions are held, provided such a licence is requested on behalf of the Council of the University and, if granted, the provision of liquor in terms of such a licence is controlled by that Council.
3. (c) The National Liquor Board and I personally would not be unwilling, either, to grant a club liquor licence in respect of a university club. However, it should be clearly apparent from the constitution of the club, inter alia, that—

1. (1) club membership is limited to lecturers, professors, other staff members, post-graduate students and students who are in or have already completed their third year; and
2. (2) the provision of liquor shall be controlled in terms of the licence by the Council of the university itself.

Permit me also to issue a statement in regard to a bomb explosion in the Potchefstroom magistrate’s office on 17 May 1974. A certain person by the name of Victor, a miner against whom a summons had been issued on a charge under the fuel regulations, was alleged to have been responsible for detonating a home-made bomb in the court room in Potchefstroom in which he was to have appeared on 17 May 1974. Victor as well as an attorney and a third person also present in the court were killed. A number of other persons, as well as officials, sustained injuries of a greater or lesser degree of seriousness. A number of claims for the payment of the medical and other expenses of the victims have been addressed to the department. The State Attorney in Pretoria is of the opinion that the State cannot by law be held liable for any damages which arose as a result of the bomb explosion. Nevertheless the matter was submitted to the Cabinet with the object of granting ex gratia assistance to the persons concerned. The Cabinet has approved of those persons who were affected by the bomb explosion being compensated for the following on an ex gratia basis, to an amount determined by the Secretary for Justice in consultation with the Secretary to the Treasury on the recommendation of the State Attorney—

1. (a) Medical and funeral expenses to the extent to which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, medical aid schemes or insurance policies do not cover such expenses;
2. (b) loss of remuneration in cases where the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and insurers against disability will not be liable for such claims; and
3. (c) damage to or loss of clothing.

My Department of Justice is at present giving urgent attention to the matter in order to give effect to the Cabinet approval.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, if you and the hon. members will permit I should like to issue a statement on liquor advertisements. At one stage or other the matter of liquor advertisements was raised in this House by, I think, the hon. member for Berea. As a result of the fact that he raised the matter, an investigation was instituted. During 1970 my esteemed predecessor instructed the National Liquor Board to institute an investigation into the desirability, or otherwise, of control over the advertising of liquor and, if so, whether such control should be exercised in terms of the Liquor Act, 1928, or by way of measures controlling advertisements in general. The report of the board, which also deals with the position in certain overseas countries, has been submitted to me. In short the National Liquor Board found that basically there are three kinds of liquor advertisements, namely—

1. (a) Primary advertisements, i.e. those which are aimed at propagating the consumption of liquor, or a type of liquor, for example, wine, without any mention of a specific trade-name;
2. (b) image-building or selective advertisements, i.e. those which are normally placed by the secondary producer, to make a particular brand of liquor known to the public or to promote its reputation;
3. (c) direct action advertisements, i.e. those which are normally placed by the retailer and which are aimed at the sale of liquor in general, for the most part at reduced prices, at a particular bottle store.

As far as the first category is concerned, the board found, from the evidence submitted and also through its own research that the advertising material was almost consistently of an exceptionally high standard and quality, and that no steps on the part of the State were necessary in regard to it. As far as the third type of advertisement is concerned, no evidence was submitted to the board, nor was the board able to find any evidence, that the so-called price advertisements gave rise to increased liquor consumption or encouraged people who had not previously consumed liquor to do so. What does in fact happen is that such advertisement are able to bring about a displacement of the buying public from one distribution point to another. If such a displacement causes undesirable conditions such as congestion, there is already sufficient provision in the Liquor Act to deal with such a contingency. The Liquor Act is not concerned with price maintenance and price control, and the board therefore recommends that no steps be taken by the State as far as advertisements in this group are concerned.

In the case of the second type of advertisement, viz. the so-called image-building advertisements, the board concluded that advertisements do appear in this category which are open to criticism. Examples of this type of advertisement were submitted to me, and I have no reason to differ with the board on this score. However, the board also found that these poor advertisements comprise a very small percentage of all advertisements in this group, and that they occur more often as the exception than the rule. However, in order to deal with possible abuses in the exceptional cases, the board is of the opinion, and therefore recommends, that closer liaison should be achieved between it and the Advertising Standards Authority. This Authority which was established in 1969, and of which a former chief justice is the present chairman, exercises overall control over all bodies which are concerned with advertisements. The board is of the opinion that closer co-operation with the Authority will to a great extent lead to the elimination of any undesirable liquor advertisements. The board is also of the opinion that the various branches of the producers, viz. beer, wine and spirits, should jointly or severally draw up codes of behaviour for themselves which may be adhered to religiously in the advertising of their products. The board will gladly be of assistance to the various branches in this regard.

I am prepared to accept these recommendations for the present. However, I want to point out that it should be emphasized that if it should appear that liquor advertisements are still appearing which are open to criticism—one thinks here for example of those which extol the consumption of liquor, those which allow emphasis to fall on the scantily clad body of the female figure, those which contain obvious untruths, etc.—I shall not hesitate to introduce a system of advance screening of all liquor advertising material. I have also instructed the Liquor Board to watch the position closely in future. I also want to inform the public that if there is anyone who thinks that he has any reason to complain in regard to any liquor advertisements, he may submit these complaints to the chairman of the National Liquor Board. I should also like to say to the liquor industry that in my opinion they have an obligation to the community to play an active and leading role in the education of the general public in the moderate use of a potentially dangerous product. When I say this, I am not disregarding the work which has already been done in this regard by the KWV. However, it is my considered opinion that the industry as a whole should play a part in this, and take the lead in this regard. Something like this could also be done by way of advertising material, and I want to suggest that the leaders in the industry approach the Liquor Board for further information in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity, and I also want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for having afforded me the opportunity to make these statements first, so that it will be possible for them to know what our policy in this regard is.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half hour. I should like to begin by welcoming the hon. the Minister of Justice. This is his first budget. We are delighted that the Prime Minister has now appointed as Minister of Justice, the first for a long time, a person who was a practising advocate until the time of his appointment as Deputy Minister. We welcome this because we believe the administration of justice cannot be properly achieved without a proper understanding of the courts, of the various legal processes and of all the problems attendant on the administration of justice. We welcome the hon. the Minister and wish him well.

I should also like to say that we on this side of the House welcome the new Secretary for Justice, Mr. Coetzer, who is also well known to the legal profession. He has travelled round the country and is respected for his appreciation and knowledge of the problems of the legal profession.

I am going to commend the hon. the Minister at the outset. I want to commend him for making the statements he has made here in the House just now. I think it is a very important principle that any statements the hon. the Minister wishes to make on such important matters as those he dealt with here, should of course be made to Parliament so that we may avail ourselves of the opportunity of discussing those matters. Of all the statements he made, I think, none need to be remarked upon by me in my speech, save to say that I am very pleased that he has announced, even though the report is not ready yet, the result of the commission of inquiry into allegations against Mr. Justice Steyn, an inquiry by the former Chief Justice, the hon. Ogilvie Thompson. I think this puts an end to the matter. It also demonstrates the desirability of dealing immediately, if possible by means of a judicial commission of inquiry, with matters of this kind, because it resolves the matter and the public has confidence in the result.

But having now commended the hon. the Minister, I am afraid I feel that one statement he made yesterday should have been made to the House. That is the statement on the Leeuwkop Prison trial with which I shall deal a moment. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman made the statement to the Press yesterday while the Justice Vote might have been discussed yesterday and most certainly was going to be discussed today.

I should like to deal in my speech with the Leeuwkop Prison and also with the attitude of the hon. the Minister, as he is a new Minister, towards the increasingly important subject of civil liberties in South Africa. The Leeuwkop Prison trial is well known to most people, a trial in which a warder found that he had lost some R60, blamed one of the prisoners who was a servant in his house who in turn denied any knowledge of where the money was. A number of warders then proceeded to torture this unfortunate prisoner in the most barbaric and animal-like way. As a result of this the prisoner died on the following day. There was an investigation which resulted in the warders being charged and found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The findings of the judge in this case, Mr. Justice Hiemstra, are actually frightening. He found, for example, that there had been evidence of torture. What is more, Sir, he found, as a result of this trial, not as a result of anything else, as a result of the evidence in this trial, that similar events had happened previously in the very same prison. He went so far as to say that the trial had not only aroused considerable public interest but that it had aspects of national importance because serious evils in the Prisons Department had been revealed. I must say, these are the most serious revelations. What worries one about this case most of all, however, is that if this prisoner had not died, it is probable that the events which took place in that prison would never have come to light. This is the point which I think the hon. the Minister must give his attention to. I say this because the judge found that this sort of thing, torture and the other monstrous behaviour, had in fact occurred in that prison before. When this latest event had happened and when judgment had been given, the hon. the Minister announced that he had called for the full court record so that he could decide whether to institute a departmental inquiry and whether the inquiry should be extended to include outside persons. This was reported as follows—

And quite rightly so. Any other action on the part of the hon. the Minister would have been unforgivable. Sir, we are going to get strong action. I may say that we of the United Party immediately called for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the whole matter—not only into this matter but also into the behaviour at other prisons throughout the country—in order to establish whether similar behaviour was in fact occurring at other goals and to make recommendations regarding the eradication of any such behaviour.

On 18 October the hon. the Minister went further. He told The Sunday Tribune—

Just prior to this, on 15 October, he was asked a question in this House. He was asked whether occurrences similar to those described in evidence before Mr. Justice Hiemstra in the Leeuwkop trial had come to his notice before. His answer to this was “no”. They had however, apparently occurred previously. He was asked when, and what steps he had taken which, in view of his previous answer, fell away. Then he was asked whether he had given any instructions to ensure that events similar to those described did not occur. His answer to this was very interesting. He said—

That is all very well, but one would have expected that some kind of letter would have gone out.

What kind of letter would you have expected to go out?

I will come to that. Some sort of instruction would obviously have to go out. However, the hon. the Minister sent the instruction to all goals in the country. This is my point. Did the hon. the Minister anticipate that these things were in fact happening there or that they might be happening there? I do not know what his reply to this will be but I assume that he anticipated that they might possibly be happening there and that was why he sent the letter. We did not think that that was the end of the matter. We thought that that was just an interim step because the hon. the Minister had said he had strong views on this matter. He had said he was giving serious attention to what the judge had said and had promised strong action in the light of the judge’s findings. What strong action have we had, Sir? We have had an instruction to the prisons officials that they must not do this kind of thing; that the Minister strongly disapproves of happenings similar to those at Leeuwkop and that they must look at their Standing Orders again; but that was all we had until yesterday, and yesterday the hon. the Minister made it clear that he was going to do nothing whatsoever in respect of the disclosures in the Leeuwkop prison trial. Yesterday the hon. gentleman issued a statement to the Press; it reads as follows—

Sir, I think the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that there should be no inquiry; that it would serve no purpose, because the findings of the judge, in his own words, are that the trial revealed serious evils in the Department of Justice, and at this stage nothing less than a full-scale judicial commission of inquiry into the goals of South Africa right throughout South Africa can satisfy the people of South Africa.

That will be the day!

Why not?

It is not necessary.

Sir, the findings in this trial are an affront to everyone in this House, I presume.

You hope.

They are an affront to our system of justice, and our national pride demands that we should have a commission of inquiry into this matter. Surely no one is going to be so naïve as to suggest that it is not possible that similar practices occur in other goals in the country. Sir, you cannot rule out that possibility. In fact, we have had evidence from time to time in various places; we had the evidence of what happened at Bultfontein and we had the evidence a couple of years ago of what happened at Brandvlei. One very often sees evidence of this in our courts.

How do you suggest a commission of inquiry would stop it?

Sir, a commission of inquiry would establish what in fact the practice has been in the goals in respect of assaults and torture and behaviour of that sort.

You know more or less.

You would be able to establish where the weakness lies. The appointment of a commission of inquiry, which would give protection to prisoners and ex-prisoners who come forward as witnesses, is the only way in which you will ever find out what has happened and what is happening in those goals. It is the only way in which you can possibly find it out. Sir, I want to go further and say that if it were not for the exposures in this trial, the hon. the Minister himself would not have known what was going on in the goals. He would not have known that this kind of behaviour occurred not only on this occasion, but had happened before in the Leeuwkop prison and the Department of Prisons would not have known it.

There is no evidence to that effect.

The hon. member says that there is no evidence to that effect. Sir, the judge found that similar occurrences had occurred in that prison before and the Minister of Justice did not know about it and the Department did not know about it, and if this man had not died they probably still would not have known what had happened.

I still say there is no evidence to that effect.

Are you questioning the judge’s judgment?

Sir, the hon. the Minister goes further; he says that the only inquiry that he is prepared to have is an inquiry to establish whether or not Captain F. L. Potgieter and Chief Warder R. S. Kaggelhoffer are suitable to remain in the service. Sir, if that is all he is prepared to have an inquiry about, I think he should explain himself. I think he ought to have regard also to another thing, and that is that Mr. Justice Hiemstra found that Lieutenant Potgieter had openly admitted that he had participated in discussions to fabricate the best false story to keep the cause of the death a secret. Then he went on to say about the same officer—

But you know what the answer in this House was on that very point. You know that the merits committee sat long before the happenings there.

Does the hon. the Minister dispute the finding of the judge that this officer went about trying to find ways of finding a false explanation for the death of a prisoner, when he knew how he had in fact been killed?

That is why there is a commission of inquiry.

Do you need any more evidence than that? Does the Minister suggest that if a finding like that is correct, this man should remain an officer in the Prisons Service? Is that the Minister’s suggestion, that there is still a possibility that this may be so? If that is so, I think the hon. the Minister again owes the House an explanation in regard to exactly what his attitude is in connection with this matter.

But there is another matter in this regard. When I say a judicial commission of inquiry, I mean a judicial commission of inquiry where everyone will get full protection for any evidence he would like to bring. As the situation stands at the moment you have in relation to the Prisons section 44, of the Prisons Act, which provides that you may not publish anything in relation to a prison. I think I had better read it—

There is no doubt whatever that this has had an inhibiting effect upon the normal processes of inquiry which our public life has always exercised in the various fields. There is no doubt that it is very often not possible, in the nature of things, to verify the information which you get and which you believe to be bona fide, because amongst other things you are not allowed to go into the goals in order to verify the information which you get. There is no doubt whatsoever that it has had an inhibitory effect. But, worse than that, the application of section 44, that aspect of it, has also, I think, been a contributory cause of the sort of thing that took place at Leeuwkop being able to happen without the authorities knowing about it. There is no doubt whatever that if one has, for example, information which comes to one and which one tries to verify, one exercises one’s discretion in a reasonable way in raising the matter, which is a matter of public concern, if there are abuses in the prison system. And the newspapers are in exactly the same position. They also have to act responsibly and reasonably and they also have to use their discretion. But that discretion is inhibited.

Are you suggesting that they always act reasonably?

I am not saying that. What I am saying is that this prevents a newspaper or anyone else who has the public interest at heart from in fact investigating or airing what he believes to be an abuse in the system. But, worse than that, it gives a protection as well to the persons concerned because they know that they can get away with an awful lot more without detection; or at least the possibility of detection is tremendously diminished. The facts of the Leeuwkop case justify this completely because, as I have said, the judge found that these disgusting occurrences were not rare and in fact had happened before. I think that the hon. the Minister must give serious consideration to rewriting section 44 so that the normal processes of investigation with responsibility can operate once more, and also so that the Prison officials concerned will realise that this “iron curtain” which seems to surround any happenings in goals can be removed.

You are talking nonsense.

I use the phrase “iron curtain” because this was the phrase which was used when the Bill was before the House in 1959. We opposed this particular clause then, and the very reasons that I have now expressed were expressed then. Indeed, I believe that this provision is a contributory cause to the problems of the Prisons Department.

Now that this Minister has been appointed to this office, we should like to know what his attitude is and is going to be towards civil liberties in South Africa. This is a field which is growing in importance, with the emancipation in so many fields of so many more non-White peoples, and with the Government moving in the direction of recognizing the rights and the dignity of all groups of the population. We are rapidly moving into an era where the demands of non-Whites for full citizenship are accepted and acceptable. We are now part of a scene in which we are all becoming more and more involved in this development. The attitude of the Government in respect of civil liberties in this atmosphere has become one of the factors which will determine whether or not successful government is possible, because linked with this concept are all the other rights which it is felt must be exercised and given.

There is another aspect which emerges from this whole scene, and that is that the political activities of the emergent and emerging political communities among the non-Whites are now accepted. Care must be exercised, more so than ever before in this field, so that restrictions that are imposed upon persons in the form of banning or otherwise are not seen as an attempt to interfere with or to favour any particular political faction in the political spectrum that is developing in South Africa. For that reason, amongst many other reasons, we have insisted throughout that action against any person should be taken in a court and not through executive action, so that justice can be seen to be done and seen to be exercised by a judicial officer without any suggestion whatsoever of any anterior motive.

When the hon. the Minister was appointed, he gave an interview which was reported under the heading “Mr. Jimmy Kruger, the new Minister of Justice, talks about his responsibilities and policy in a special interview with the Rand Daily Mail”. He had this to say about banning under the Supression of Communism Act—

I commend the hon. gentleman for that attitude. But let me say at once that our attitude is obviously that we are opposed to any executive action which restricts the individual’s liberty, except in a time of emergency or in time of war. But as long as these powers exist, as much care as possible should be exercised to ensure …

Could you tell me whether you think that there is a state of emergency in the southern part of Africa or not?

Oh, come on! Let us not talk in generalities. Is there a state of emergency in South Africa?

Do you say that is no state of unrest in Southern Africa?

I did not say that. I said we are opposed to Ministerial …

Well, tell us what you think …

I have just told you; we are opposed to that.

You have just stated that in a state of emergency you are not opposed to executive action.

Yes, we are opposed to that except where there is a state of emergency or in time of war. That is our policy and it is well known to the hon. the Minister.

I asked you whether there is unrest in Southern Africa now.

As long as the Nationalists are in power, there will be a state of emergency. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister …

You have not answered the question …

Who is making this speech, me or the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; will the hon. the Minister allow the hon. member to make his speech? He cannot continue, with all these interruptions coming from the Minister.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I have only four minutes left. I want to say to the Minister that he is an advocate and he knows better than any other of his predecessors just what can happen with a police docket. He is given a police docket before he exercises his power to ban someone. How does he know that the facts in that docket are correct?

What are you insinuating?

How many times has the hon. the Minister himself not been in court where the evidence in the police docket has been found not to be correct? Is this not so? Before the hon. the Minister, as a lawyer, can be satisfied that the facts in the docket are correct he must have the evidence tested. He must hear the other side. I suggest to the hon. the Minister, as we have suggested before, that before he exercises his power in this regard he should have a judicial tribunal which sifts the facts in that docket, which hears the evidence from the other side and which sits in camera with all the time-honoured and tested ways of determining what the truth is. Only then can they report to the Minister on the facts. Only when he has that report, should he act.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister something else. He gives us no details whatever in respect of the restriction orders which he places, but he is aware that there are two detention sections for interrogation at the moment. The first is section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1966 in terms of which the hon. the Minister can detain someone for interrogation in respect of certain offences. After 14 days he has to go to a judge and get an order from him for further detention, which the judge is entitled to order under certain conditions. The other section is section 6 of the Terrorism Act where you do not have to go anywhere near a judge and where any person can be detained indefinitely. So far as the facts are known to us on this side of the House, almost every case of detention recently has been under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. In four years only three people have been detained in terms of section 22 whereby the accused can go to a judge. All of these cases occur in the urban areas where judges are freely available. The Police can go to a judge and get an order. What we want to know is whether this new Minister’s attitude is going to be any different from that of his predecessors. Is he as the Minister of Justice in the first place going to insist that as far as possible section 22 will be used so that a judge can lay down conditions of that detention and in fact determine whether a person should be detained at all, or is he going to go on using section 6? I am asking the hon. the Minister this in his capacity as the Minister of Justice because I do not want him to do the old ping-pong act which his predecessor did. His predecessor said: “It has nothing to do with me; go and ask the Minister of Police.”

You will not get ping-pong from me.

I am glad that we shall not get ping-pong from the hon. the Minister because should it happen it would be a ping-pong between the hon. gentleman and himself. I hope that he will let us know exactly what his attitude is in this regard because I think it is very important that the public should have confidence in the actions which are taken. There is nothing which causes more distress and nothing which causes the image of our country so much harm as the arbitrary executive actions of the hon. the Minister or of the Police, which is even worse. He is now in the position to determine with a fresh look and with a fresh approach that in fact the proper process of the two processes, or the better one of the two is followed, and that persons who are detained are detained for interrogation under section 22 so that a judge can have a look at the facts and can determine whether a person is justifiably detained and if he is to be detained, on what conditions he should be detained.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for the decisions taken by the Government at my request in connection with the bomb explosion in the magistrate’s office at Potchefstroom. It was my privilege to make representations in this regard too, and I am sure that the people who are being assisted are going to be very grateful.

