I move—That the Bill be now read a third time.

We have now reached the third stage of a very important Bill, which may have vast effects in South Africa. So far most hon. members have been of the opinion that the effects will be good; a large minority thought the effects would be bad; many of us thought the results would be catastrophic. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Say, for instance, as has already happened in the past, the results of this legislation are not what the majority of members in this House expect, how long will it take to counter those results and to revert to the present basis? Mr. Speaker, there are important clauses in this Bill which could unfortunately not be discussed due to the time limit. The hon. the Minister came to a certain clause and announced that the tot system was now being abolished and when he reached another clause which still dealt with the tot system and which conferred certain rights on certain persons, he asked for it to stand over until certain other clauses had been disposed of, he said we would then revert to that clause. I am sure his intention was not that that clause should not be discussed. He was anxious to get the Bill passed otherwise we would only have reached the final stage of the Bill to-morrow. I hope therefore the hon. the Minister will be patient when we talk about the tot system which is supposed to have been abolished. It is quite right to say that legally the tot system has been abolished. The tot system only applied in the Cape Province and in the Free State. It has only been abolished, or so-called abolished, in terms of the law but in practice it will not disappear. The Minister said it was difficult to carry out the law because it was not an easy matter to limit the people; but it was the law nevertheless. The person who contravened the law knew that he was committing an offence and that he would get into difficulty if he were found out. With the repeal of this section everybody can give as much as he likes. Not only does that apply to the Cape Province and to the Free State but it can now be given in the Transvaal and in Natal. As the law stands as the moment a person has to be 21 years of age in order to be given wine but in terms of the new legislation he need only be 18 years. Nor was it given to females but in future it is to be extended to females as well. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he honestly thinks that he is going to change the pattern of which we have heard such a great deal, under a system which is extended in that way; that we are going to change the pattern of those people who are unfortunately addicted to liquor? I have in mind one specific section of the South African population. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that by allowing it to be extended and by allowing it to be given to people freely and not as wages the system will be abolished? As a matter of fact how is the Minister going to prove that it is not given as wages? If I give somebody on the farm liquor how is the hon. the Minister to know that I am not saying to that person: Look, I shall give you 5s. or 10s. but I shall also give you a drink. He may give it as a present, but he may not call it a wage. How is the Minister going to carry it out?

You have not read the relevant clause.

I have read it. If ever there was a Bill which I have read properly it is this one because I regard it as such a dangerous Bill. I know you can give it to them but that you cannot give it in lieu of wages. Any farmer can give liquor to his labourers on the farm provided he gives it to them as a present. I just want to ask hon. members whether they know what the tot system is. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows of any welfare society or church body which does not want the tot system abolished? There is no organization which has not asked that it be abolished. We were always told that it was impossible to abolish it.

That is why we are abolishing it.

So-called. The wine farmers themselves wanted to get rid of that system but would not because if one farmer offered liquor his neighbour could not get anybody to work for him. There was competition therefore, but in future the competition will be keener than ever. The tot system is going to get worse than ever. I am convinced that if the Minister gives people the right to give liquor to their employees it will be better rather to retain the tot system than to change it the way it is now being changed. The tot system usually consisted of six tots a day, that is one tot less than two bottles. Usually, however, an extra tot is given to the labourers if they have done a day’s good work. In that case the master gives them an additional tot which means two bottles of wine per day. How is it given? It starts early in the morning when the labourer rises. He gets his first tot at 8 a.m.; the second one at 11 a.m., the third at 12 o’clock, the fourth at 1 o’clock, the fifth at 4 o’clock and the sixth in the evening. That means that they get their first two tots practically on an empty stomach. That can honestly not be good for that nation or for the farming industry. When it is harvest time and the sheafs have to be stacked they often start work at 2 o’clock in the morning because when it gets warm more grain falls out so the sheafs have to be carried early in the morning. They then start at 2 o’clock when they get their first tot. If that was the position under the law what will it be like when every farmer is at liberty to give liquor to his male labourers or to the women and to the children over 18 years? However, I do not want to enlarge on that. I do, however, want to make an appeal to the House. There are hon. members in this House who have interests in the liquor trade. There are people in this House who have no financial interests in any liquor business. The voting in this House is free. You have to vote according to the dictates of your conscience, as the Minister has said. There are members who have told me that they do not want to vote against the Government. But the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have appealed to members of this House to vote according to the dictates of their conscience.