In the limited time one has for participating in these debates, I shall reply to my hon. friend opposite, although not entirely directly. It is true that any department and any organization has persons in its service who disappoint it from time to time. Here one has a department with an establishment of close on 13 000. It is understandable that there will be people on such a large staff who may disappoint one from time to time. This side of the House, however, is not prepared to condemn this department having more than 13 000 officials in its employ, simply because three or four of them have erred in the execution of their duties. This is precisely what the hon. Opposition and some newspapers in South Africa are doing. Listening to them and reading what they said, one would swear that all officers in South Africa’s prison service were thugs. I hope that this debate will set matters in perspective once again.

In the Rand Daily Mail of 9 October, reference was made to this in a leading article. That article stated, inter alia—

It went on to say—

Another leading article, which is representative of the standpoint that is taken up, appeared in The Cape Times of the same day. In that article the following was said—

The newspaper then went on to emphasize the problem which Pressmen had in obtaining information from the department. Actually, there is no problem, but the newspaper stated, inter alia, the following—

They went on to say the following—

There is nothing in section 44 which makes it “extremely hazardous”.—

This is the vein in which the article continued. In quite a few other newspapers, too, they requested a commission of inquiry in consequence of what had allegedly taken place there.

These requests were followed by questions in the House by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Durban North, and from the replies to these questions it appeared that three prisons officers had been murdered and that 15 had been seriously injured in 1972. In 1973, fortunately, not one person was murdered, but 20 were seriously injured by prisoners. No request for an inquiry to be instituted by the Prisons Service, followed those murders and serious assaults. Moreover, this reply made it very clear that altogether 30 ex-prisoners had been murdered by fellow-prisoners. That made a total of 47. Now, what did one find in the newspapers? Inter alia, a report headed (translation) “Minister Kruger acts after Leeuwkop—47 prisoners dead in two years”. In other words, what other deduction can be made but that 47 prisoners have been killed in two years at Leeuwkop or in the other prisons? Surely it is wrong for this kind of thing to continue and to be allowed in South Africa. But what are the facts about this same Leeuwkop Prison? In this regard I want to quote from a 1969 report entitled “Prison Administration in South Africa”. This report has been distributed internationally. On page 27 we find comments by various persons from abroad on the Leeuwkop prison. They are most certainly people of whom one may take notice. Mr. McClane from Britain commented as follows—

Mr. Charles Fahy, a judge from America, had the following to say—

Dr. Ernest Lamers, Director-General of Prisons, The Hague, the Netherlands, commented as follows (translation)—

Father Daniel Lyons, Roman Catholic priest and editor from New York, had the following to say—

S. B. Klooster, a journalist from the Netherlands, said the following (translation)—

So I could proceed by reading various quotations from this report in which people in authority from abroad commented on their visit to Leeuwkop. But these comments are of no importance and no one will publish them, for, after all, they do not concern a death under the circumstances which prevailed in this case. What are the further facts? The facts are that objections are being raised to the provisions of section 44, but there are not so many problems in obtaining information about our prisons as far as the Press is concerned. Section 44 is being used as a screen, but this section also makes it very clear that no false information may be published. So, if it is a problem to publish false information, this must remain a problem for the Press. They do not mention, either, that the same Act provides that judges and magistrates have to pay regular visits to our prisons and that all prisoners have the right to have interviews with such judges and magistrates and to submit any complaint to them when they visit the prisons. The question that I find interesting is that outside the prisons newspapers have absolute freedom of movement and while they are so concerned about all the things they will be able to prevent if they have freedom of movement inside the prisons, why are they unable to prevent 17 people being murdered in South Africa every day, 14 meeting with violent deaths every day, two cases of attempted murder every day and two cases of robbery with aggravating circumstances every day? Why are they unable to prevent these crimes? Can anyone be so naïve as to think that by paying visits to prisons assaults are not going to take place in them? Who is going to hit a person in the face in the presence of a witness? It stands to reason that no one will do this. But the hon. member also made the point—this is also a point which was made in the Press and the hon. member for Houghton will probably say the same thing for she echoes the Sunday Times—that if this incident had not taken place, the public and even the Minister would not have known what was happening at Leeuwkop. But what does the department itself do? The department does not conceal things. In the period 1 January 1974 to 30 September 1974, the department itself authorized 230 investigations into alleged assaults in prisons by officers of the department. Nothing was concealed and there is no secrecy in this regard. Of this number, 117 were found to be unfounded charges and 11 were referred to the S.A. Police. This is what the department itself does. The position is, therefore, that they do not conceal these things. They do not wait for an incident to take place at Leeuwkop before telling the Minister and the public what is happening. 102 people were charged departmentally and quite a number of them were subsequently found not guilty. Others were indeed found guilty. This shows therefore that the department itself sees to it that the administration remains sound. It is not necessary for hon. members or the Press to make charges of this kind against the department as though the Minister were supposedly in the dark and would supposedly be kept in the dark. Now, if there is to be so much freedom of movement for the Press both inside and outside the prisons, why does it not come about in those countries where the Press does in fact have this freedom of movement, that the prisons in those countries can in fact serve as fine examples? What is the position in the French prisons today? The most shocking situation prevails in French prisons. What is the position in the German prisons? What is happening in the prisons in India? What happened recently, two or three years ago, in the Attica Prison in New York, America? What are the prisons like in Venezuela? So one could mention one example after another of countries where the Press does have absolute freedom of movement. Here in South Africa, however, where one incident has taken place, it is something monstrous, something of national importance, and now an entire department has to be condemned for the misconduct of two or three people.

That is not the point.

We want our country to be the best in the world.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we had a request here for a commission of inquiry into the prisons department. We heard that the provisions of the Prisons Act relating to the restriction imposed on publication should be repealed. This happened in pursuance of the judgment of the hon. Mr. Justice Hiemstra in the so-called Leeuwkop case. With reference to the crude, clumsy, senseless and brutal attacks and assaults, the judge said—and I quote from page 3 of the judgment (translation)—

When the scope of a judge’s findings, as in this instance, is of such a nature that it covers the entire prisons authority, the judge is obliged to furnish reasons for his findings. This judgment runs into 28 pages. In examining the judgment in its entirety, one looks for the reasons furnished by him for his dramatic findings. On page 14 we find a reason, where, with reference to Capt. Van Zyl, the following is said (translation)—

The judge advanced two reasons why Capt. Van Zyl had this instinctive feeling. Firstly, that interrogations were generally drastic and, secondly, that they were normally attended with assaults. However, if we examine Capt. Van Zyl’s evidence, and I say that I had the privilege of examining 600 pages of verbatim evidence, we find that Capt. Van Zyl, on page 575 of the record, said the following (translation)—

Here Capt. Van Zyl was advancing a reason for his instinctive feeling, i.e. that the person had come from No. 3 quadrangle, where the prisoner was, and that he had not come from Lt. Potgieter. The conclusion we must reach here is that the judge had a fact before him, i.e. Capt. Van Zyl’s instinctive feeling that assaults had taken place. In my opinion Capt. Van Zyl gave a proper motivation for this instinctive feeling. The judge, however, imputed another motivation to Capt. Van Zyl’s action, a motivation which was never put to Capt. Van Zyl and never, according to the record, came up for discussion during the trial. The question must be asked whether this finding can in any way be made on the grounds of the evidence as it unfolded before the judge.

The judge advanced a second reason for having reached this conclusion in respect of general action of this nature in the prisons service. We find it on page 23, to which the hon. member for Durban North also referred. On page 23 of his judgment the judge said (translation)—

That is, Lt. Potgieter—

The judge’s criticism, as it can be interpreted by any one with common sense, means that the prison authorities were were aware of Lt. Potgieter having been an accomplice in this assault which had led to the death of a prisoner, and that the prison authorities—this is what the finding of the judge’s means—promoted the man from the rank of lieutenant to that of captain in spite of this. The enemies of South Africa would gather from the judge’s judgment that this promotion did not occur in spite of but in consequence of his having been an accomplice in this regard. An examination of the record clearly reveals that there was no evidence before the judge that the prison authorities were aware of the role played by Lt. Potgieter in this regard. On the contrary. The facts, as set out in a reply from the hon. the Minister, indicate exactly the opposite. The facts of the matter show, as regards the promotion of Lt. Potgieter, that no reason exists which can lead to the serious defamation or criticism of the prison authorities. I think we are bound to say, having studied this case in its entirety, that the judge made an important attack here which has had far-reaching consequences, also beyond our borders. Besides the reasons I have already mentioned and which I do not think are acceptable, the judge advanced no other reasons in his judgment. The question arises—and it is an open question—whether it would be possible to find any reasons in the record on which a finding of this nature might be based. As I read the record, I could not find any such reasons.

In conclusion, I should like to quote the hon. judge with approval. I quote, with approval, what Mr. Justice Hiemstra found on page 33 (translation)—

The judge said here that the courts would take action to protect human rights. When we read this judgment of the judge, when we look at the reasons quoted by the judge and when we examine the evidence, we must ask ourselves an important question. If we also take the effect into consideration and the fact that the finding of the judge in fact caused thousands of people in South Africa to be suspected of criminal action, we must ask ourselves: Cannot the judge’s action in this regard perhaps be interpreted in the sense that the judge was not defending human rights here, but that he was in fact playing the role of the assailant in this instance?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that last statement of his.

Which statement, Sir?

That the judge was playing the role of the assailant.

Mr. Chairman, I say that the question may be posed whether the judge’s role cannot be interpreted in this way.

The hon. member may not insinuate something of that kind.

Very well, Sir, in that case I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear your ruling in that regard. I want to say that I am extremely surprised to have heard the hon. member for Pretoria Central expressing criticism …

Order! The hon. member must not refer to it now.

Very well, Sir. In dealing also with the hon. member for Pretoria Central and the previous speaker, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, I must say that I believe that they have missed the whole point of the recommendation made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban North. The mere fact that there is an iron curtain, a ring of secrecy, surrounding prison activities, means that if ever an occasion arises where something wrong may possibly be going on behind that iron curtain, it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry. I believe too, if the hon. member for Potchefstroom would listen to me—he is still talking but I suppose he will read Hansard later—that he must agree that despite the fact that he has long statements given by various official visitors to the effect that everything at Leeuwkop is in order, the public in general in South Africa are not satisfied and have a suspicion that something wrong may well be going on there. The mere fact of an inquiry could have the effect of restoring public confidence in the Prison Service.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with another matter. The South African Law Commission was appointed in 1973, as this House well knows, for the purpose of research into all branches of the law and, further, to make recommendations for the reform thereof. The previous Minister of Justice said, when he introduced the Bill in February last year (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 651)—

The first report of the South African Law Commission which was tabled in this House after its inception and which dealt with the activities of this commission up to February of this year makes interesting reading. It dealt with nine matters; it has nine matters on its programme for consideration in 1974, and there is one very interesting item dealing with the codification and the adaption to modern needs of the common law offences of treason, sedition, public violence and crimen laesae majestatis. I believe, Sir, that there are certain anachronistic tinges attached to the present laws dealing with these crimes, but equally I believe that there are numerous overlaps, especially with all the legislation that this Government has introduced over the years, starting with the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950. I noted, too, from the report that the subject matter of a certain section of the General Laws Amendment Bill now being considered in Another Place was also considered by the commission, that they made certain recommendations and that apparently this action now being taken by the Government is as a result of these recommendations. It is quite clear, to me at any rate, that this commission has an alive and viable function, and for that reason I want to suggest that certain matters should be referred to the commission by the hon. the Minister as a matter of urgency, and I hope that he will agree to act after he has heard my plea. Sir, the Hon. Mr. Justice Steyn recently delivered a speech over the SABC on criminal justice, in which he said—

Sir, it is with the harsh and arbitrary laws of our country that I want to deal this afternoon, and I want to deal particularly with the pre-trial procedures. We have in this country—and I hope that it will never change—an accusatorial system of criminal law where an accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. We also have in our democratic process a full and complete respect for the civil rights of the individual. It is in respect of the rights of the individual that we accept the postulation that the prevention and prosecution of crime is not the highest value in our society, for if it were we would surely find a situation where there would be a maximum of authority and control and a minimum of crime, but we would then be living in an authoritarian State, which is incompatible with our democracy. Sir, a further consideration is the concern felt by all, more particularly during the dangerous and explosive times that we are now experiencing, for the general safety and security of the State as a whole. It is therefore the task of this Government to reconcile these two basic premises, namely the protection of the rights of the individual and the protection of the State as a whole. In this regard I should like to state that one should bear in mind that there is on the Statute Book a law called the Public Safety Act. Since 1961 the Legislature has on a permanent basis—and I repeat, on a permanent basis—created a drastic procedure which infringes almost all the rights of the individual, in particular as regards the stages of arrest, interrogation, access to legal advice and family, and bail procedure, all prior to the trial itself. These procedures all take place prior to the time of the trial itself. Springing from the precept that an individual in our society is presumed innocent until such time as he is proved guilty, are the entrenched rights of the individual to physical integrity and the right of privacy, both of which should be protected by the State. If we provide laws which conflict with the basic human rights, then we are negating the principles of democracy. It is this fear that many people in our country have at the moment, namely that due to the erosion through legislation of the basic human rights, we are gradually slipping from a democratic way of life into an authoritarian dictatorship.

The procedural rights of a suspect in our legal framework have descended basically from Roman-Dutch law and have been influenced considerably by the English law and they have withstood the test of time. They are in outline, firstly, judicial supervision over police action. Various safeguards against the possibility of excessive action by the police in the performance of their duties are necessary and include the bringing before a magistrate of a suspect within a reasonable period to allow the exercise of an independent mind over the necessity and legality of the detention of a presumably innocent person. Secondly, there is the obligation to inform the suspect of the charges against him; and thirdly, the suspect should be held in custody in a specific place of detention. Fourthly, the suspect should be afforded the right to have the assistance of his family, friends or legal adviser. Fifthly, he should have the right to reserve his defence, save that he may be questioned on reasonable grounds; and finally, the suspect should be afforded a judicial consideration in respect of the right to release from custody on sufficient guarantees, known as bail. Now, I believe that these rights have been abrogated over a period of years by legislation introduced by this Government, and I believe that as time has elapsed since the introduction of these laws and an opportunity has been afforded to the Government to test the efficacy of these provisions, the time has now come for an examination as to whether the very drastic inroads made by legislation into these basic rights have been justified, and whether it is not time to amend or to repeal the relevant sections of the Act. This task I believe can be properly undertaken by the S.A. Law Commission in the best interests of the country as a whole.

The rights that I have just mentioned have been infringed, as far as the judicial supervision of police action, i.e. arrest, is concerned, as well as the rule relating to the specific place of detention, and the right to have access to legal advice and friends, by the amendment in 1965 of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, section 215bis. They have also been infringed by the provisions of Act 62 of 1966, Act 83 of 1967, Act 41 of 1971 and the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1974.

Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in conclusion a straight question before I sit down. Does he as a lawyer believe in the proposition that it is far better that ten guilty persons should go free than that one innocent one should be found guilty? I believe that he believes in that proposition, and that he should have the courage of his convictions and accede to my request, because I believe that a danger exists in regard to these drastic provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the introductory remarks made by the hon. member for East London City concerning the matter of the confidence of the public in our prison service and tell him that I do not believe he understood the hon. member for Potchefstroom or listened to him. In my opinion both the hon. member and the hon. member for Durban North would do well to ask themselves the question whether discussions of the kind they and their party have been conducting really attest to responsibility on their part. The hon. member for Durban North again raised the matter of Lieut. Potgieter’s promotion. In my opinion the hon. member ought to display more responsibility because the facts concerned have already been fully stated in the House.

We must strike a positive note as far as our Prisons Department is concerned. Owing to the nature of my profession I have often had the opportunity to consult with prisoners in prison. I have always had an attitude of co-operation among the staff. It is the positive aim of the staff to provide the detainees or prisoners with full opportunities in their circumstances and to see to their needs. They do not see the prisoner as just another prisoner to be taken in, but have the positive aim of making of such a prisoner a worthy citizen who may be brought back into society.

The department’s approach is to strive for progress and improvement in its methods of treating and caring for prisoners with the aim of eventually returning them to their families. The emphasis falls on the treatment of the prisoner with a view to his release. There is a properly co-ordinated interaction between the internal social worker responsible for the sentenced prisoner and the social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions who attends to the prisoner’s family and prepares the family to receive the prisoner back into the family circle at a later stage. There is also cooperation with regard to after-care and so on. These services are provided by trained people. These services are provided to all long-term prisoners and, as far as possible, to short-term prisoners as well. In addition, the department continues to do its utmost to recruit qualified social workers and extend these services to the various other races in the prisons as well. The department spares no pains to give the prisoners only the best. The department is always trying to provide the prisoners with really effective individual treatment in the most scientific fashion.

I refer briefly to the following to give hon. members an idea of their scientific and intensive treatment of long-term prisoners. Each prisoner is kept in an observation centre over a period of about six weeks with a view to a full individual analysis of his case by specialized staff comprising clinical psychologists, social workers, educationalists and sometimes clergymen, too. Such observation centres are to be found at, inter alia, Leeuwkop and the Pretoria Central Prison. At the end of the period of observation, each prisoner’s case is thoroughly and collectively discussed by the above-mentioned experts and on the basis of each prisoner’s report a programme of treatment is drawn up for him, adapted to his specific needs.

I shall refer briefly to the task of the clinical psychologist. His task is to obtain a complete picture of the personality of each prisoner with the aid of certain methods and techniques, inter alia, intelligence tests, personality tests, projective techniques, and tests for brain damage. In this way the reason for the prisoner having to become a criminal and the type of treatment he may receive is ascertained. A complete personality evaluation, of great importance for the determination of the prisoner’s depth classification, is drawn up. This depth classification is at present being applied by the department and we lead the world as far as this system is concerned.

We are acquainted with the classification of prisoners over the years in groups A, B, C and D and I do not want to deal with this now. Hon. members will find this on page 11 of the report of the Commissioner of Prisons, where there is an indication concerning which prisoners are classified in this way. This classification is important because a depth classification, the basis of which is the acknowledgment of the existence of differences between individuals as regards intelligence, personality make-up, aptitudes, temperament and so on, is necessary for individual treatment. White male long-term prisoners were recently classified into four groups on this basis. I shall just mention the four groups briefly. Group 1 is the group with the best prospects of rehabilitation and resocialization. Group 2 comprises those of inferior and deficient intellectual abilities. Group 3 comprises declared psychopaths. A distinction is drawn between three types of psychopath, namely the imposing type, the rebellious-aggressive type and also the inadequate type. The fourth group is unclassifiable.

This specialized treatment requires separate institutions and this is in fact provided for after making due allowance for the question of accommodation. For example, intensive training in a trade is envisaged for those falling into group 2, where the necessary facilities exist. Those falling into group 3, viz. the psychopaths, are all kept separate.

I briefly want to mention certain trades in which they are trained. At present there are at least 25 trades in which a sentenced prisoner can receive training, apart from training in various agricultural activities such as field husbandry, market gardening, animal husbandry and so on. I want to mention some of the trades. The men work, inter alia, as electricians, mechanics and cabinet makers, and the female prisoners are trained in hairdressing, needlework and crochet work.

When the period of observation is over, the prisoners with an aptitude in these different spheres are allocated to receive training under the supervision of qualified tradesmen. Such a prisoner can even attain the status of tradesman and obtain a diploma under the control of the Department of Labour. What is important is that no indication is given on the diploma as to its having been acquired in prison. I refer, too, to the building section where training for Bantu is provided. In fact the department is far ahead as far as training is concerned.

This depth classification is already showing results and the treatment of prisoners has been much facilitated particularly owing to the fact that psychopaths are now removed from the prison. As far as is known, this system is not applied anywhere else in the world and in fact it is a unique system. In addition the system has already been extended to Coloureds in the Western Cape and it is being envisaged that a start will be made with this system at a large centre for the Bantu similar to that at the Leeuwkop Prison.

The department is really performing a giant task and I should like to have referred to further aspects such as the psychological treatment and so on, but time does not allow me to do so.

There are many people in our country the members of whose families or whose children are in prisons, and who look forward to their being received back into the family circle again. These people can rest assured that everything is being done by the department to rehabilitate them and to return them to the family circle fully rehabilitated. This is the positive image that must exist.

The staff do their work quietly in the interests of the prisoner, but serve wider interests at the same time. At the same time I want to praise the staff in the service who work under exceptionally difficult conditions. We call to mind, for example, the long hours they have to work; the sustained good work they perform so efficiently. They are performing not only an extremely important task, but an exceptionally difficult and extremely delicate one, too, and we know that they are equal to it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp has given us a very interesting description of what he knows of the prison system in South Africa and I want to say at once, as one who has also taken a considerable interest in prisons over the years, as the hon. the Minister will know, that there is no doubt that there have been praiseworthy attempts at reform within our prisons system within the last few years and that the Commissioner of Prisons has done a very good job in many respects. I wish to say that immediately. There is also no doubt that the efforts to introduce reform in our prisons system are frustrated by various factors, the most important one of which is of course the overcrowding in the goals. Today we have reached the unenviable position in South Africa where our average daily prison population is over the 100 000 mark. That should be a cause of great concern to everybody in this House and I assume that it is a matter of great concern to the hon. the Minister since he has appointed a commission of inquiry, the Viljoen Commission, which will go into the penal system and I imagine that this will be one of the main factors which they will investigate. I want to say at once that I am sorry that the hon. the Minister, in his statement about an investigation in to prison conditions, does not anticipate that the Viljoen Commission will consider as part of its terms of reference an investigation into the actual conditions in the goals but only the penalties or punishments that can be inflicted and therefore not the consequences of that punishment on the people concerned in the goals themselves. I gathered this because otherwise the hon. the Minister would presumably have said in issuing his statement yesterday, that the reasons for not having a full scale gaol inquiry were that he anticipated that the Viljoen Commission would inquire into this in the course of their investigations. I hope the hon. the Minister will clarify the position because I want him to know that there is considerable ambiguity in the terms of reference of the commission. Some people seem to think that it will include prison conditions and others think it is exclusively limited to the actual penalties or punishments that can be inflicted or laid down by the courts of law.

I join other members here in wishing the hon. the Minister well with his portfolio. I hope very much that I will be able to establish the same amiable sort of relations which, at least outside this House, I was able to have with his predecessor. I will say that the hon. the Minister has proved to be accessible on the one occasion when I have asked to see him. On the other hand we are starting off badly in respect of another matter which I will come to in the course of my speech. Be that as it may I, wish the hon. the Minister well.

I think that one question which the hon. member for Durban North put to the hon. the Minister has already been answered. I refer to the question concerning his attitude to civil rights and whether or not he is going to use section 6 of the Terrorism Act under which to detain people and keep them for interrogation. Unfortunately we have witnessed over the last month a very widespread use of this power by the hon. the Minister. I refer to the events at Currie’s Post and the detention under the Terrorism Act of 20 to 25 people. It is difficult to know exactly how many people are being held because, of course, we can get no information, not even in this House, about the number of people detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. This is one of the sections of the Act to which I objected so strongly in principle, at the Committee Stage and at every possible opportunity. We know that people are being held in solitary confinement under this Act. We know that there are three students from Turfloop who are presently being detained under the Terrorism Act. Indeed, it was the detention of these students that sparked off the sit-in and the very near crisis …

They were Saso committee members.

One was a Saso committee member, one was a president and the other a past-president of the SRC. So what? Sasol is not, to the best of my knowledge, a banned organization, is it? As it is not a banned organization, there is no reason why these students should not belong to this organization. Had they broken the law, there is no reason why they should not have been brought to court and charged in the normal way. Instead of this, they have been held for nearly a month. Let me remind this House that they are being held in solitary confinement, incommunicado, as indeed are all those young people and not so young people who were arrested after the pro-Frelimo rally that took place in Natal. I would like to point out that in the case of the Natal rally the hon. the Minister had all the powers he needed to take steps in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act since they held the meeting in defiance of a ban he had placed in terms of this Act on the holding of meetings at that time.

Therefore, although the hon. the Minister says it is not in the public interest, I think he should indeed give this House some information about these people, such as how much longer he thinks it is necessary to interrogate them and whether or not—this is a very special question I put since I have reasons for asking it—those people have been informed of what rights they have under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Let me say at once that their rights in terms of this Act are not very great but nevertheless they do have some rights. Firstly, they should be informed that they are allowed to make representations in writing to the hon. the Minister about their confinement. That is the one right they have. The other right, of course, is that they shall be visited by a magistrate at least once a fortnight. I would like to know if these conditions are indeed being carried out. But whatever is happening, I say it is high time, seeing that the hon. the Minister has had these people incommunicadoin gaol for nearly a month, that something should be done about them. By now, whatever information was required should have been extracted.

I want to remind him of what his colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, said only the other day, namely that “one wrongful arrest can undo what we have striven to do for the last 50 years”. I hope the hon. the Minister realizes that in this time of tension, it is the last sort of period in which we should be provocative. It is essential for us to keep our cool. I want to commend the Rector of the University of the North for the moderate way in which he conducted himself over this crisis. I must say that he did very well in keeping cool. I hope the hon. the Minister will realize that it is essential now that something be done quickly about these people whom he is keeping in detention under the Terrorism Act. They must be charged or released forthwith. He has had more than enough time for his Special Branch to get information.

I now want to come back to this question of conditions in prisons. I think I know a little about this subject, because I have taken a special interest in prisons from the time of the declared state of emergency after Sharpeville. The then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, invited all Members of Parliament to visit prisons at any time. Later, at the time when the prisons case began, the Minister renewed his invitation. I took him up on his invitation and I visited prisons. I have visited them ever since with regularity.

Which ones did you visit?

I visted a lot of them in those days and of recent years I have confined my attention to gaols such as Robben Island and Pretoria Central, for the very simple reason that I believe that political prisoners … [Interjections.] I make no secret of it.

How many times have you been to Leeuwkop?

I have been to Leeuwkop. It was presented to me as a model gaol, can you imagine that! I am not interested in just visiting prisons and I want to make this quite clear: I want to talk to prisoners when I visit gaols.

Why?

Because it is by talking to prisoners that one is able to understand what is going on in prisons and not by looking at the bars in the prisons and by examining the hospital. I want to tell hon. members that I have a cupboard full of letters coming from prisoners, which have been smuggled out of gaol … [Interjections.] How else do hon. members think those prisoners are going to write to me? Do they think that the chief warders are going to give them permission to complain about the assaults of warders, the poor food and the bad medical attention? Of course, these letters are smuggled out of gaol. I also have many letters from ex-prisoners which have given me very widespread information about the conditions in gaols. I have raised the subject in this House before, time and time again. In 1971 I mentioned 12 different goals from which I had had letters from prisoners complaining about the assaults of warders, assaults by other prisoners, poor food, badly prepared food, very poor hospital attention and so on. Indeed, I want to say before I forget this, that so widespread are the complaints about poor medical attention in the prisons that I believe it is high time that the Medical Council of South Africa investigated the way in which some of their colleagues who have appointments at hospitals are carrying out their duties, because complaints of cursory attention by doctors to prisoners are common. [Interjections.]

Do you know of any?

Do I know of any what? prisoners, doctors, medical council members? I know some of all of them. From the letters I have received and still receive, I have no doubt that the incident at Leeuwkop, although not typical—I certainly do not say that people are murdered every day in gaol—indicates that assaults by warders are in fact a fairly common occurrence. I do not say for one moment that these assaults are condoned, but I want to say one thing to the hon. the Minister: I am absolutely shocked that he did not kick out those two officers who were found

Of course you would be shocked; you would always be shocked by this.

But do you not think I ought to be? [Interjections.] Here a judge makes the most caustic remarks about these officers and the hon. the Minister thinks it necessary to conduct yet another investigation when a person has admitted that he connived in putting across a story in order to protect the warders who killed this prisoner. That officer should have been summarily dismissed, and with him his accomplice, for one main reason. I am not looking for vengeance against these officers. But the important thing is that the Minister and the people in high authority should not be seen to condone such action. The fact that these people remain in the service, even temporarily, may be looked upon as condonation.

You have no right to say that.

Hon. members can surely see that for themselves. I am absolutely amazed that the hon. the Minister has not summarily dismissed these officers.

Sir, there were smiles, I may say meaningful smiles, on the face of the hon. member for Potchefstroom—and that is some smile indeed; he is so handsome I am absolutely stunned—and on the face of the hon. member for Waterkloof. Significant and meaningful smiles were on their faces when I said that I paid particular attention to political prisoners. Of course I do; it is well known that I do this and I have done so for years. The prisoner is the most helpless of human beings.

Especially the political prisoner?

Yes, the political prisoner is especially helpless.

Only the political prisoner?

No, not only. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall tell you why the political prisoner is especially helpless. Special regulations apply to him, which make his lot harder than that of the ordinary prisoner. Let me give a few examples.

May I ask the hon. member a question? By visiting political prisoners, is it the intention of the hon. member to foster their morale?

Well, I think it is a good thing that these prisoners and the warders in charge know that someone is keeping an eye on them. [Interjections.] I am not interested in the silly insinuation made by the hon. member. These poor men are in maximum security gaols. There is little I can do about them in any case. So what does it really matter? But it is right for someone to keep an eye on these people and it is right that the prisoners know someone is keeping an eye on them.

Let me give the hon. member for Potchefstroom a few examples of the special treatment which is meted out to political prisoners. First of all, unlike other prisoners, they are, it seems, at the tender mercies of the Special Branch, not just the ordinary prison authorities. If I am wrong, the hon. the Minister will no doubt say so. They are allowed no newspapers or news broadcasts, which other prisoners are allowed. Indeed, the A group ordinary prisoners are allowed to listen to radio broadcasts. Political prisoners remain in the D group for one quarter of their sentence unless they are lifers. They remain there for good unless they are promoted. Other prisoners have a period of surveillance after which they are put in the B group. Then they are graded up or down from this group, depending on their behaviour. However, this does not happen to the political prisoners. Many of them remain in the D group for years and the hon. member for Klerksdorp will know that there is a very considerable difference in the treatment of D group prisoners as against that of prisoners in the A group, who are allowed more letters, more visitors, are allowed to buy from the prison commissariat, and have various other privileges. Let me tell you, Sir, if one is locked up for a long time or for life, these privileges mean a great deal indeed to one.

What worries me is also a factor that does not apply to the political prisoners. This also applies to prisoners who are gaoled for murder, rape and something like stock theft. It has always interested me—that stock theft should be put into this heinous category of crime in this country! The fact I am referring to is that political prisoners together with the prisoners in the other categories I have mentioned, receive no remission of sentence. This holds good for political prisoners irrespective of how minor a political crime they might have committed, like handing out an ANC pamphlet or a pamphlet of some other banned organization, and not only if they have committed a more serious crime. No matter how well they behave in prison, they receive no remission of sentence such as other prisoners receive after they have served, I think, a quarter of their sentence. After this they are entitled to apply for remission of sentence. There is no remission and no parole for political prisoners and this is a very severe disability indeed. They are allowed no contact visits even if they are A-group prisoners, although other A-group prisoners are allowed contact visits.

I also want to say that I am very worried about the change in the prison regulations that has been introduced recently. Up till recently, the regulations stated that prisoners should be encouraged to study. Now the emphasis has been reversed. Study becomes a privilege at the discretion of the Commissioner.

It always has been.

No, it has not. The wording is completely different. If this has always been the position, why have they had to change it? [Interjections.] I shall give the hon. member the old regulations and the new regulations and then he will be able to see for himself that there is a very great difference as far as emphasis is concerned. If the Commissioner thinks that lack of education is a factor causing crime, he should encourage educational facilities; otherwise, studying is a privilege and may readily be withdrawn. I should also like to add here that the use of library facilities is affected in the same way. These may be temporarily or permanently withdrawn. The fact is that instead of encouraging all prisoners to study, as was laid down in the previous regulations, permission to study or to use the library facilities have now in fact become a punitive weapon in the hands of the officials. Nothing means more to long-term prisoners, particularly educated men, as most of the political prisoners are, than the right to study, the ability to occupy their minds while they are in gaol. They have used these privileges to great effect over the years. They have been good students and I would say that the ability to study has kept them reasonably calm in gaol.

There is another change for the worse which has been introduced into the regulations. I think this applies generally because it is included in the ordinary regulations. I am referring to the fact that visits to prisoners are now limited to what are known as first-degree relatives. This means, in the case of bachelor prisoners, the mother, the father, sisters or brothers; in the case of married men, wives, and children over the age of 16, are added to this list. Unless special permission is granted these prisoners are not allowed to see their friends.

[Inaudible.]

As a matter of fact, yes. That is exactly what has happened, although I do not consider myself as falling into any of these categories. I consider myself as somebody who is taking an interest in the whole question of the circumstances surrounding these people in gaol. Again, a meaningful smile on the face of the hon. member! Why has this provision been introduced? Let us take a prison like Robben Island which I think should be scrapped as a prison. I think it is a hateful thing that the first sight which visitors have coming by ship to Cape Town, to the beautiful Cape of Good Hope, is the South African Alcatraz. Who needs it? Who wants it? It should not have been converted into a prison and it should not remain a prison. It makes it impossible, very expensive and very difficult for people to visit prisoners there because it is so inaccessible. I assume the hon. member takes the view that it is the civilized thing to treat prisoners decently?

Yes, of course.

The hon. member does. He agrees with Mr. Winston Churchill who stated long ago that the degree of civilization in a country is judged by the way in which that country treats its prisoners. So the hon. member agrees. Sir, why make it so impossible for people to go and visit their friends who are prisoners? And people do remain friends even though they have gone to prison. In many cases their relatives are hundreds of miles away, more particularly in the case of political prisoners. Take the South-West African prisoners. I think there are something like 68 of them on Robben Island. Out of a total prison population of 580, 250 are ordinary criminals, 331 are prisoners convicted of political offences and 68 of these come from South-West Africa. Some of those 68 prisoners incaracerated on Robben Island have life sentences, I think. One of them, I know for a fact, was visited by his mother for the first time in seven years this year. Why make it so difficult? Why not let those people go to a prison nearer home where at least they can be visited by their relatives? Would the hon. member agree that that is a reasonable request? Sir, “tjoepstil”. The hon. member does not reply; I do not even get a smile from the other side.

I want to say that if it is intended to retain Robben Island as a prison, which I hope will not be the case for ever, something must be done about providing constructive work for the political prisoners. Some of them have been there already for nearly 10 years; many of them have very long sentences still to serve and a few of them have life sentences. The work provided for these men, most of whom are educated men, is soul destroying. They work in the quarries; they dig sand or they dig stones, or they crush stones, or they drag seaweed out of the sea or off the beaches. Some of them do jobs in the hospital or staff jobs around the gaol, but for the most part it is back-breaking, hard labour. I do not think that is a civilized way to treat long-term prisoners, even if they are political prisoners.

Do you expect them to play chess the whole day?

Well, as a matter of fact, they do play chess. That might shock the hon. member; they do play chess. They have recreational facilities. But I do not expect them to play chess all day long. I expect them to be given constructive work, such as the work given, for instance, to the White political prisoners in Pretoria, where they can work in the carpentry shop or in the garden and grow vegetables. That is the sort of work that I think of as productive work. Funnily enough, I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me on this score, because I do not think he is as verkramp as the hon. member for Potchefstroom.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say finally that I think people ought to be encouraged to visit gaols. The only people in South Africa who have the right to knock on the door of a gaol and to be admitted immediately are judges, and some of them make good use of this right; others, I should imagine, do not use it at all, but at any rate some do and they do so to good effect. Sir, in England and other countries there are regular prison visitors. They consist of retired judges, social workers and people well known in the community, who form themselves into committees and visit the gaols. The Government is pleased about this because it is good for the prisoners; it is good for their morale to know that the outside world has not pushed them to one side; that the outside world has not abandoned them and that they will one day be received back into society, because after all rehabilitation is the basis of our prison system as well, and the hon. the Minister ought therefore to encourage people to visit the gaols. I want to say here and now that I was very dismayed indeed that the hon. the Minister was not carrying out the policy of his predecessors and that is to continue to allow me to visit prisoners. I make a point of this, Sir, because the hon. the Minister has said that any requests to visit prisons will be sympathetically received. I will not say that I am going to reject that, because I will certainly go and visit some of the prisons about which I have had so many letters of complaint about overcrowded conditions and other things, so I will take up the hon. the Minister’s offer that any request to visit prisons will be sympathetically received. But I am most dismayed that the hon. the Minister has refused my request to revisit Robben Island; I do not know what the position is about Pretoria because I have not asked for permission to visit the Pretoria Prison. I very much hope that he will reconsider this, because there can be no reason whatsoever for refusing to allow me to visit prisons. I have never abused this …

You asked for permission to go to Robben Island and to see three particular prisoners.

That is correct. I have been to Robben Island time and time again. I know what the prison looks like. Can I go to Robben Island and just talk to prisoners? That is all I want to know.

That is not what you asked me; you asked for something entirely different.

That is correct; I asked for permission to visit Mr. Mandela and Mr. Toivo. I accept that the hon. the Minister will not allow me to see those two people. Can I take it then that I can visit the prison and talk to other prisoners? I won’t even specify names; I will just see prisoners and talk to them, because that is the only way in which one can ever find out anything about prisoners. There is no doubt that the Prisons Act inhibits anybody reporting on prison conditions; it inhibits the Press. The Gandar case made quite sure that the great watchdog that sees to it that good conditions obtain in prisons—and that is constant public scrutiny via the Press—has been muzzled most effectively, and I say that it is unlikely that ugly episodes like the Leeuwkop episode and other incidents of that kind would continue to occur if prison conditions could be freely reported on by the Press.

Finally, I want to say one quick word about legal aid in South Africa, because this is such an important part of the system of justice. First of all, legal aid for prisoners should be forthcoming, and I wonder whether any of them are ever informed that they are in fact entitled to legal aid, to free legal aid, because without defence no man has a chance in any court. He has to be defended professionally.

You cannot say that. You are attacking the whole legal system.

Well, he has a very small chance—let me put it that way. I know the hon. the Minister happens to think this too, because he made an excellent maiden speech on the subject in 1966. I was in this House and I heard it. He made a very good maiden speech asking for extended legal aid outside of the pro deo legal aid given to persons charged with capital offences. We do have a legal aid system now, but I say that the amount voted is hopelessly too low. It is less than R½ million. I think that people do not know of their rights and that far more publicity should be given to the matter, to the fact that people can get free legal aid. I think it is very significant that out of the nearly 5 000 cases that were handled by State Legal Aid, there were only 136 criminal cases handled for Bantu, according to the report. Sir, that is very extraordinary, because obviously those are the people who are most in need of legal aid. I do not need to stress, I am sure, to this hon. Minister, who knows all about legal aid, that it should not be a half-hearted and a sort of stop-gap measure, but rather a positive means of enabling people to exercise their rights under the law. This was stressed at a legal aid conference held in Durban last year, where well-known people presented papers. I think the hon. the Minister should devote some attention towards improving the whole legal aid system as it exists in South Africa.

I am rising in the first place to say a few words about the matter of the Leeuwkop Prison. The hon. member for Johannesburg North attacked me here for not ordering a general inquiry into the prisons in South Africa. Sir, hon. members will recall that after the judgment given by the hon. judge became known, and after the Press erupted with the news of the scandalous happenings at Leeuwkop—and let me tell you straight away that I am not here this afternoon to try to condone what happened at Leeuwkop—I immediately directed, on the basis of the Press reports—something which I do not usually do, but the Press mentioned the names of three persons against whom charges had not been preferred—that those three persons be suspended from the prisons service and given compulsory leave, whether they wanted it or not. However, I stated the proviso that they could retain their rights until I had the opportunity of ascertaining what had been stated in the judgment, and had had the opportunity of reflecting on what one should do in such a case. However, I also issued a circular. I think I should in all fairness read the circular because my hon. friend apparently referred to it derogatorily as supposedly being the only practical step I had taken. I can point out that this kind of circular is issued fairly regularly to prisons and this is necessary because we are dealing with interrelationships between people. In a prisons service we are dealing with two aspects. In the first place there is the military aspect in that one is depriving people of their liberty and are placing them in custody. One virtually finds oneself in a position of confrontation with the prisoner. In the second place there is the rehabilitation aspect because you as person, as a rehabilitator, must try to uplift the prisoner who has found himself in an unfortunate position. Because we have those pluralistic standpoints in the prisons service, it is necessary that warders should sometimes be warned that the confrontation between them and the recalcitrant prisoner should not be overdone, and that they should make it their constant endeavour to instill calmness in the prisoner. Therefore I immediately had a circular drawn up in the following terms (translation)—

All the documents referred to in this circular, were warnings and directions as to how to work and associate with prisoners. I quote further—

I can point out that there are many—

It will be seen from this that I did not merely send out a little circular. I issued a circular, in very strongly-worded language, in which I very seriously impressed upon the minds of these people that we should not in any way mar the image of the prisons service, that we should not do anything that could harm the prisons and that we should not humiliate ourselves through conduct which we could not answer for. Subsequently I had an opportunity of perusing the judgment of the hon. Mr. Justice Hiemstra. I was also very fortunate in that he sent me a letter in which he furnished me with further information and communicated certain things to me. I have decided not to order a general inquiry, and for the following reasons. To undertake a general inquiry into 242 prison buildings, will probably take up a great deal of time. Let us assume for a moment that one week would be required for the investigation of each prison, that is, to submit all the complaints which could perhaps be submitted to the commission. If we think of all the work which such a commission has to do—those of us who have already served on commissions know what this entails—one could assume that this would require 40 weeks’ work per annum on the part of such a commission. Included in this are vacations, weekends, etc., but if we were to assume now that it would be possible to work for 40 weeks in a year, then an investigation of 242 prisons will take a total of six years. Over that full period of six years I shall constantly be asked in this House, by the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members who are not sympathetically disposed to the work of this side of the House, what progress has been made with the investigation. For six years I would not be able to say anything about the prisons, and it would not be possible to level any criticism at the prisons. The hon. members now expect me to appoint such a commission of inquiry and let myself in for further criticism to the effect that I have now closed the prisons entirely to the public because we have to wait six years for a finding.

But that is not all. There are very good people as well in such a prison, and I now want to inform hon. members that the doors of the prisons are open to all who are sitting here. These people are not above the law. Many well-known and famous people are sitting behind prison-bars, but there are bad people as well; there are criminals as well; in the worst sense of the word. There are people with records a mile long, people who return time and again to the prisons. Fifty-three per cent of the prisoners are psychopaths. There are people whose frame of mind is such that when a warder passes by, he is assaulted. There are people who form gangs and then fight one another. There are also people who plant dagga in one another’s pockets, for example, and who then inform a warder that such and such a person is the one who has the dagga. One finds all these phenomena in a prison. Let us now be quite honest with one another, and I believe that the hon. member is a fair person. What would such a commission of inquiry really accomplish now if it were to go in among a group of prisoners? The hon. member can imagine for himself what a lot of grievances could be brought up by psychopaths in such a prison. That judge would have to carry on, week after week, year after year, with such an inquiry because the hon. members in front of me here do not accept my word when I tell them that I shall do my best to improve prisons. That is simply not enough for them. Everything should simply be rectified by means of a judicial commission of inquiry. Let me now inform the hon. members that I have the greatest respect for a judicial commission of inquiry, but I do not want to lose my sense of perspective. That is what hon. members opposite are doing. That is also what the South African Press is doing.

I think you are overstating your case.

Well, that is your opinion and you can have your own opinion, but if the hon. member does not mind, I shall do it my way. [Interjections.] There is ample opportunity to bring the actual abuses and what is wrong to the attention of the authorities. Speakers have already made the point that when something is wrong, it is brought before an open court. However, I just want to say something to the hon. backbencher on that side The hon. member should not shake his head now; he should not be afraid of debate, for he was debating the matter with me a moment ago. Now I want to debate the matter with him.

†The only time when a person overstates his case is when he makes a statement that is wrong and I challenge the hon. member to show me where I have misstated the facts in my speech up to this moment. I challenge him to get up and show me where I have overstated the case.

It is not a statement of fact, but a statement of opinion.

Now the Press is calling for a general inquiry. Let me just tell you what The Cape Times says. They tell me—

Are you sure you are reading from the right newspaper?

I am reading from this morning’s newspaper.

So you have the right one this time?

No, it makes no difference. The Press used the words “barbaric, cruel and inhuman”. That is what they got hold of. The English as well as the Afrikaans-language Press ran away with that “barbaric, cruel and inhuman” story. I received a letter from the hon. Mr. Justice Victor Hiemstra. I telephoned him and asked him whether he would allow me to quote certain portions of this letter, which was a private letter. The portions I am going to quote relate to what the Press allegedly said in this case, and to what the Press and the Opposition ran way with. They also referred to the question of whether or not there should be a general investigation. I quote (translation)—

I am reading only the relevant portions. There are certain portions which I do not have the right to read. I quote further—

In other words, the sigma attaches to the participants in this case. The learned judge went on to say—

That is what the hon. judge said. Now the hon. member for Durban North comes here and tells me that he was deeply disappointed that I had not ordered a general inquiry. He and his party insists that it should in fact be a general inquiry into the entire prison system in South Africa.

Under normal conditions it would take place.

The hon. member for Houghton went even further. In last night’s Argus she was reported as having said, referring to me—

She also told the newspaper that she was astonished that I had not found it necessary to order another inquiry. Here in the House she also said—

Yes.

She is still saying it. When that hon. member deals with the rights of Black people, she wants investigations and court cases and she says that they may not be dismissed and that they may not be touched without a proper hearing. But when it comes to young White Afrikaners in the prisons service, who have to do her work for her, they should be summarily dismissed.

Oh, come on!

Allow me to inform the hon. member that the two persons, Mr. Kachelhoffer and Captain Potgieter, were not the accused in the case. She implied that they had been the accused, and that they had been found guilty and that I should dismiss them for that reason. They were State witnesses. It has now become apparent that they were poor witnesses, and I shall grant the hon. member that, but they were not the accused. There may be an explanation on their part, but the hon. member does not want to afford them an opportunity of stating their side of the case. As accused persons they have the right to do so. They are entitled to say: “This is my explanation. This is what I said in court, and this is why I did so.” At least they must be given a hearing, but that the hon. member does not want to allow them. In any case, I also want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that these people are public servants, and I cannot merely “fire” them as she would have done. There is section 13, section 55 and regulation 77 of the Prisons Act, which prescribe to me what I have to do when I want to dismiss a person. I am not allowed simply to “fire” public servants summarily, as the hon. member will apparently do if she were ever to come into power. I must order a proper inquiry, and subsequently there still has to be a departmental hearing. The position of these people must then be looked into, and subsequently there is a recommendation that they be dismissed. The hon. member for Durban North took it amiss of me for not having made that statement in this House. I suspended three persons from the prisons service, viz. Captain Potgieter, Captain Van Zyl and Mr. Kachelhoffer. There was an outcry throughout the entire country which is still in progress, in regard to this court case. I grant that, and I think it is right that the Press should report it. On the basis of the record and the judgment handed down by the judge I found, however, that Mr. Van Zyl was innocent, and that I should not have suspended him from the service. I am now asking the hon. member how soon I should have rectified that matter. I rectified it as quickly as possible, and I said immediately that that person should be reinstated in his post. However, I had to furnish a reason for doing so, otherwise I would have had to appear before the court martial again here to explain why I had released the one person, and not the others. The reason was that there was nothing against Captain Van Zyl. I also ordered a departmental inquiry under an external chairman to ascertain what the position of Mr. Kachelhoffer and Captain Potgieter was. I have already stated a moment ago that there is ample opportunity to bring real abuses to the attention of the authorities in the courts. According to the annual report which hon. members who are participating in this debate have before them, there are eight full-time and 862 part-time religious workers, who go into the most intimate problems of these prisoners. They do not do this in the way the hon. member for Houghton does, who simply wants to go there to hear and see what is wrong with the prisons of the Government. They are people who are really interested in the spiritual welfare and mental state of the prisoners. If there should ever be any complaints, I want to give the assurance that those spiritual workers can listen to those complaints. There are 862 of them who go about among the prisoners every Sunday and discuss matters with them on the most intimate footing. Consequently it is surely not necessary to conduct such a widespread inquiry. But according to regulation 101 any South African judge is at liberty, at any time, to walk into any prison and to carry out a full inspection of that prison. Any magistrate is also at liberty to do the same within his magisterial district. This is being done, and one of the solutions, as I see it, to this situation—and if hon. members had come forward with this argument, I would have agreed with them—would be for these judicial officers to be requested to exercise this right which they have to a greater extent, so that one can be certain that there is nothing wrong in these prisons. I think it is only fair that I quote a few reports to hon. members. I have made a few excerpts from such reports. There was a report by Mr. Justice Leon which read as follows—

Mr. Justice Badenhorst of South-West Africa states (translation)—

Sir, I do not want to quote all the comments, but there is another one here which I just want to quote …

From Mrs. Justice Suzman!

I am quoting magistrate Lindsay of Pietermaritzburg—

I wish the hon. member for Houghton would listen to this, for she alleged the opposite, namely that the food is very poor.

No complaints at all?

She is up to her tricks again.

I quote further—

So I can continue. I have here a series of similar reports, but I shall not quote them all.

[Inaudible.]

Now the hon. member comes here and pretends to be the greatest female investigator in South Africa. I can tell her that it is not necessary for her to present herself in this light. We on this side of the House also have a conscience; she is not the only person in South Africa with a conscience.

That must obviously halve the time of the Commission.

Sir, and what about the so-called security prisoners? She is making herself out to be the only person who will ever be given the right to look after the interests of these people. Is she aware that the International Red Cross pays personal visits every year to security prisoners in all the prisons in South Africa? They see these prisoners without any other person being present. They then send me a confidential report in which they make certain recommendations. I cannot disclose the confidential report to the hon. member, for it is a report of the International Red Cross. However, what they informed me in their letter, and I think I am entitled to quote this letter to the Committee, reads as follows—

What is important, is the following—

Obviously not—

These people are interested in security prisoners throughout the entire world. I am sorry that our confidential conversations were confidential, otherwise I could have informed the hon. members of what those people said to me concerning these prisoners.

I want to come now to the Press. The Press tells me that it is having a hard time; it is the real conscience of South Africa and it is being debarred from the prisons. I want to inform hon. members that I conducted an interview with the Press. I did not break the conditions of the verbal agreement. I did not disclose what was said to me. However, one of the Pressmen himself, began to disclose what the Press Union had said to me. For that reason I no longer find it necessary to keep silent in respect of what was said. They came to complain to me about the prisons legislation. Their principal complaint was in regard to the taking of photographs. They are prohibited from doing so. I want hon. members to realize that I told the Press Union that I would make a proper study of the legislation and that if I subsequently arrive at the conclusion that the prohibition on photographs did not have a rational basis, we would be prepared to change it. I told them that we would consider it. I am not dogmatic in regard to this matter. I am not wedded to any law. What does the statutory provision say which debars the Press entirely from the prisons? Mention is made of “any false information concerning the behaviour or experiences of a prisoner or an ex-prisoner in a prison, or concerning the management of a prison”. Reference is made here to false declarations and false information. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she wants them to be allowed to furnish false information?

Of course not.

Then why did she make such an attack on this section?

It is very difficult to check, as the hon. the Minister well knows.

Now the hon. member is already beginning to throw up a smokescreen. Now she is beginning with her footwork. The same applies to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban North. When the hon. member read this provision now for the first time, so I suspect, he took fright when he saw the word “false”. After all, I know advocates. The hon. member never read this section; he simply tagged along behind the Press, without any grounds for doing so. When they eventually gave him a piece of legislation to read, and he saw the word “false”, he realized, as I know advocates, that he no longer had a point. Then his entire argument was attenuated. I want to make it very clear. I do not think we have anything to hide, and consequently I do not want to hide anything. I shall look into this legislation. I am not prepared to remove the provision with regard to false information from the legislation, for it is a sound provision. I think hon. members will agree on this score. However, I am prepared—and I said this to the Press Union—to reconsider the question of photographs and to see whether we cannot in this respect help the Press in any way. I want to help them to furnish the public with information. As I said, I am not condoning malpractices here. I disapprove of them. I am asking hon. members and the Press of South Africa, however, to maintain their equilibrium, in the interests of South Africa. I am not asking them to tell lies by implying that our prisons are wonderful places if that is not really the case. I am merely asking them to maintain their perspective, their equilibrium, and you will remember that we have here a department with 12 782 warders, officials in the service of the department. If hon. members were to glance at the annual report of the department, they would observe the considerable number of graduates in this service. They will discover that these are people, many of them, who are dedicating their lives to the upliftment of the underprivileged. I challenge the hon. member to tell me that there are any of the children of the members of her clique there in Houghton who are members of the prisons service. I tell her now that there is not one. They are making money, Sir, and in the meantime they criticize people in the prisons service. If hon. members think it is easy work, then I challenge them to go and look after prisoners for three months, where the only difference between the warder and the prisoner is the bunch of keys he has in his hand. From 7 o’clock in the morning until 4.30 p.m. in the afternoon he has to spend his time within the walls of the prison, for 41 years of his life. Then hon. members can go and write how bad these people are. In addition, hon. members should also bear in mind that there are 100 000 prisoners—major criminals and minor criminals, criminals of every possible type. I just want to say that I am sorry that there are poor warders. I am sorry that there are people who go to excess, but I am also sorry that there are poor M.P.s. I am also sorry that there are poor Opposition members. I am also sorry that there are bad people in the other professions, and I am sorry that so many people have ended up in prison. [Interjections.] We are all human. Let us not point an accusing finger at other people simply because a rotten spot was discovered at Leeuwkop. Sir, I tell you now, and I am doing so as the Minister responsible for this department, that I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the thousands of warders in the prisons of South Africa for the sacrificing and uplifting work which they are doing for the sake of our community and on behalf of our father-land. Sir, I do not want to take up very much time. I first want to clear up this matter of Leeuwkop, and afterwards I shall deal with the points raised by hon. members, except one, if you will pardon me, that is the accusation of the hon. member that I have allegedly changed the policy, the policy of my esteemed and honoured predecessor. Under him, she allegedly had the right to visit Robben Island.

Sir, I received a letter from the hon. member for Houghton and I hope the hon. member will give me permission to read it.

Sure.

Thank you, then I can quote it. She wrote—

Sir, listen to these threats, the veiled threats which she utters. I shall go to the outside world, she says—

You will perceive, Sir, that not a single word is said about whom the hon. member wishes to visit. She wrote me another little letter as well. I then wrote back to her and said that she had told me something else, and for that reason I wanted to know whether she wanted to visit those people. She then wrote to me in a letter, and I thank the hon. member for being so candid—

I wrote back to her—

But I added the following—

Sir, a name was disclosed, a certain Mr. Toivo, and I wondered who this could be. Mr. Mandela I know every well, Mr. Mandela was the principal person who in 1963 acted as a communist in South Africa and drew up that Majeboye plan, in the Rivonia case, to blow our beloved fatherland to smithereens. [Interjections.] No, do not pull such a sour face now. This is history, and you have to accept it. I am stating who Mr. Mandela is. We must not bluff each other. We must speak candidly here this afternoon. I am saying that Mr. Mandela was the person who wanted to have our fatherland blown to bits with explosives, in regard to which it was said in court that there were enough to blow up the whole of Johannesburg. This was in accordance with a worked out plan. He is a self-confessed communist; he has consistently remained a communist, and he is at present sitting on Robben Island serving a sentence of life imprisonment.

[Inaudible.]

Do not begin to cackel now. You have already laid your egg; you need not begin all over again. Now I received this request, asking me whether she could see Mr. Toivo. I really did not know who Mr. Toivo was. I thought he was a Coloured person.

He is a South-West African.

Yes, but let me now tell the hon. member who he is, if she does not know this. He was born on 22.8.1924 in Owambo, where he obtained a Std. 6 school certificate at a Finnish mission school. At the outbreak of the Second World War he joined the South African forces and served locally until 1943. Upon his discharge from the Army he returned to Owambo, studied further, and in 1950 obtained his teacher’s diploma. In 1952 he joined the S.A.R. Police in Cape Town, served there for two years, and subsequently worked in a furniture factory in Cape Town. During his stay in Cape Town he came to the fore as a champion for the liberation of South-West Africa. He came into contact with and under the influence of well-known communists and liberalists, people such as Ben Turok, Dennis and Esme Goldberg, Albie Sachs, Fred Carneson, George Peake, Alec Le Xuma, Brian Bunting, and organizations such as the ANC, the COD, CPR, etc. He attended meetings of these organizations regularly, and subsequently also became acquainted with members of the S.A. Communist Party such as Patrick Duncan and Dr. Jack Simons. During 1957, with the assistance of the aforementioned persons, he established the Owamboland People’s Organization in Cape Town. As a result of his political activities in Cape Town, he was repatriated to Owambo during 1958. Upon his arrival in Owambo he acted as organizer in that area. With the infiltration of the first group of trained and armed Owambo terrorists during July and August 1965, these terrorists, as well as subsequent groups, had orders to report to him upon their arrival in Owambo for instructions, and assistance in the form of protection, places where the infiltrators could construct camps for the training of local recruits, and supplies of money, food and clothing. After these terrorists had set up camp at Ngulanbashe in the dense bush of western Owambo, he did in fact remain in contact with these terrorists and provided them with assistance. Owing to his complicity in these acts of terrorism, he was arrested and detained … [Interjections.] I would be pleased if the hon. member would give me a chance to speak to her—and subsequently tried. On 8.2.1968 he was found guilty in the Supreme Court in Pretoria of contravening section 2(1) of the Terrorism Act in that he had conspired to liberate, so-called, South-West Africa by force of arms, and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, which he is serving on Robben Island.

What has that to do with me?

The hon. member asks what that has to do with her. I accept that the hon. member is not implicated in any of these things in which this person was implicated. I also accept that the hon. member was not implicated in Mandela’s little game. But now I do want to ask the hon. member this, and this is one of the things I had to ponder before I could decide whether I should allow her to go there. Why, of all those prisoners, did the hon. member single out Nelson Mandela and this Toivo for a personal visit?

I can answer that question.

Does the hon. member wish to put a question?

The hon. the Minister has yielded. [Interjections.] On the first occasion I visited Robben Island I saw all the prisoners in that section and they said to me: “Don’t talk to us; Mandela is our elected leader—talk to him.” So I talked to Mandela. [Interjections.]

What is the question?

I am not asking a question. This is the Committee Stage and if the hon. the Minister sits down I can stand up. Toivo, I know, is a South-West African leader and I knew that nobody had visited him. It is as simple as that. [Interjections..]

Sir, I want to ask the hon. member what on earth she wanted to see this couple for. She does not even know Toivo; she had merely heard that he was a leader in South-West Africa. I am asking the hon. member this: What did she want to see them for? I must know this before I can consider the matter.

Will the hon. the Minister give me an opportunity to reply to that question?

The hon. member may simply reply from her bench.

Because I was visiting political prisoners.

The hon. member has said that already. I should like to know what she wants to do with those persons at this stage. Did the hon. member want to give them hope? Did the hon. member wanted to boost their morale?

Does the Minister think that I could do that in a maximum security prison, with the commandant there?

Let me just quote the hon. member’s own words to her—

Finish the sentence.

I quote further—

What conditions are causing unrest? What does the hon. member know about conditions there? She arrives there and listens to a lot of stories, and then she gives them hope that matters will be rectified. Sir, the hon. member must pardon me. She is entitled to visit the prisons as much as she likes. My prisons are open to the public, but I am now informing the hon. member that while I am Minister I will not allow her to pay personal visits to prisoners of this type.

Can I speak to any of the prisoners?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the process the hon. member for Houghton wants to follow by visiting certain of these prisoners, is a calculated action. You will remember that while she was speaking, the hon. member for Pretoria Central asked her what the purpose was behind these calls she wants to pay to the prisoners in the South African prisons. It is very clear—and it is also apparent from the letter she wrote—that she is part of a programme in terms of which the morale of prisoners in South African prisons is to be stiffened. This is very clear from a speech reported in U.N. documents and delivered before U.N. by one C. Collins, in which he stated, inter alia, the following—

I query the term “good will”—

This document then goes on to describe directly the “prison education” scheme—

And then the document goes on—

This is of course a false statement, Sir. You heard the figures mentioned by the hon. the Minister here this afternoon, but this gentleman maintains that there are 2 000 prisoners on Robben Island—

These are precisely the words used here in the House by the hon. member this afternoon—

These, too, are precisely the words used here by the hon. member—

I never use those words at all.

I quote further—

Sir, note these words—

That is the plan of action of the celebrated Defence and Aid Fund, and I am coming to the conclusion that the hon. member for Houghton is playing a role in this regard. Sir, this is a fund that has acquired a certain odour in South Africa that is not acceptable to the greater majority of good South Africans. Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister dealt very effectively this afternoon with these complaints about our prisons, and we want to congratulate him on the way in which he parried the attack made on him and the prisons by irresponsible members opposite, and put the whole matter into perspective. It is unnecessary, therefore, for me to continue along these lines.

There is another matter I should very much like to put to the hon. the Minister. I want to make a few remarks about the distribution of magistrates’ offices and police stations in the Cape Peninsula as far as Coloured neighbourhoods and Coloured group areas are concerned. This area to which I refer, the Cape Peninsula, comprises, for the most part, the magisterial districts of Kuilsriver, Bellville, Goodwood, Cape Town, Wynberg and Simonstown. Within that area we have large concentrations of Coloureds in the Coloured residential areas of, for example. Athlone, Bishop Lavis, Elsies River, Bellville South, Manenberg. Tiervlei, Grassy Park and a number of others which I am not going to mention now.

Sir, it is also unfortunate that it is universally accepted that undesirable conditions as regards crime prevail in these Coloured areas. We are getting too many reports of assaults, of rapes, of vandalism, of pure hooliganism and of gang terror. An eloquent example of this was the recent Cloete case, in which a gang simply started shooting recklessly and killed several people. There is no time now to deal with the reasons for these unfavourable conditions, but some of the residential areas are still slums that have to be cleared up; others are new residential areas where an established community maintaining its own law and order, has not yet developed; others still lack the established middle class that is necessary, and then there is liquor abuse, but whatever the case may be, my personal observation, based on discussions I have had with Coloureds, is that they do not dare to visit some of these residential areas on a Friday night. The combating of these conditions is certainly a matter to which the Departments of Justice and Police, in particular, should give attention, although it is not their responsibility alone; the responsibility is far wider, because it is also a question of socio-economic upliftment, but I want to suggest that the Departments of Justice and Police can make a contribution through the siting of their buildings and the establishment of magisterial districts in this specific area, because these magistrates’ offices and police stations, these imposing government buildings that are constructed there, are necessarily symbols of authority, and these symbols of authority can also contribute towards the bringing about of an awareness of law and order in that particular society; they are symbols of law and order and symbols of the protection of what is threatened, and I therefore plead that we should construct imposing buildings in these neighbourhoods, too, in terms of the re-establishment and redelimitation of our magisterial districts in the Cape Peninsula.

My plea, therefore, is that in time, these buildings be manned entirely by the Coloured community, that we should have Coloured magistrates, Coloured prosecutors and so on. As it is, hon. members will be aware that we already have in our ranks Coloured attorneys and advocates. In my opinion, therefore, there is no reason why we should not, in time, also have well-grounded Coloured magistrates. I should like to quote a few figures. In the magisterial districts to which I have referred, we have no fewer than 453 000 Whites. As against that we have more than 753 000 Coloureds in the same magisterial districts. I am not even referring to the large number of Bantu, viz. 106 000, living in the Wynberg district. In all these districts the magistrates’ offices are situated within White residential areas, except for a seat of the Wynberg court in Athlone. My standpoint, therefore, is that the redelimitation of our magisterial districts, in such a way that the Coloureds could feel that they had a greater share in the administration of law and order within their areas, could in fact be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has made a very interesting speech, but he will forgive me if I do not react to it, for time is limited. I am deeply concerned about the fate of the country attorney. The country attorney is fast disappearing from the scene in the Cape Province. Between the years 1964 and 1974, 18 towns in the Cape Province were left without an attorney. This means that 18 towns last had an attorney ten years ago. Today no attorney is practising in those towns any more. Therefore the Cape Province has an additional 18 towns in which there is no legal practitioner to advise the public. The administration of justice is suffering because of this. It goes without saying that when there is no attorney in a town, the State has a much greater responsibility than would otherwise be the case, for an attorney is able to settle many of the disputes which arise among the townspeople.

In addition, attorneys are able to do many other things in regard to the administration of justice, by which the burden of the department is considerably lightened. When there is no attorney, it means that there will be a greater pressure, an increasing pressure, on the department. Eventually the department then has to make other arrangements in the towns in which there are no attorneys, which the department may not be able to do at this stage. One possibility is for the department to take over the full responsibility for the administration of justice in such towns. I am referring for the moment to the Cape Province only and not to the rest of the country. In the Cape Province alone we have an additional 18 towns today in which there is no attorney. Unless positive steps are taken, matters will continue to deteriorate and in another ten years’ time we shall most probably find that once again there are an additional 18 or 20 towns in the Cape Province which have no attorney.

Could you suggest something in this regard?

I want to suggest that a thorough investigation be conducted into the reason why there are no attorneys left in those towns. If we were to conduct such an investigation I believe we should find that one of the reasons why there are no attorneys left is that the work they used to have has been taken away from them. Most of the work which has been taken away from them has been taken away by the Department of Justice. It is a very sad thing to say, but this is in fact the case. What has happened is that those attorneys used to do work which is now being done by the State Attorney. If we go into the history of the State Attorney, we shall find that when the State Attorney’s office was officially opened in the year 1925, there were one State Attorney, one assistant and one typist. Do hon. members know what is being budgeted for on the present estimate? Today, the establishment consists of 221 members of staff. There is the Chief State Attorney, seven Deputy Chief State Attorneys, 14 Principal State Attorneys, 37 State Attorneys and 162 other members of staff. The reason why I say that the work has been taken away is that the State Attorney’s offices are still expanding. As they expand, they take away more and more of the country attorneys’ work.

†There was a question on the Order Paper and according to the answer 5 685 deeds were registered in the deeds registry by the State Attorney’s office during the year 1973. That is the sort of work, or at least the preliminary part of that which used to be done by ordinary country attorneys. When the State Attorney’s office was commenced—it was then called the Government Attorney’s office—there was an understanding that this office would merely be a sort of distribution centre for work and that the Government work would go to the State Attorney’s office and would be delegated to ordinary practising attorneys. We realize that there is a great deal of work that cannot be delegated and that there is a great deal of work that cannot be sent out to country attorneys, but we also know that there is a great deal of work that should be done by the country attorneys but which is now done by the State Attorney’s office in which the country attorney has no say and gets no share.

Unless the Government is prepared to help and unless this department is prepared to help, I am afraid that we shall find that more and more work is going to be taken away from the country attorney. Eventually he will not find it worth his while to continue his practice any more. Then he will shut up shop and we shall have less and less country attorneys. I feel very sorry about this because if it happens we shall be in very great trouble. The administration of justice in the platte-land is a matter of the utmost concern to this House and the administration of justice in my opinion is either going to break down or it is going to mean that the department will have to appoint people to go and do the work which is now being done by country attorneys, at the State’s expense. I ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter very thoroughly. I want the hon. the Minister to know that I am aware of what has been done in the past for the country attorneys, but I do not believe that enough has been done. I think that a great deal more must be done and I think that the hon. the Minister has a duty to do something for the country attorneys and he has to start that duty in his own department. He must tell the other Government departments that if there is any work which a country attorney can do, they must let them do it. He must tell the Government departments that they must not vie with one another to see who can send the most work to the Government Attorney. That is not what the Government Attorney’s office is there for. The Government Attorney’s office is there to do the intimate details of litigation for the Government. That is all it is there for, and not for any other purpose. If the Government Attorney’s office is doing any more there is something wrong and I say then that the hon. the Minister of Justice must take steps to see that this situation does not continue.

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Wynberg with regard to the depopulation of the platteland, a facet of which is the depopulation of attorneys. However, I am really unable to share his feeling that the blame for the fact that the country attorneys are being attracted to the cities, should be laid at the door of the Attorney-General. There are many other factors that have an enormous influence in this sphere, factors such as the question of specialization. It is very difficult today for an attorney with a one-man practice to keep fully abreast of developments in all fields. For that reason we find that many of the attorneys choose to move to a larger firm where they are able to specialize and may keep abreast in certain fields.

That is as a result of all the laws you make.

It is difficult to get hold of typists or carry on a busy practice in a small town. Many of the country attorneys, those in the smaller towns, find that eventually all they have on their hands is an estate agency and they do not really have sufficient opportunity to practice their science as an attorney there. There are therefore many reasons for that depopulation. To me the hon. member’s request that the State should rectify this matter attests to an incorrect attitude which is to be found among the Opposition and which, unfortunately, is also echoed outside this House, namely that the State should put everything right.

How are you going to rectify it?

As one attorney to another, I want to say that we attorneys have a society and are organized and consequently are certainly able to come up with recommendations if they see that the State can play a part.

That is one of the recommendations.

To ask the State to identify the role it has to play to aid the attorney, testifies to a mendicant attitude that does not become the attorney’s profession. We as attorneys will regulate our affairs ourselves and if we feel that we require assistance, we shall go to the Minister with a motivated, detailed request.

A few months ago the matter of tribal courts at Soweto was much in the news. These are the so-called ghotlas or makgotlas. The matter was raised in Parliament, too. Both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Durban North asked questions about this and the fact that they have not referred to the matter now, forces me to the conclusion that they have been very satisfied with the way in which the Minister has handled this matter up to now.

It is the time factor.

Otherwise they would have raised criticism arising out of the information they received. However, I, too, want to touch on this matter, but from a positive angle, which is certainly not what the hon. member for Houghton had in mind when she put her question and saw herself in the role of the saviour of sufferers from injustice. The angle from which I want to approach this matter, is limited to the Bantu in the White urban areas. As far as the Bantu in the homelands, where these tribal courts function are concerned, that is a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the homeland governments; it is therefore not for us to discuss it here. As far as the Bantu in the urban areas are concerned, I do not want to plead for the recognition of these tribal courts. There are many problems in this regard. It is a basic principle of our law that no one be allowed to take the law into his own hands. There is also the risk of malpractices that could occur at such tribal courts if control were not exercised. In addition there is the risk that such tribal courts could form a kind of rival authority to the Police and the courts in such an area and could therefore undermine Government authority and the legal system. That is the reason why I do not want to make a plea for the recognition of these tribal courts. Apart from these risks, however, there are positive aspects to these tribal courts, too, or rather, to the fact that the Bantu people of Soweto themselves felt that they wanted to introduce these tribal courts. The fact that they were actually introduced, shows that a need exists among the Black people in the urban areas to co-operate in furthering the maintenance of law and order. This is a need which they link with the need to follow the path of tribal tradition. We find, therefore, that the urban Bantu, concerning whom the Progressive Party are so fond of claiming that they are supposedly entirely estranged from their homelands and entirely Westernized, are looking back to their traditions and saying: We are not satisfied with the way the lesser offences are handled; in terms of tribal customs we want to have the say in the administration of law as far as the lesser offences are concerned. Hon. members would do well to make a note of the fact that Mr. Lengeni, the mayor of Soweto, is also very sympathetic towards these tribal courts.

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

Evening sitting

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch, I ended on the note that among the Bantu in Soweto and in the White urban areas, there was an urge to become involved, an involvement as regards the maintenance of law and order in their own residential areas. This is a positive fact of which we must take cognizance. It was born out of the urge, knowledge, realization and conviction among the Bantu that they are community people. According to the Bantu custom, their children belong to the community and not only to their own parents. The community feels that it also has an obligation in controlling the children. That is why there is this need for involvement in the meting out of punishment, particularly for offences committed by children. This need is, therefore, an integral part of the Bantu’s world view and view of life. We should like to know from the hon. members of the Progressive Party, only one of whom is present at the moment, and from the official Opposition, too, whether, since this urge does exist among the Bantu and is expressed by them, and since they are organizing themselves, we should ignore this matter or whether we should give positive content to it within the legal system of the Republic in such a way as to eliminate the risks I mentioned at the start of my speech. Or are we to turn them away and force them to suppress this urge for involvement?

A second positive aspect in this regard is the fact that the development of one or other system giving the urban Bantu a function in the combating of crime in his own area, could be a valuable aid to our courts and our peace. We find ourselves in a situation of manpower shortage that also affects those sections of the public service dealing with the administration of justice. We should also take cognizance of the fact that crime in Soweto and similar towns are fairly serious. To put it in a nutshell: There is a need among the Bantu in the cities outside the homelands to assist in the maintenance of law and order. There is reason to believe that their involvement in the maintenance of law and order could be a useful factor in the light of the manpower shortage and the crime situation. In the third instance there is the fact that it is a custom among the Bantu to subject themselves to the discipline of the members of their people. Against this background I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, despite the negative factors, he could nevertheless investigate in one way or another and try to give the urban Bantu a role in the administration and maintenance of justice in their residential areas. I am not asking that they be given a say or some form of co-operation as regards serious crimes, but rather in respect of the lesser offences, for example, problems concerning gangs of youths, social problems and all matters bordering on crime or representing lesser offences. My plea, therefore, is that in such cases we try to find a way and develop a system to involve them, too, in the maintenance of law and order. I see the hon. member for Houghton has now returned. I want to conclude by putting to her the question whether she would say we should give content to these positive aspects, in the light of the fact that the urban Bantu themselves are asking for a say in the maintenance of law and order in their areas. Since she makes such a fuss about consultation, would she say that we should ignore them as far as this is concerned and rather lean over backwards to allow the transgressors against whom the ghotlas act, to go free?

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North. When the hon. member for Durban North was asked by way of an interjection whether he agreed that a state of crisis prevailed in Southern Africa, he evaded the question. The hon. member for Bryanston said “as long as the Nationalists are in power there will be a state of emergency”. I want to take it that the hon. member has a sense of responsibility and that he was not, therefore, joking. In other words, I want to assume that the hon. member concedes that there is a state of crisis in Southern Africa that must receive attention. I must also assume that the hon. member is of the opinion that these measures should not be applied because the National Party is in power. That was the purport of the interjection made by the hon. member, and its implications. It is absolutely absurd. If I may have the attention of the hon. member for Durban North, I want to ask him whether he concedes that if there is a state of crisis in Southern Africa, the hon. the Minister is entitled to apply executive measures to deal with that crisis. I deduced from the interjections made by the hon. the Minister and the questions he put to the hon. member for Durban North that the hon. member did not want to reply to them. And yet the hon. member made an attack on this side of the House and on the hon. the Minister because we were supposedly eroding certain civil rights. The implication of what he said is that if there was a state of crisis, he did not mind. I now want to ask the hon. member, and he will have the opportunity to reply, whether he agrees with Gen. Magnus Malan who states that we in South Africa are in a state of war of low intensity and that our margin of risk is very low. The hon. member is silent, but I do not think he can argue with that. In other words. I assume that the hon. member is quite satisfied with the action taken by the hon. the Minister from time to time. I want to state the attitude of this side of the House very clearly to the hon. member. Our attitude on this side of the House is that such a situation does in fact exist. However, we say that that situation is entirely under control and that we need have no fear concerning this situation because the hon. the Minister effects certain executive measures from time to time and also applies those measures that have been part of our legislation for the past 25 years. In England, the cradle of democracy in the good old times, far more serious and drastic measures were taken than any of those ever taken by this side of the House. In 1914, with France as a buffer between England and Europe, England saw fit, in a climate of peace, to pass the very well-known Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act. That Act gave the executive authority virtually unlimited powers. The well-known Halsbury defined the principle behind this as follows—

In 1939 these measures were still applicable, and this was during a period of total peace in England. That is why we say that on the basis of this example we are entitled to take similar measures. While we say that we are, in fact, in a state of war of low intensity, we also say that we are entirely in control of the situation because we adopt measures of this nature from time to time. We most definitely intend to remain in control. I should very much like to ask the hon. member for Durban North, if he should get the opportunity to get hold of his backbencher colleague, the hon. member for Bryanston, to give him the opportunity to explain to us what exactly he meant by the statement that as long as the National Party remained in power, such a situation would prevail.

I want to return to calmer waters. I want to ask that we give consideration to the pressure on our magistrates’ courts with regard to criminal cases and the pressure on our prisons as a result of the alleged high number of prisoners. In this regard I should like to draw attention to an organization known as Nicro, the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of offenders. This organization links various disciplines and various departments, but links up with the Department of Justice in particular. I therefore feel that it is entirely fitting to broach the matter here. This organization was established in 1910 by, inter alia, the then Speaker of the House of Assembly, Advocate Molteno, Chief Justice Searle and Gen. J. C. Smuts. The one important objective of this organization is the prevention of crime. The ideal of this organization is to reform our appeal system. It has come to pass that their labour has borne fruit, in that the hon. the Minister recently appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate our penal system. Another of their objectives is to disseminate information to the public, after thorough research into certain aspects has been done. At present these activities take place under the chairmanship of appeal judge Mr. Justice Wessels who has taken over the chairmanship from Mr. Justice Steyn. It will therefore be clear to hon. members that men of distinction are involved in and lead this movement. I want to say that this Institute has done very good work in recent years. It has been statistically proved that more than 60% of all released prisoners commit another crime at some time or another, but this Institute has already proved that only 8,9% of their “clients” are found guilty of an offence instead of the expected 50%. Between 1935 and 1960 they kept half a million people out of the prisons. This institute is financed by donations, fund-raising and grants from the Departments of Social Welfare, Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs and Indian affairs. In view of the deficit of R26 000 for the past financial year, it is my plea this evening that the hon. the Minister use his influence in all possible spheres to allow a greater financial contribution to this institute to be made. It would be entirely in order for the universities’ rag fund revenue to be utilized for this purpose. This is already being done in an indirect fashion today by means of contributions from the community chests, but I want to suggest that this is an extremely deserving task for the rag societies of the various universities. Sir, I mentioned to you that among other things, they disseminate information concerning matters of general importance after proper research has been done; a recent example is a report on shoplifting published by them. In recent times extremely heavy penalties have been meted out for shoplifting, and let me say at once that I am quite sure that the presiding judicial officers have duly and thoroughly acquainted themselves with all the circumstances in the various cases that have come before them and that those sentences have been suitable in view of those circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention earlier this evening to deal with political matters in this debate, but I find myself in the invidious position that I have to reply to two speakers who put direct political questions to this side of the House. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West and the hon. member for Vereeniging posed certain very cogent questions to this side of the House. May I begin with the first of those speakers who dealt with the Kotlo system that has arisen in Soweto and the need and the urge among the Black people of those areas to take a part in the administration of justice among their own people. Sir, it is the policy of this side of the House that these people should be encouraged and developed to take the fullest part in the administration of justice within their own areas under and within the administration of law and order in South Africa, but when it goes outside of law and order, then we are not in favour of it. We would request to hon. the Minister to recruit as many people as possible within these areas who would be interested to assist him and his Departments of Justice and of Police to administer law and order within the provisions of the Republic of South Africa and of the homelands concerned. I believe that that answers the hon. member for Vereeniging.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West was concerned with an interjection from the hon. member for Bryanston and the speech of the hon. member for Durban North, and he wanted to know whether or not there was a state of crisis in South Africa. Sir, our argument is that these laws can well be applied and should be applied if there is a declared state of emergency within the country. But there is a great difference between a time of crisis and a state of emergency; one lives through crises day after day in the political world …

Especially in that party.

One lives through crises day after day if one is a member of the Nationalist Party. But, as I say, there is a difference between a crisis and a state of emergency. A state of emergency is something that affects every facet of national life, and we believe that this type of question should not be posed across the floor of the House for the reason that we are living in Africa and in Southern Africa in a state of crisis, and it is not the intention of our Government or of the official Opposition to declare a premature state of emergency in this country—and when I talk about the official Opposition I do not include the mini one which is so mini this evening and which, after having asked for half an hour in this debate, does not deign to come and listen to the proceedings after using that half an hour. I think that the less we say about it, and the less there is political playing around with this question as to whether there is a state of crisis or not, the better for both sides of this House.

Why did he raise it then?

If it is necessary for a state of emergency to be declared when there is a real state of emergency, then we will support the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence in declaring such a state of emergency, but at this stage I believe that there is no need whatsoever to declare a state of emergency or to imagine that there is a state of emergency.

Now I want to come back to what I wanted to say tonight, which has nothing to do with these matters. The first thing I wish to do is to welcome the hon. the Minister of Justice to his new post. He is a strange combination, in fact I think an excellent combination for the future of South Africa and for this post. He has the names James Thomas Kruger. Now James Thomas was an 1820 settler, and I believe he was an ancestor of the hon. the Minister. President Kruger was the President of the Transvaal Republic. I do not know whether he was an ancestor of the hon. the Minister, but I hope he was. So we have a combination of Paul Kruger who, I believe, believed in taking the best out of the past and building the future on that, and the background of the 1820 Settlers, who among the Thomases and all the rest had the Fair-bairns and the Pringles who stood for the freedom of the Press. Perhaps this hon. Minister will have a very bright future.

I was grateful this evening to hear him state his findings on the granting of liquor licences to universities under the jurisdiction of the authority in charge of those universities. This is something, as the hon. the Minister knows, that I worked for a long time and he was sympathetically cooperative even in the days before he was a Deputy Minister. I am very glad that one of his first declarations of policy has been to grant this. But in regard to club licences, I want to ask him please to consider something that excludes myself as an ex-university student, who because of a war did not have time to graduate, and also the hon. member for East London North who, although he went to university for a number of years, did not have time to graduate, also through circumstances of war. I ask that he should have a look again at paragraph 3(c)(i) of his statement, which says that “klublede beperk is, tot lektore, professore, ander personeellede, nagraadse studente en student wat met hulle derde jaar besig is of reeds voltooi het”.

Include “and Bill Deacon”.

Yes, I would like to include “ex-students of the, university and adult sponsors of the university”, because we have a club at Rhodes which is hoping that it can make use of the Minister’s concession. I hope he will consider this.

The other thing I want to deal with in the three minutes I have left is the fact that we had a commission of inquiry into the deeds offices recently. It was appointed on 10 May 1974, and dealt in particular with the question as to whether conveyancers should not accept greater responsibility for the validity and correctness of the deeds which are submitted by them to the deeds offices. Now, I think the great problem in the Cape Province is distance. The Cape Province is a very vast province, and we in the Eastern Cape have a problem in that all our conveyancing has to be done through the Deeds Office in Cape Town. We have in Grahamstown a Supreme Court and a Master’s Office and this is the only seat of a Supreme Court in South Africa, in the whole of the Republic of South Africa, that does not have a Deeds Office. Because of the distance and because of the use of correspondents, the conveyancers in the Eastern Cape have a great deal of difficulty. It takes a lot of time to get your deeds through the Cape Town Deeds Office. I believe, from a late friend of mine who worked in the Deeds Office for many years, that much of the delay is due to minor mistakes made by conveyancers in the Eastern Province, but because we have to go through the long process of correspondence to the Deeds Office and back to the conveyancer, and back from the conveyancer to his correspondent and back to the Deeds Office, we have these immense delays, resulting in extra charges to the poor person who is trying to get his deed registered. I believe it is not just a question of a new deeds office situated in Grahams-town, but we should have a look at the whole question of reorganizing the jurisdiction of deeds offices. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to thank the hon. the Minister of Justice for anything this evening, but I do want to congratulate him on the debut he has made as Minister of Justice and in this regard I should like to felicitate him in particular on the way in which he dealt with both the Leeuwkop affair and the hon. member for Houghton today.

If time permits, I want to discuss two non-contentious matters this evening. The first is the effect of section l(l)(a) of the Divorce Laws Amendment Act of 1935. According to this Act the marriage between two parties may, inter alia, be dissolved if one of the parties, being the party against whom the decree is sought, has been subject to the provisions of the Mental Diseases Act of 1916 for a period of seven years and if the person is regarded as incurable. The Act also requires that such a person be certified by three medical practitioners, two of whom will be alienists appointed by the court, and that the plaintiff not be to blame for the incurable mental condition of the other party. We have learned in practice that this period of seven years can involve extreme hardship for the healthy party. It seems to me that this period of seven years was, in any event, arbitrarily determined in 1935. In practice one comes across cases where a spouse becomes certifiable, but where the other spouse, for reasons of piety or out of love for the person concerned, simply cannot see his way clear to applying for the person to be certified. After eight, ten or 15 years, when it has become very clear that it is a hopeless case, such a healthy person—if I may put it like that—wants to marry again. A relationship with another person may already have developed in the time that has passed and there have been, examples of this. It is even possible that children could have been born out of that relationship. If one investigates, it becomes clear that they will have to wait seven years or even longer before the existing marriage can be dissolved. The term of seven years is arbitrary. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether this time factor could not be done away with. If there must be such a period, it could be reduced to a year or even six months, because the test is not the term. The test is whether the person is incurable, whether the person has been certified as such. If the department feels that more than three medical practitioners have to certify a person, then, as far as I am concerned, that too is in order. The other test is whether the other person was in any way to blame for the incurableness. In our modern times many cases occur of people who suffer brain damage caused by a car accident, an accident on the sports field, an injury at work or under operation. We must provide for cases of this nature. Because the problem is, in any event, of such small scope, there have only been about 230 such cases from 1935 up to last year. For that reason, the problem does not always crop up, but I believe, that this is a matter that is deserving of our urgent attention now. If it please the hon. the Minister to do away with the term or to curtail it, I believe he would afford immediate relief to a large number of people in the country.

The second point to which I should like to refer, really arises out of the report of the Secretary for Justice for 1973. I should just like to read the introductory section on page 4—

I agree with the above. The Secretary goes on to suggest various solutions to the staff problem. For example, he has in mind the closing of certain magistrates’ offices in the smaller districts and their consolidation with others. I wonder, though, whether the answer to this problem does not lie elsewhere, particularly in view of the opposition on the part of the public that this elicited. Does the answer not lie in a separation of the judicial and administrative functions, both of which are entrusted to the magistrate at the moment? If we look at the 1965 report of the Secretary of Justice, we do in fact find that this department was thinking along these lines even then. Looking at page 26 of the 1973 report, one finds the functions performed by magistrates’ offices. One finds non-judicial functions such as the following: the solemnization of marriages, the registration of births, revenue transactions, Bantu Administration receipts, the registration of Bantu customary unions, free hospitalization applications, Land Bank cases and so on. I believe that the authorities should think along the lines of separating the judicial and the administrative functions of the magistrates. If we were to entrust the purely judicial functions to the magistrate, I believe that there would be a large number of professional men appointed to the post of magistrate. On the other hand, we could consider the appointment of an official—we could call him a district commissioner or resident, although the term “commissioner” sounds a little colonialistic—who would be able to perform the administrative functions of magistrates.

Mr. Chairman, about the middle of last week a friend of mine ’phoned from Johannesburg to say that a friend of his and an acquaintance of mine had disappeared. They had endeavoured to find out where this friend was with the assistance of the police and through lawyers’ letters and they asked me whether I could perhaps help to find out where this person was. [Interjections.] On Tuesday I asked the hon. the Minister in this House which students had been detained at the University of the North. The hon. the Minister said that he could not give me the information. I believe the hon. the Minister must explain to this House why he is not prepared to give that information, information which was published in Die Burger on Thursday, 17 October. Under section 6 of the Terrorism Act there is a fantastically powerful right which rests in the hands of the Minister. He has no responsibility towards the courts and it would appear that he has no responsibility to this House in this regard either because he refused to answer a question which had been answered already in the Nationalist Press.

Well, why are you moaning? You got the answer! [Interjections.]

Order!

It has recently come to the attention of this House and to the public in South Africa that a small municipality named Westville, comprising an area which in its sociological make-up is similar to Menlo Park, Waterkloof and Lynnwood, has refused to supply the necessary services to the Department of Prisons for the erection of a prison in that borough It is a very interesting phenomenon that a municipality of a middle-class White community consisting of mainly professional people should choose to refuse to provide services to the State for a prison.

It was probably another lot of supporters of the United Party.

Let us ask why this is the case. Westville has consistently opposed the siting of a goal in its borough. Why? First of all, because Westville is an area very similar to areas such as Lynnwood in Pretoria, which I have suggested. Secondly … [Interjections.] An hon. member says there are just a few United Party supporters living in Westville. This is typical of the Nationalist attitude. They do not care about anybody who is not a Nationalist. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

There you have it. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon. members that if ever they show their faces in Westville, we shall see what the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order!

This gaol, according to the figures the hon. the Minister supplied to me in the House, is going to provide accommodation for 4 800 people and of these 2 668 are going to be short-term prisoners, i.e. short-term and awaiting-trial prisoners. [Interjections.] This gaol is sited at one end of Westville near a very quiet suburban area. A new major suburban road will have to be built to handle the traffic that will have to go backwards and forwards … [Interjections.] Shut up, man! [Interjections.]

Order!

This gaol … [Interjections.] One wonders what has happened to our Christian National civilization now. [Interjections.]

Order!

This gaol is sited … [Interjections.]

On a point of order. Sir, I submit that those hon. members should be called to order to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

I have already called hon. members to order.

The hon. member was screaming his speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

Have you got a new leader?

Order! It is for the Chair to maintain order here and I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Umlazi entitled to make interjections from the bench of the Leader of the Opposition! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

This gaol will be sited at the quiet end of a middle-class suburb and will attract a tremendous amount of traffic. Not only that, but this gaol will house predominantly non-Whites. The Department of Prisons has a cynical disregard for Government policy, including the Group Areas Act.

How do you know that?

The Stof-berg-Gedenkskool which belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church at the end of the 1950’s was situated on the farm Groenpunt near Deneysville next to the Vaal River. That Stofberg-Gedenkskool had to move, because it was situated in a White group area. Do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? The Department of Prisons took it over and turned it into a prison for predominantly Black prisoners, many of whom were political prisoners. Dominee Stofberg was a very famous Dutch Reformed missionary, and when the Dutch Reformed Church complained to the Department of Prisons in 1961 about the fact that they retained the name of this beloved man for their prison, they eventually had to take the matter to the highest man in the country. Only in 1964 was the Department of Prisons prepared to change the name. This is the attitude of that department.

This prison is being sited in an area where it is entirely surrounded by White group areas, in total disregard of Government policy. What did the Westville people do in this regard? First of all, the Westville Civic Association compiled a petition of over 8 000 signatures in the borough of Westville in opposition to this gaol. Secondly, the Westville Municipality offered to buy the site back from the Department of Prisons at market value. Not only that, but the Westville Municipality was prepared to reimburse the Department of Prisons for any expenses they might have incurred in respect of this particular site. Furthermore, to show you the lengths to which the people of Westville were prepared to go, they attempted to find alternative sites for the Department of Prisons. However, the department has not yet given any good reasons why it turned down some of the sites which were found for it. In fact, my information from the department is that they have been looking for a site for a prison in Durban since 1918. If they had been looking for a site since 1918, they could have built the prison on North Beach in Durban.

It is past your bed-time!

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member has already wasted my time. The Westville people have done everything one could expect of decent, sensible people, and they have found that they can get nothing from the Department of Prisons. I believe that this department has exhibited the same kind of spirit it exhibited when the Dutch Reformed Church approached it in regard to the Stofberg prison in 1961. I would furthermore like to tell the hon. the Minister that the people of Westville will have my support in their efforts to resist having this prison in their community; because from a planning point of view, it is nonsensical to put that prison in the middle of a middle-class White suburb, which is not designed for that type of complex at all. It is like putting a prison alongside Monument Park or Waterkloof. I wonder how the hon. member for Waterkloof would like that! I suppose that because he is a Nationalist, they would not dream of putting the prison there. But because of the “klomp Sappe”, they want to put the prison at Westville.

Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for Pinetown made me think of the old saying, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Is that why you are speaking?

That really makes me think of the hon. member. It is a long time since I experienced such effrontery and impudence in this House on the part of a young member of this House, as this hon. young member displayed towards this House and towards hon. members. For this hon. member to accuse the hon. the Minister of irresponsibility, in fact only attests to the irresponsibility which he displayed here and which he advertised so clearly.

Surely I am a backbencher!

It is so obvious that the member is a backbencher, that he does not even have to say it. I really do not want to waste my time on what was said by the hon. member. In fact, I want to discuss a matter that is of a much calmer nature and is by no means contentious.

Do you know where Westville is?

I should be obliged if that hon. member would keep quiet now. In recent times a number of questions have been put in this House concerning the backlog at Deeds offices. These questions have been asked because the function performed by the Deeds Office in this country is a very important one, a function that determines and controls the rights of ownership of each one of us, namely, the rights of ownership in the house we live in, the rights of ownership in our farms the rights of ownership in our flats, the rights of ownership in mining titles, and so on. In fact this is so important that it is the primary barometer of the economy in this country. The business of the Deeds Office varies in accordance with the fluctuations of the economy. That is why it is essential for the evidence it provides to be unassailable.

The registration of deeds is one of the oldest functions in our Public Service. It even goes back as far as the days of Jan van Riebeeck. At the Deeds Office here in Cape Town one can still find several deeds signed by Jan van Riebeeck in the original, deeds transferring proprietary rights. However, there is this difference, that in those days the Registrar of Deeds was also the Registrar of Slaves. It was quite in order, for example, for that official to approve the transfer of a female slave. It was quite in order to transfer a female slave from one owner to another by means of a deed of transfer. I have before me an example of such a deed that is still registered in the Deeds Office in Cape Town. In it is stated, inter alia, the following—

The only point I was unable to ascertain in the Deeds Office was whether transfer duties were payable on that transaction, viz. the transfer of the slave woman to this man. When one analyses this further, one finds that it was entirely in order to mortgage such a slave woman. One could take out a mortgage on her and she would then be bound to the mortgagee. The kind of security this really afforded, I can only leave to the imagination. The other question in this regard to which I was unable to find the answer, was whether, in the case of such a bond, second bonds could also be registered against the slave woman concerned, and if so, the order of preference or priority of the various mortgages on the slave woman.

What was the interest rate in those times?

I cannot talk about interest rates. I can only say that the first mortgage, the second mortgage or the covering mortgage … [Interjections.] It was many years ago and in 1970 this division of the Registrar of Deeds was taken over by the Department of Justice because it was really a judicial task. The modern office of the Registrar of Deeds is something entirely different to what it was in the years of Jan van Riebeeck when we registered slaves. It is something entirely new. Data is taken up in computers and use is made of microfilms on which information and records are placed to facilitate processing. Besides this there is still the human factor that is essential in this regard and one still requires an examiner to go through each deed which that Deeds Office must register. They are trained people. It is calculated that a qualified checker must have knowledge of 180 Acts and ordinances to enable him to perform that task satisfactorily. This involves an enormous amount of soul-destroying overtime work. In the year 1973 alone, 157 632 deeds of transfer and 159 773 mortgages were registered. If, bearing these figures in mind, we recall the reply the hon. the Minister gave us the other day, to the effect that out of the entire Republic, the Deeds Office in Pietermaritzburg is only a day behind and the one in Vryburg half a day behind, we shall form an idea of the colossal task performed by these people, for which they often get very meagre thanks. To tell the truth, they are reproached for the most part. I want to suggest that in order to improve this position still further, further mechanization be effected in the Deeds Offices. We could perhaps consider entrusting additional work, in regard to the preparation and execution of deeds, to conveyancers, as is done in the case of sectional titles, for example, i.e. receipts of local managements, even transport duties and so on. More and better training of the examiners on a broader scale should also take place.

Mr. Chairman, two days ago I read in the Press that Adv. Jonathan Young, a former Chief State Law Adviser died in Pretoria last Sunday. I had the privilege of being an official in the Department of Justice for five years as a member of the law advisers’ group that worked under the late Mr. Young. On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, you will permit me, to pay tribute to this man. There are people who erect monuments to themselves through their labour in their daily task. Mr. Young was one of these men. His monuments are written in the annals and the Statute Books of South Africa. I may hold up to you, Sir, as just one example of this, the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which he drafted with utmost conscientiousness and a profound feeling of pride. It is a privilege to me to pay tribute to this excellent official.

Mr. Chairman, this brings me to the subject I should like to deal with here this evening, and that is that I want to lift the veil slightly on a small group of people in the Public Service, i.e. the State law advisers. Sir, I want to do so because the work of the State law advisers is an important cog in the machinery of the national economy as we know it today. Under the efficient present Chief Law Adviser, Adv. Smalberger, a person who had a brilliant academic career and who, I think, has been a member of the team of law advisers since 1948, this group of officials are doing major work in the interests of the State and also in the interest of Parliament. Sir, the work of the law advisers is of cardinal and vital importance. That small group of people doing the work in the silence of their offices, and who do not attract the attention of the public, are responsible, inter alia, for the machinery of this Parliament being able to run in top gear. All Bills coming before us, are measures which have been drawn up by this group of people. It is illuminating that in 1971 when ex-Chief Justice L. C. Steyn retired as Chief Justice, he said at a luncheon at which he was the guest of honour that in his career he had been an attorney-general, a law adviser, a legal draftsman, a judge, a judge of appeal and chief justice, and that the most difficult of the tasks he had performed in his career, was that of legal draftsman. This is truly illuminating, and for this reason I want to pay tribute this evening to this small group of officials in the Public Service, and I want to say at once that although the law advisers as a group are on the establishment of the Department of Justice, they are not the law advisers of the Department of Justice; they are the law advisers of the Public Service as a whole—of every Government department. They are also the law advisers of the House of Assembly, of the Senate, of the State President in Council, of the provincial councils, of the executive committees as well as the provincial administrations. This being so, it goes without saying that in those posts only the best is good enough for South Africa, and it goes without saying that we should appoint our best jurists to these posts. Poor legal advice, poor legal drafting, can have many detrimental effects. There is probably no need for me to elaborate on this; it is virtually self-evident. One has in mind the loss it may mean in State revenue; it may entail unnecessary expenditure; it may give rise to unnecessary litigation; it may complicate public administration, and, last but not least, it may also bring unfavourable criticism on the Government and the State and also cause great embarrassment even in the international field, and that is why it is necessary for the best people to be drawn to the division of the Government law advisers. The problem is that it is not always possible to fill the existing posts properly. The most important source of supply for the division of the law advisers, is the division of the Attorney-General. This is one division in the Public Service, in the Department of Justice—the advocates’ section—which stands on two legs, on the one hand the division of the Attorney-General and on the other hand the law advisers. I think the time has arrived, and I say this with conviction, for a complete separation of these two legs to be effected and for putting an end to the interdependence and the interchangeability of the posts, also for the purposes of seniority and promotion. We are living in a time of specialization. The efficient law adviser is someone who should have continuity in his office and also continuity in his work, because a law adviser who drafts even a small amendment to an Act, has to have regard to the consequential implications of that amendment, which may extend over a whole spectrum of legislation dealing with that particular subject. I have in mind the Group Areas Act and the industrial legislation and the legislation concerning criminal procedure, etc. That is why it is necessary to have continuity. I want to plead for two matters this evening. I want to plead that the seniority structure of these people be changed so as to eliminate the five different grades we have for law advisers at the moment, and to have one continuous scale. These people as a group are in the Civil Service sui generis. A man does not work as a law adviser under the instructions of a chief. One is a law adviser and one’s responsibility as a law adviser, whether one is a junior law adviser or a senior law adviser, is exactly the same. That is why it is necessary for the salary structure of these people to be a continuous one up to a high level so as to render it unnecessary for them to wait until higher posts fall vacant. Then I also want to ask that the matter of appointing judges from the ranks of these officials—in earlier years it was relatively common—to be borne in mind. I have in mind the late Judge of Appeal. Mr. Toon van der Heever, who was Government Law Adviser from 1926 to 1931. I have in mind Chief Justice L. C. Steyn and Mr. Justice Lansdowne and Mr. Justice Matthews and the present Judge of Appeal. Mr. Botha, who was the last ex-law adviser who was appointed to the Bench. I think that if the Minister can improve the salary structure of the law advisers and the status of these people so that competent jurists may be drawn even from outside the Public Service to fill these posts, and so that there may also be opportunities for them to be promoted to the Bench, we may succeed in doing justice to this small group of people in these important posts in our Service.

The hon. member for Ermelo raised the question of the Deeds Office and gave us an historical survey of its establishment. This raised in my mind one question which perhaps I can ask the hon. the Minister to deal with when he deals with the other points I want to raise with him, and that is the progress that has been made with the establishment of the central debt registry which is to be established in Bloemfontein with ready access to computerized systems in the various deeds registries throughout the country. Perhaps he may be able to tell us what progress has been made. As far as the reference of the hon. member for Koedoes-poort to the law advisers is concerned, I want to say that they are a happy breed. They are praised by those who agree with their opinions and they are damned by those who disagree with their opinions, and the lawyers say thank heavens the law is not exact, otherwise there would be no litigation and no prospects of a livelihood for them.

But let me get to the matters which are before us today. I want to deal firstly with the question of penal reform. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred to NICRO and its activities. I think the country welcomes the appointment of the commission to go into the question of penal reform. It is interesting to see in the reports which are before us today of the Department of Justice and the Prisons Department what can be achieved when there is a real attempt to deal with prison reform. I want to pay tribute this evening to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education because of the line which he took in association with the Department of Justice in dealing with the unnecessary imprisonment of Bantu people for periods of one month or less mainly in connection with pass offences. If one looks at the figures, they are very illuminating. I have taken them out for the last three years and one finds that out of the total sentenced to imprisonment by the courts, those sentenced to imprisonment for less than one month have remained pretty constant at 54%. The figures are large figures and I do not think one needs to go into them. The figure in respect of the Bantu involved in each year has also remained fairly constant at 83, 82, and 83% over the last three years. These figures viewed as percentages do not indicate that there has been any change. They have remained constant.

Is the 83% in respect of the 54% of Bantu prisoners?

Yes. Up to 30 June 1973, for which the last figures are available, the aid centres which were established do not appear to have had a material effect in that one still has the percentage of Bantu sentenced to terms of imprisonment of less than one month standing at 83% of the total. However, I think it is very gratifying to see—I want to say it today—what is being done now, with determination, to deal with penal reform. If one looks at the numbers that were involved, the persons who were involved, one finds that there has been a decrease in the number of Bantu that constitute the 83%. There has been a decrease from 213 000 to 153 000 over a period of two years. That means a decrease of 28% in the number of Bantu who were imprisoned for one month or less. One can only hope that this fact, which has become apparent from the statistics which we have before us, is going to encourage those responsible for the administration of aid centres to work even harder to see that this figure is reduced further. I believe that there are further innovations which can be introduced to reduce further the number of persons who are imprisoned for one month or less. I want to say, as I said at the commencement, that it is gratifying to see that this can be achieved and has been achieved over two years since the introduction of aid centres. The hon. the Minister has announced the appointment of a commission to go into penal reform. I think it is very important, but I want to link with it the question of legal aid.

There is no question about it that legal aid is succeeding in regard to civil matters. However, I do not think that this scheme has been sufficiently extended in criminal cases. I am prepared to accept that this is probably attributable more to administrative difficulties than to a desire to withhold legal aid in criminal cases. An approach in certain countries which I think could well be adopted in South Africa is that where an accused person is liable to a sentence of three months or more, legal aid is automatically offered to that accused person. Such an offer is made to the person and he can avail himself of it or not. I believe it is a legitimate request that in relation to what is offered in civil cases, a similar yardstick should be adopted in so far as criminal cases are concerned. I am sure, from the experience of the hon. the Minister and from the experience of those who are with him in the legal profession, that he will know that a person who is not represented in court is apt to be a digit moving through that court. I say it with all due respect to the presiding officer for whom I have the greatest regard. Immediately a prisoner is defended he becomes personified; he is there with someone to speak on his behalf and to present his case. This is particularly so in regard to the non-Whites. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give particularly serious consideration to extending this system to see that there are at least facilities for the man who might be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment or more.

I now want to deal very briefly with the matter of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. Every employee in the prison service, like everyone of us who walks on this earth, are different. There are different temptations we might succumb to and we have different attitudes of mind. I do understand, and I accept it, that there is great difficulty in maintaining a uniform basis of treatment or action or activity in so far as prison officials are concerned. It is human nature—we all differ. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, by keeping the reformative and welfare treatment in the prisons apart, is not running into the danger of making the prisons an enclave on their own without any sight from outside. After all, and I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me, we say so often that justice must be seen to be done. I do believe that we are running into the danger of preventing the public from seeing that humanity is being practised within the prisons if we do not permit people to see for themselves. The hon. the Minister must surely be aware of the fact that there are other countries where a prison-visitor system is applied. Persons from recognized welfare organizations from outside visit prisons and then report upon complaints without identifying the prisoner who has complained. They are then able to report the complaint to persons outside of the actual control of the prison. I think that the hon. the Minister must take a serious view of the fact that there is a danger of having a closed enclave of prisons with the result that what is going on there will be misinterpreted and misconstrued because of the refusal to allow evidence to come out of the prisons as to what is being achieved within those prisons. The hon. the Minister has referred to a large number of people who are working in those prisons. Surely if those people were allowed a certain degree of contact with the outside world, outside the prisons and outside the prisons’ administration, it would be to the benefit of the country to the extent that they are attempting to do something for the prison population.

Finally, I want to refer to the question of magistrates. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West quoted from the report of the Secretary for Justice and I just want to repeat one sentence from that report. I quote—

And that is still the position today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it would perhaps be wise at this stage to reply to some of the statements made by hon. members so far and also to some of the questions put to me. If I do not do this, we are going to find later on that there are too many hon. members to reply to, with the result that I might give them skimpy replies, and that is something I should not like to do. Right at the beginning I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North. He asked me a question concerning individual freedoms, civil liberties. He asked me what my attitude was towards the freedoms of the individual. I think this is a fair question. Since I am the new Minister of Justice, it is no more than right to ask me where I stand in respect of individual freedom and where I stand in respect of laws restricting that freedom. The hon. member for East London City asked me the same question. He also said he would like to know where I stood in respect of the freedom of the individual. I gladly reply to these hon. members in respect of that point. I stand unconditionally and have every respect for individual freedom. I regard individual freedom as one of the fundamental freedoms to which any person is entitled. In my view every person has two lives. The one is his individual life, in respect of which he is entitled to do things in private and to tell other people to stay out of his domain since this domain is one in which he alone has the right to determine who may come closer and who has to stay away. This is his own individual life. However, every individual has a community life as well. As such he is a member of a community, a member of a people, a member of a nation, a member of a country in a geographic environment in which that people and that country also have certain rights. In that collective context the individual has certain obligations. I believe unconditionally in the freedoms of the individual, i.e. his right of speech, his right of movement, his right to freedom, provided that he must always integrate his individual life with the needs and the pattern of life of that community. In other words, that liaison between his individual life and his community life is in effect his legal position in the community. I can try to explain this with the aid of a very simple example. A person has the right to go where he pleases, but if he follows a road of the community, then he is following a road which other persons also have a right to follow. The moment other persons also have a right to do the same thing, to follow the same course, he is under an obligation to regulate his movements in such a way that he will not hinder the other persons in their movements. The community would then have the right to say: A community interest is at stake now, a robot is being put up now so that we may regulate the various freedoms of the individual for the benefit of the community. In this way it is possible for one to develop the concept until one reaches the position which the hon. member and I debate and in respect of which he challenged me, namely to what extent we may make laws in terms of which persons may be restricted in the discretion of a Minister. The hon. member granted me this point, and said that in a state of emergency he conceded that the State should have that right. I want to tell the hon. member that when any people is living in times of absolute security, i.e. in peace without dangers and crises, it is the State’s responsibility to allow the individual to realize his individual freedom to the maximum. But when that State finds itself in a position where it has to protect the community life against threats, it is entitled to demand that its citizenry curtail their freedom voluntarily for the sake of community interests, for the preservation of our people, our world and our way of life. Now, it is all very well to hold up to me the condition “if a state of emergency is declared”. It seems to me as though hon. members are still living in the period when their party was sitting on this side of the House and when a state of emergency did prevail. At the time there was also a state of declared war, and a state of emergency was declared. Since that war was ended, there have been many other wars, but these were never declared. Even at this stage no peace treaty has as yet been concluded between the so-called Allied powers and the Axis powers since the end of the Second World War. In other words, the position has changed completely. The state of war still exists, for it is a struggle between the communist ideology and the Western world. We know in what direction the world is moving. We see that the great powers are already sending more ships to the Indian Ocean at present than they did before. Terrorism is a form of war which is not declared at all. Subversion is a type of campaign in respect of which one is not told: “I am now going to subvert your people in order to achieve a certain object.” We must use our own intelligence. We must see for ourselves when a campaign of subversion is of such a nature that it is going to have a paralysing effect on the backbone of our people. In our search for the truth we must be able to determine for ourselves to what extent terrorism constitutes a threat for South Africa. I want to give hon. members opposite this assurance: I am very much aware of man’s individual rights, but I am also very, very much aware of the fact that South Africa is a coveted base which the communist states would be able to use, if they should be able to lay hands on it, for their world domination plan.

Having said this, I know hon. members will immediately say to me: “Now it depends on your qualification whether you can determine in what circumstances persons should be restricted or detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act.” I cannot furnish a reply to that. It depends on individual members opposite whether they are going to tell me—they always have the right to say this—“we do not accept your integrity”, or “we do not accept that you are a competent person”. That is their right. It is a question which can be debated here. They can ask me what the position is, but I can tell them nothing more than that I very, very thoroughly examine every restriction submitted to me. Hon. members can go and ask the hon. member for Green Point, who has just spoken, how the facts are presented to us. He was on the Schlebusch Commission. That hon. member will tell you that there are facts supported by indisputable documentary evidence. I may therefore tell hon. members that I make absolutely sure of the facts submitted to me.

In so far as that is possible.

In so far as that is humanly possible. More than that I shall never be able to do. Not even a judge could do more.

You are a lawyer. Surely you know what the position is.

One cannot rely on cross-examination only. I accept the submission of the police. I ask for more evidence, if necessary. I make sure of everything. However, in the national interest I cannot go to the public courts as far as certain cases are concerned.

I did not say so. You did not listen attentively.

I did listen at tentively. The hon. member wants a tribunal, but once again he simply used a word. What is a tribunal? I am to appoint a tribunal …

Read my Hansard.

The hon. member asked that, and I made a note of it.

I said it could be done in camera.

I know the hon. member told me they could be tried in camera. That is correct, but it still has to be a tribunal. Those were the hon. member’s words.

Yes.

Very well, then let us therefore argue the matter on that basis.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister referred to the experience I had while sitting on a certain commission. Is the hon. the Minister aware that despite all I had listened to and all I had access to, I have recommended to colleagues of mine that there should still be the safeguard of a tribunal?

I am quite aware of the humanity we all suffer from, and a tribunal will be in exactly the same position if they should sit in camera. They will not be able to have lengthy cross-examinations, not with a full court case in camera.

Do you ever call for the other side’s view?

Of course. I have told the hon. member that I look at every possible thing and if I think that the facts are not substantiated, I will not sign the document.

*The hon. member wants this tribunal to which he is referring to sit in camera. I am not trying to run away from this point. I shall look at the Hansard and reply to it again tomorrow. The tribunal the hon. member has in mind is a tribunal consisting of two or three judges, or magistrates. Am I correct?

Of lawyers with experience.

How many lawyers with experience?

I am referring to the principle only.

The hon. member is referring to the principle only. He therefore wants a lawyer with experience. This person is now to examine the documents in camera, after which he is to decide whether a restriction order should be issued.

That is not my point.

But just what is the hon. member’s point then? Or does he not have a point?

My question is what are the facts.

The hon. member will never get down to the facts unless he has a full court case. In this regard the hon. member will not be able to have a full court case either—that is impossible.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? The hon. the Minister as a lawyer knows that he cannot possibly know what the facts are without hearing both sides and without testing the evidence on both sides. Is that not so?

It is quite obvious that the hon. member does not know exactly what is happening. Let us take section 6 as an example. A man is caught and there are certain facts pointing to his guilt in terms of the Terrorism Act. The man is then called in for interrogation. A number of people may be arrested. However, the case is, at that stage, not yet ready for trial. Does the hon. member not appreciate—if he does not I want to tell him that he does not want to—that with a very serious charge like this, where people often work in twos or in cells, as is more commonly done, it is very difficult to find out exactly what is happening? Before the case is ready for trial there is a lot of interrogation that has to take place and much has to be done to keep people away from each other. How does the hon. member envisage a tribunal handling all this? That, obviously, must be a matter for the Police to lay before the Minister. The safeguard for this is in the Act. As far as the physical condition of the prisoner is concerned it is provided in the Act that a magistrate will visit him every two weeks if possible. As far as the need for detainment is concerned, it is provided that there must be a full report to the Minister of Justice every month. If there were a tribunal it would have to be appointed by the Minister of Justice so that, in any case, the matter would still come back to the Minister of Justice for his discretion. I have to appoint a person who is a lawyer. I happen to be a lawyer myself and, therefore, do not have to appoint a tribunal. I have to exercise my discretion and I want to remind the hon. member of what was said in this House before in regard to people who have been banned under the discretion of my predecessor. The hon. member knows that about 75% of them are detained on Robben Island. That discretion was very well exercised.

There are some doubts about that!

The hon. member knows that in regard to certain bannings, that discretion was very well exercised.

*Mr. Chairman, we could argue from now until tomorrow, but I am not prepared to do so. Hon. members asked me what my standpoint was. My standpoint is that I have the greatest respect for individual freedom, but my standpoint is also that the security of the State is the supreme right. My standpoint is that as long as I hold this office, as long as the hon. the Prime Minister entrusts me with this portfolio, I shall to the best of my ability exercise my discretion under the Act as I must. Whenever I feel that South Africa is running the risk of being subverted, I shall not hesitate to restrict a person immediately and I shall not hesitate to allow him to be detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. This is my standpoint.

May I ask the hon. the Minister two questions? Firstly, when the hon. the Minister signs the banning order which results in someone’s civil death—he is not allowed to do various things—should he not have a tribunal to ensure that the facts on the grounds of which he signed the warrant are correct? Secondly, for interrogation purposes, why does he not make use of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1966, which provides that after 14 days a judge can consider the facts and decide whether that person should be detained or not?

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to debate the merits of those two Acts all over again. All of that stands recorded in Hansard. I looked it up this afternoon. All those points were debated properly under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. As long as he is in the Opposition, my hon. friend will never accept it. He will always bring it up, and it is his right to pose as a person who stands for individual freedom. I want to give him the assurance tonight—and I do so in a friendly spirit; I am not angry with him—that if I had also been in the Opposition, I, too, would adopt this “holier-than-thou” attitude. [Interjections.] I would also have said: “Release the people.” However, that hon. member is not charged with the security of South Africa. We bear the responsibility, as the Government towards him and the public, of ensuring the security of South Africa.

Then why did the Government pass this Act allowing a judge to have that power?

Oh, Sir, those hon. members are so obsessed with the word “rights” that I do not want to argue the matter any further with them. [Interjections.] I have just tried to explain to hon. members that there are certain administrative measures which I must take. While I am charged with the responsibility for this Vote, the hon. member should at least credit me that measure of integrity if I give him the assurance, which in fact I do, that I shall not take irresponsible action in these circumstances and that my action in this regard is necessary for the security of South Africa.

But that is not the question.

I am not prepared to argue about it any further. I have stated my standpoint. When the hon. member comes into power one day, he, too, would be able to tell me what he would like to do. I have stated the standpoint taken up up by this side of the House, and it is this side of the House that was put into power by the people. We are carrying out our duties to the best of our ability. I also want to tell the hon. member that we are doing so in all humility. We do not do what is done by the hon. member back there who, with his sneering political shabbiness, is trying to suggest that we simply want to have things exactly our own way. That is not the case.

The difference is simply that I shall reply to your question.

I think I have now dealt in detail with the question of civil liberties that was raised here.

My I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will the hon. the Minister please reply to the question I put to him on this score, namely, whether the people presently detained under Section 6 are made aware of their rights under this section and whether they are being visited by a magistrate once every fortnight?

That hon. member should not be so presumptuous. I will indeed come to her question. I am by no means trying to avoid it. I shall reply to it as soon as I come to it. There are a number of other members who also spoke; the hon. member for Houghton is not the only member who spoke.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for East London City. I have already stated my standpoint in regard to the rights of the individual. I think he told me that he thought the time had arrived for certain sections of the so-called “security legislation” to be deleted.

No.

That is what he said.

To send it to the South African Law Commission.

I wrote down what he said; he said: “The time has come to amend or to repeal sections of the Act.”

To enquire whether it should not be repealed.

The hon. member said: “I believe these rights have been abrogated and the time has come to amend or repeal sections of the Act.”

No, to send them to the Law Commission to decide whether they should be repealed.

I just want to say to the hon. member, and I do so with great respect to his learnedness, that the time is not opportune to abrogate or to repeal any of these sections of the security legislation. If the hon. member will look round in Southern Africa he too will realize that the time is certainly not ripe at this stage to repeal any of this legislation. I have already stated that I have to try to find a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of the State. I think that point was also made by the hon. member for East London City. I say quite categorically that if the time does arrive when these laws can be repealed, I would be the first person who would like to repeal them. We do not like this legislation; we like it just as little as the hon. member likes it, but unfortunately this is necessary legislation. It is absolutely necessary for the security of South Africa, and I think hon. members opposite are aware of that.

I have to accept your decision.

Unfortunately the hon. member has no option but to accept it until the electorate throws us out. After all, we have been voted into power and that is why we are governing.

*Sir, to the hon. member for Klerksdorp, who spoke about the positive aspects of the prisons department, I should like to extend my sincere thanks for the fine speech. He explained the observation centres to us; he held up to us the treatment received there by prisoners, and he proved to this Committee that there was much more to this aspect of prison work than appeared here tonight from speeches made on that side of the House.

Sir, now I come to the hon. member for Houghton. She wanted to put a question to me. She can put her question again now, if she does not mind; then I shall be able to reply to it at once. She wants to know whether these people are being informed in regard to their rights. I want to tell the hon. member that I believe they are in fact being informed about their rights, but I undertake to make sure again that the officers working with these people do inform them about their having certain rights in terms of this Act. I give her that undertaking. I just want to correct one thing here which I said a moment ago while I was replying to the hon. member for Houghton. I told her that I would give sympathetic consideration to any request I received from any member wanting to visit one of the prisons. I want to qualify that by saying that if the prisoner is a security prisoner, I shall have to approach the request from the security angle. With that qualification I repeat what I said before. It is quite correct that I extended an open invitation to hon. members to visit some of our prisons, but when security prisoners are involved, there will be cases where I shall even have to refuse requests by hon. members on this side to visit those specific prisons, because I must approach the matter from a security angle [Interjection.] I could not hear that hon. member’s interjection.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am referring to the hon. member’s leader who is so quiet, the hon. member’s second-in-command who is always second. What was the hon. member’s interjection?

Are you suggesting that she is a security risk?

I reject that suggestion by the hon. member with total contempt.

Then why should she not go to security prisons?

I say that no member may visit any security prison unless I have first considered the matter from a security angle. There may be times when even members on this side of the House will not be allowed to visit a security prison. It depends on the security situation. That is all I told the hon. member. I reject that suggestion by the hon. member with contempt.

Why can’t I go to Robben Island?

Is the hon. member making an application in open House? She must make it in writing and I will consider it from the security point of view.

*I want to tell the hon. member that I know she is very keen to visit. Robben Island, but that she should first tell me why. She should tell me what she wants to find on Robben Island. Why does she not rather want to go to the Victor Verster? [Interjection.] Write it out for me and then I shall give some thought to it. The hon. member also spoke about the medical practitioners in the prisons. She spoke very sneeringly about this matter. Sir, I know very little about these medical practitioners, but personally I want to tell that hon. member that I do not think, even though I know so little about them, that they are conducting themselves as poorly as she has suggested in this House tonight. Until she submits to me the evidence she is receiving from those prisoners, without telling us about it, about how poorly these medical practitioners are ostensibly conducting themselves, I am afraid I must accept that they are not conducting themselves in that manner.

Will you give protection to prisoners whose letters were smuggled out?

Is the hon. member telling me that letters are smuggled through to her and she does not tell the authorities about it?

They arrive in the post. What am I to do?

You are supposed to give them to the authorities.

No, I will not.

I am very pleased the hon. member admits that in public at last, that she is not prepared to give letters to the authorities which are smuggled through to her; she keeps them and relies on them when she comes to argue here but she never gives the authorities an opportunity to refuting it. [Interjection.] And then she has the cheek to come and ask me where I get my facts from before I ban a person. She accepts the facts contained in smuggled letters written by people who may have been psychologically unsound, and she comes into this House and uses those facts to kick up a row here.

Lots of complaints come out of the gaols.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for congratulating me on becoming a Minister. Thank you very much for those congratulations. She said this towards the end of her speech, but I made a note of it. Now I want to congratulate her on something. In the eight years during which I have been a member of this House, she has never said a word in Afrikaans, but today she used the word “tjoepstil” (quite quiet). I want to congratulate her on that. [Interjections.]

I want to agree fully with what the hon. member said on legal aid. Since we are talking about legal aid now, I may as well refer to the very positive speech made by the hon. member for Green Point, a speech in which he, too, raised certain aspects of legal aid. I shall definitely consider them. I think three months is a little too short. I think we shall find that it will cost an enormous amount of money if we want to defend people faced with a sentence of three months. But I want to point out that I said in my maiden speech that, as far as I was concerned, when a difficult judgment was passed and a person was undefended—and it very often happens that a legal question arises on which the person concerned should, even on a technical point, perhaps be found not guilty—and the magistrate sat there with the prosecutors only, he could hardly be expected to require the prosecutor to argue the point on behalf of the accused. Where such a case occurs, I should say the obvious thing is for an advocate or attorney to be appointed to conduct that argument. But the hon. member also gave me a positive suggestion in asking whether we would not perhaps have more pro deos than was the case at the moment, and to that I shall in fact give attention.

The hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting speech. He apologized to me for the fact that he would have to be absent tonight. The hon. member spoke about the establishment of magisterial districts in Coloured areas. I do not think it is necessary to establish magisterial districts in Coloured areas, but I do think it is absolutely essential that more and more Coloureds should come forward for training as prosecutors and as magistrates. In reply to questions I said in this House that the Coloureds were not coming forward in sufficient numbers to do this very interesting kind of work. In this regard we have the same position we have in regard to many other things. I do not wish to drag the position of the Coloureds into the debate on these Votes, but it is a fact that there are people in South Africa who are continually drumming it into the Coloureds that they should try to win political rights. However, this entire field is lying fallow for the Coloureds. I can use every magistrate, every prosecutor and every official given to me by the Coloured community. We should like to make use of the services of the Coloureds, but we cannot force any Coloured person to attend these courses if he does not want to do so. As far as the Coloureds and the Bantu are concerned, I want to extend an open invitation: Take the facilities and the benefits offered to you by this Government, and take those things which can provide you with a standard of living. We are willing to help, but they must also try to help themselves, for without efforts being made on their part we cannot help them. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for Bellville for a very interesting thought. The matter is in the hands of the Coloureds now. I have made the offer, and if they want to come forward we shall be able to make use of their services.

The hon. member for Wynberg also apologized for the fact that he would not be able to be present here tonight. He said there were 18 towns in the rural areas of the Cape in which there were no legal practitioners who could advise the inhabitants. Our country towns are in a peculiar position in that a large-scale depopulation of the rural areas is the order of the day at present. After all, the attorney’s profession consists of people who only go to places where there is trouble or other people. As the rural areas become depopulated, the attorneys will leave them too. However, the hon. member did come forward with a very positive thought. He said consideration was to be given to the work of the State attorney to determine whether the State attorney had not perhaps taken away too much work from the country attorney. I want to point out that my department is ascertaining at the moment what work has to be done by the State attorney himself, what work has to be given to the attorneys and what work should not be accepted at all. I am going to ask my department to carry out that investigation in consultation with the law societies, for I think the law societies also have a right to having a say in the distribution of this work. I think we shall be able to find one another in that field in dialogue. I am very scrupulously intent on preventing the attorney’s profession being harmed to such an extent that they will not be able to fend for themselves. I think the attorneys have a very clearly defined task in the community, and personally I am not desirous of taking that away from them. I shall therefore give attention to this matter that was raised by the hon. member.

As far as the hon. member for Vereeniging is concerned, he mentioned a very interesting phenomenon. He referred to the Makgotlas. In the very large Johannesburg Bantu city of Soweto crime has increased to such an extent, especially crime committed by the smaller gangs, that the Black people themselves have constituted the so-called Makgotlas. Strangely enough, despite the fact that the hon. member for Houghton and the other Opposition members are always telling us that tribal ties no longer exist in this large township, the Makgotlas are organized on the basis of an ethnic grouping. These people have, as it were, constituted a tribal court, where they follow tribal customs in meeting out punishment. The hon. member for Houghton, with her cultural background and norms which are totally different from those of the Black people, was the first person who wanted to force her norms on them. Making a big fuss and wearing a pained expression, she asked here why we were allowing the Makgotlas to give people hidings.

Like flogging women!

Now what does the hon. member know about flogging? She does not know when a person is flogged. She must stop pretending to have a special lease of wisdom.

Why don’t you answer the question?

I am replying to it, but then the hon. member comes cackling in between and so gives rise to another argument for me to reply to. If the hon. member does not want me to speak to her that way, she should keep quiet. She is the one who makes interjections of that nature, and then she expects us to keep quiet. Our people are inclined to force our norms on the Black people. These people have their own norms. I want to tell hon. members that we have put a stop to the Makgotlas hidings. We went and spoke to these people. We had a number of magistrates there, as well as representatives of the Bantu Administration, members of the Police Force, Mr. Lengene and other Black people, and we appealed to them to be reasonable. They were dissatisfied about our talking to them and told us to leave them to clear up the gangs in their own way. I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that to a large extent I agree with him that we should perhaps look into the matter of the Makgotlas, because we do not want them to hit their people as mercilessly as they did. One could perhaps apply the whole idea of a policing of their own in a positive manner by allowing that large Black city to be controlled by its own people.

Helen, you really have come off badly today.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West furnished us with interesting facts about Nicro. I want to tell the hon. member that to a large extent Nicro’s work, and especially the after-care work, is work which falls under the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and I do not wish to interfere. The work done by them for people released from prisons, is purely and simply welfare work. Generally I am sympathetic towards the organization as a whole and especially towards their study projects and the attempts made by them to improve conditions in prisons. I shall give attention to the questions put to me by the hon. member, but I cannot promise that we shall be able to make a financial contribution, for up to now financial contributions have fallen under the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We as a department cannot simply ignore the other department when we do certain things. I shall have to consult the Department of Social Welfare in this matter, and I shall also have to consider my department’s position first. In general I can tell the hon. member that I adopt a sympathetic attitude towards Nicro and its work.

Now I come to the point raised by the hon. member for Albany. He said he would like to be a member of the university club there.

As an old student. The hon. member for East London City, too, had to leave the university due to circumstances before obtaining his degree.

It really is a pity that the hon. member did not obtain a degree there, for then it would have been easy. Since the hon. member did not obtain a degree—we are not all so gifted that we can obtain degrees, but he may have other very good qualities which graduates do not have—I think we should give him a chance. All that will be necessary will be for that club to adapt its constitution in such a way that it will provide who it wants as members. Theft we would be able to consider it departmentally and to sanction it in the licence. I should also like to see membership of that club being extended to those who did not study at that place on a fulltime basis or those who donate money to the university without their having been associated with it as students. I am familiar with such old boys’ clubs, and it is pleasant to be a member of them. I think that was the only question the hon. member put.

What about the deeds office?

Oh yes, the hon. member would have liked the deeds office to have been at Grahamstown. As far as the deeds offices are concerned, I just want to say that we are carrying out an investigation at present into those places where deeds offices are to be located. This comprises a redistribution of the work in general as far as deeds offices are concerned. I hope to be able to give a more positive report to hon. members in the next session.

Just as long as it is sympathetic.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to section 11(a) in connection with divorces. He said that a marriage could be dissolved after the passage of seven years in a case where one of the parties was suffering from a mental defect and where the other party was not to blame for it. In my opinion he put the case well. One does find cases where persons are quite unsound mentally, so much so that it can be determined long before the passage of seven years that the condition is incurable. In such circumstances there is no point in preserving the matrimonial ties for an arbitrary statutory period. I think one could profitably refer this matter to our Law Commission for consideration. I hope to be able to report to the hon. member on this matter again at a later stage. He also put forward an interesting suggestion in regard to staff problems, and we shall give attention to it.

The hon. member for Pinetown quarrelled with me about Westville. Unfortunately he also made an insinuation, or rather, I felt it to be an insinuation, namely that I had had access to the interview he had conducted with the Rand Daily Mail’s reporter.

†I want to tell that hon. member that the scurrilous remarks he made about me and the Government in that particular interview, which the Rand Daily Mail did not even publish, but which was given to me so that I could comment on it, is not worthy of a member of Parliament at all.

*I want to tell the hon. member …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, stop trying to be cock of the walk again. You are in any case too impudent for a young man and for a small man …

Order! The hon. the Minister must not say that hon. members are impudent.

If I may not say that hon. members are impudent, may I say that they are cocks of the walk, Sir? May I call him a little Bantam cock?

An hon. member.

That hon. member says he is an hon. member, therefore I shall not call him an hon. little Bantam cock. Sir, I just want to tell him that it seemed to me as though he was trying to insinuate that I had refused this House certain information and had furnished one of the National newspapers with it. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether this is his insinuation, yes or no.

No.

I accept it.

What are you going to do about it?

May I reply to that question? [Interjections.]

I do not wish to make a point of that, and I accept without qualifications that the hon. member did not insinuate that I had furnished a National newspaper with information which I had told this House was not in the public interest to furnish it with. I am a person who believes that as much information as possible must be given, especially to members of the House of Assembly. Hon. members are aware of the fact that I often invite to my office hon. members who want information from me which is not in the public interest to be made known generally, and that I say to such members, “Since you are a member of the House of Assembly, there is the information. Look at it.” It is my policy to give the Press and Parliament as much information as possible on the activities of the Government in South Africa. When I rise in this House and say that I do not think it is in the public interest to furnish certain information, I mean what I say. Then I do not like having my bona fides called into question by a young member such as the hon. member for Pinetown, and such an impudent young member at that.

Order!

I withdraw the word “impudent”.

Now I come to the hon. member’s argument on Westville. It appeared to me as though the hon. member himself knew the history of Westville, but for his information I could just outline it briefly. He said premises were sought as early as 1918. The fact of the matter is, however, that premises for a new prison in Durban were sought as far back as 1916. As the Railways and the Municipality required the prison site for additions to the station and accommodation, respectively, during 1939—it was not this side of the House that was in power then—attempts were again made to acquire a site, but these were stopped owing to the outbreak of the war. In 1944 the Minister of justice approved a site in principle, after urgent representations that the prison be replaced. That was the one that was in Durban. In 1952 there was talk of a site at Isipingo, but this was found to be too marshy. In the course of time several sites were offered and viewed. However, they were either too small, or situated in group areas or unsuitable for building purposes. For instance, the La Monte Estate, which was 25 acres in extent, was unsuitable for building purposes. Cato Manor, which was 20 acres in extent, was a private property which was too small and therefore unsuitable; the Salvation Army farm at Cato Manor, five miles out of Durban, was also too small; Randall’s Estate, which was 30 acres in extent, was also unsuitable for housing purposes. And so I could continue. We searched and searched and eventually we decided on Westville. Now I want to ask the hon. member this: Just what is wrong with Westville?; I was slightly astonished at the absolutely racialist attitude adopted by the hon. member. [Interjections.] Yes, I was amazed.

Mr. Chairman …

Sit down!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister asked me a question. Can I reply?

No, I am making a statement. I say I was astonished at the hon. member’s being able to adopt such an attitude towards another race by saying: “Look here, I do not want to have these Black people near me. Westville is simply not such an area.” The hon. member said that this prison would practically accommodate non-Whites only and that they were not allowed to enter Westville.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to questions now. I am telling the hon. member something. It is his turn to listen now. That prison had to be built somewhere. That was determined some time ago. The previous Minister went there to inspect the site personally. I knew the hon. member was going to talk about Westville here. I was prepared tonight to make him an offer that I myself would also go and inspect the place. However, in the document submitted to me by the department, I saw that my hon. predecessor had already gone to Westville to take a look. Apparently he met the people there and gave proper attention to the site. In those circumstances I want to tell him that I am not going to question my predecessor’s findings. We have done our level best to get hold of a prison site for the people of Durban. We have now determined that it will be erected in Westville. I want to ask the hon. member, as the responsible member in this House, to reconcile his people with the idea that a social service is going to be rendered in Westville. I want to give him the assurance that once that prison has come into being there, when he will see the beautiful sports fields that are going to be laid on there, when he starts having dealings with the kind of people who are going to live there, the people who are going to strengthen his schools, he will change his mind. Does he know how many people come to us with applications for prisons to be built near their little towns? The hon. member should in actual fact be grateful that a prison is going to be built there.

We are not.

I know the hon. member is not, but he is not grateful for a thing.

Sixteen thousand people are not grateful either.

The hon. member is not grateful for a thing, nor will he ever be, for he is not positive enough in his approach. The hon. member is one of those little chaps who want to go ahead at all costs. I may as well tell the hon. member at this early stage of his career—I am doing so in friendship, because it does not seem to me as though the senior members in this party have rapped him over the knuckles yet—that ambition is a very good and interesting ideal, but it is also a wild horse. That hon. member is building for himself a reputation of trying to talk about everything in the most impossible manner. The hon. member should curb his ambition a little, for it is a horse which can jump and he can fall off. That same seat in which he is sitting was occupied before by other people who have already disappeared from this House. It is therefore not fitting for a man to pretend to be here for ever.

Now, is that pastoral or brotherly?

It is pastoral, it is brotherly and it is Christianlike. I did not think the hon. member would accept it, for he is spiritually not attuned to it. He is just too much of a cock of the walk … Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

The hon. member for Ermelo gave us a very interesting speech on the deeds office, for which I want to thank him sincerely. He suggested that we mechanize to a greater extent. I accept this as a very good suggestion, and we shall give attention to it. The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked that the divisions of the law advisers and the attorneys-general be divorced from each other so that each might have its own opportunities for promotion. This is a good suggestion and we shall look into the matter. The hon. member also asked us to appoint judges from their ranks. The fact of the matter is that two or more judges were appointed from the ranks of the law advisers. I think these were Judge of Appeal Mr. Botha as well as a former Judge of Appeal, i.e. Toon van den Heever. My standpoint in respect of the appointment of judges is that I have a conventional responsibility towards the Bars of South Africa. I am not disinclined to consider this request. It is not an illogical request, but a good one. However, it is not a request to which I shall be able to accede without my having consulted the Bars properly and their having given me an indication of how they view the situation. I hope this satisfies the hon. member. Calm down, hon. members need not get a fright; it is not my intention to appoint somebody.

The hon. member for Green Point made a very positive contribution, of which I shall have to take note. He welcomed the commission of inquiry into the penal system. The greatest need, to my mind, is that we should get the prisons to be emptier, and that is why I appointed that commission. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that this is all that will be investigated by this commission. It is not a commission of inquiry into the prison system as such. It is a commission of inquiry into the penal system of South Africa. My concern is primarily—and I would be very grateful if the commission could let me have an interim report—with ways and means of getting those prisons to be emptier. I am interested in bringing about a downward trend in the prison population. I have already replied to the questions in regard to legal aid. The hon. member also asked me to make prisons more accessible to members of the general public. I shall give attention to that in the normal course of our administration and matters of policy. We shall discuss the matter with the Commissioner and see how we can give the public more information on the positive work we are trying to do in the prisons. If I understood the hon. member correctly, this is really what he had in mind. He wants us to give more publicity to the positive work being done in prisons by way of rehabilitation, and so forth.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will you receive a letter from me in regard to what I wanted to say about chief magistrates?

I should gladly accept such a letter. I think I have now replied to all the questions that were put to me.

Mr. Chairman, from the interesting report of the Department of Justice it appears, inter alia, that the South Eastern Cape local division of the Supreme Court was established with effect from 1 January 1974. It consists of six districts. The establishment of this division was preceded by an intensive inquiry by Mr. Justice Rumpff of the Appellate Division. With respect, I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that an inquiry in depth should also be instituted into the situation prevailing in the rapidly growing East Rand and that attention should be given to the establishment of a local division on the East Rand. I am convinced that a real need exists for a local division on the East Rand. At the same time I want to suggest that such a division be established in Brakpan, which is the geographical centre of the East Rand.

I should like to mention a second matter. A matter receiving a great deal of attention at this stage, is the question of the alarming increase in the divorce rate in our country. I should like to deal with the question of divorces and the consequences a divorce has for those concerned. In fact, I want to state that there is no horizontal love which is as great as the mutual love between a bride and a bridegroom when they stand before the altar. At the same time, on the other hand, there is no greater and more bitter venom than when that couple face each other in the divorce court. In the process the husband, the wife, the children, the community and our country as a whole suffer in consequence of that divorce. I should like to mention a few figures in this regard. The divorce rate in South Africa is approximately the third highest in the world. But for those of the United States and Denmark, our divorce rate is the highest. Regard should be had to the fact that married couples do not apply for a divorce immediately after a desertion, but that some time first lapses during which they see whether they are not able to solve the problem. For this reason it is estimated that there are approximately 15 000 White married couples today who are no longer living together in a family relationship. The divorce rate shows a sustained rising trend. In 1951 there were 6,70 divorces per thousand of the White population. In 1969 the number of White marriages that were dissolved in a divorce, exceeded the 7 000 mark and the ratio rose to 8,5 persons per thousand. More than 8 000 children are involved in divorces annually. We only have to read the newspapers of the past few weeks to see for ourselves that young people who clash with the law, often are young people who come from broken homes. Recently we had the case of the youth in Bloemfontein who was sentenced on a murder charge. The vast majority of these people come from unhappy marriages which unleash tension, intolerance, bitterness and venom. Sometimes it would seem that even the death of a parent was preferable to a divorce. In the Bloemfontein case the boy was described by the judge as a warped piece of wood which remained after the ship of his family life had been wrecked and which was washed up on the beach of life by the waves. How many warped pieces of wood are not washed up on the beaches of life and accumulate there? The judge also referred to this person as a “twisted personality” Recent figures reveal that approximately 80 divorces are dealt with in the Rand divorce court every Wednesday. These divorces take two to three minutes each to be granted. The future of the children is decided there. I welcome the idea of the South African Law Society to refer the question of marriage laws to the Law Revision Commission. In the meantime I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that attention be given to having the control and supervision of children determined at this stage, not by way of an agreement as often happens in an uncontested divorce case, but by a family court to which consideration should be given. What I actually want to suggest is that it be made compulsory for a welfare worker a social worker, to inquire into the circumstances in order to determine with whom the children may be placed to their best advantage. In addition I want to ask—I know I am entering a dangerous field—the hon. the Minister to give his attention also to the question of access to the child by the non-supervisory parent. This is the very thing that gives rise to that triangle one constantly finds of the non-supervisory parent endeavouring at all times to draw the children to him or her by way of presents and pleasant weekends and holidays and to make out the supervisory parent as being the boring one. Such tension existing among the three, is nearly worse than the divorce itself. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will reconsider the whole matter of marriage legislation.

Mr. Chairman, whilst we wish the hon. the Minister well in his new office, we are not willing to accept some of the explanations he has given us this evening. This subject is not something which is much at variance as far as we are concerned, but nevertheless I want once again to raise the question of legal aid. I want to ask him to give more attention to the matter than merely endeavouring to ensure that only those charged with offences which could lead to convictions of a more serious nature, than those meriting only a three month term, be further considered in the light of their receiving legal aid almost as of right. Both the Legal Aid Board and the Association of Law Societies complain that there is not sufficient work for them to do. They feel that there is ample opportunity for the volume of work for which they have prepared themselves, to be increased. Sufficient funds are available to enable this work to be considerably expanded. In fact, I think that if anything, the amount of money that has been placed on the Estimates this year should not be adequate to cover the amount of work which the Board and the legal fraternity can encompass satisfactorily in pursuing the purpose for which the Legal Aid Board was established. In the year ended March 1973 the Board spent an amount of only R185 000 although R210 000 was provided. This year some R370 000 is provided. The point that I particularly want to make is that the amount budgeted for Prisons is R55 million odd. This amount has been increased by 37½% over the amount provided for last year. Last year the amount was approximately R41 million. It is quite obvious that the work and the activities of the Department of Prisons are increasing tremendously. This is as a result of certain other figures which I notice from the report of the Director of Prisons and which my hon. friend, the hon. member for Green Point, has merely discussed by way of percentages. According to the information disclosed in the report, for the year ended June 1973, 364 200 persons who were sentenced and 268 487 persons who were not sentenced, were persons admitted to prison over that year. In other words, during that year some 600 000 persons passed through the prisons. This is a considerable number of people. In respect of the sentenced prisoners—i.e. the persons who received sentences—184 583 were people who received sentences of up to and including one month and 188 538 were people who received sentences of more than one month but less than three months. It is quite clear, therefore, that one might almost say that the offences of these 300 000-odd persons who were sentenced were fairly minor. Perhaps in the second category they were slightly more serious. Of this total number that I have described—this is the percentage which the hon. member for Green Point tried to make clear to the hon. the Minister—302 447 were Black people. The point that I want to make is that a great number of these people could have avoided being sentenced at all. We know this, particularly in view of certain reports we have had, reports which have been commented on even by judges. For instance, we have had this rather extraordinary state in the Fords-burg courts described just recently as “justice on a conveyor belt”, where it took some 18 seconds—18 seconds or 18 minutes—to deal with each prisoner …

There is a great difference between 18 seconds and 18 minutes. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to note that the rate was described as follows—

It is therefore actually 18 seconds. They say that 10,5 seconds of the 18 seconds was employed in interpreting from one language to another. A report in this connection reads—

This indicates the seriousness of this enormous number of persons sentenced for minor offences. We either have to increase the provision of the aid centres—perhaps they need to be quadrupled or even further increased—or to make the fullest use of our system of legal aid even where persons are charged with minor offences because if we were to spend R1 million or R2 million per year in providing legal aid, it would in the first instance possibly have the effect of saving at least equal that amount in the cost of prisons; in the second instance it would save a considerable amount of problems which arise due to friction and irritation in race relations; and in the third instance from the social point of view and from the point of view of the families of people who are sentenced there could be a complete change for the good. Many benefits could result from a very much broader concept of this whole question of legal aid. This is not only a thought of my own; it is something which is being pursued in other countries, for instance in Britain they are setting up legal aid centres in various towns.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.