They have done so.

How does the hon. member know what they have told me? I maintain there are members …

Does the hon. member suggest that there are members who voted against the dictates of their conscience?

I cannot say whether or not they voted against the dictates of their conscience. Some people ignore the dictates of their conscience more than they think. But some hon. members have told me that they were not going to vote against the Government.

It is not a Government measure.

I know that and that is why I am appealing to hon. members not to vote the way they told me but to vote according to the dictates of their conscience.

I am going to vote against the third reading. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I shall be more pleased than anybody else in this House if it appears that I have been wrong. If I find that the present drinking habits which have caught hold of the people improve for the better I shall thank God that I have been wrong and I shall tell the people from every platform from which I shall have the privilege of addressing them that I was wrong and that the Bill had brought about an improvement in the position.

Did you not adopt the same attitude when you opposed the Bantu Liquor Bill? Were you right then?

I want to admit quite honestly that as far as the Bantu Liquor Bill was concerned I personally was of the opinion that the position would turn out worse than it has turned out but the Minister must not tell me that everything is all right because I can show him how much more liquor has been consumed during the period since that Bill was passed.

The figures given to us this morning prove the opposite.

I want to admit at once that the position is not as bad as we thought it would be. But say, for instance, the effect of this Bill is to increase drunkenness will the Minister repeal this measure?

Yes, definitely.

And what are you going to do then? Will we revert to the position as it is to-day? If I am proved wrong as far as the future is concerned, I shall be only too pleased to admit it but I cannot see how we are going to bring about less drunkenness by giving people more opportunities to acquire liquor. This is a better way than any to ward off a danger. If a danger exists you keep a person away from that danger but here we have a danger which is caused by liquor and we are making it easier for people to acquire the so-called light wine. There is no light wine in South Africa, Sir.

Where do you get that from?

Let me put it this way. The alcoholic content of the light wines of South Africa is higher than that of other countries, whether it be 1 per cent or 2 per cent or 3 per cent. It contains more alcohol. That is why I say there is no light wine. The farmers themselves say that because of the amount of sugar, etc., you cannot produce the light wines in this country which they produce in other countries. I say the cause of drunkenness is the opportunity which we are creating to take that first drink; because we are creating the opportunity to get wine at boarding houses and in shops the young people may develop a taste for it, a taste which will take them further step by step. The Coloured people do not drink spirits. They drink wine. The Coloureds are the people who are more often drunk than anybody else. That is why I hope I am wrong but as the Bill reads at the moment I must ask the House not to pass it

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is very concerned because he thinks the provisions of this Bill will lead to it that large sections of the population, namely the Coloured section, will drink even more than they are at the moment. During the course of his speech he stated that the farmers themselves, particularly the wine farmers, have already wanted to abolish the tot system but that they were unsuccessful because the employees simply held a pistol to their heads by saying: If you abolish it we are leaving the farm. I wish to refute that statement of the hon. member most strenuously because the experience of various farmers disproves that statement. My personal experience is that it is the easiest thing in the world to abolish the tot system, to abolish it completely, and not to give any liquor to your employees, because by abolishing the tot system the farmer attracts the better type of worker, the type who does not only work for a tot of wine. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has, therefore, sucked that out of his thumb; there is no substance in it whatsoever. That is why I take it that the provisions of this Bill can also have the effect of making it much easier for farmers to stop giving liquor to their employees if they wish to do so. I think this problem of the tot system, against which the hon. member is so strongly opposed, probably started when food and drink were separated, something which we are trying to put right by means of this Bill, because this measure is trying to bring natural wines and food together once again in every respect. It was customary for our forebears in the Western Province to supply the employees on their farms with food out of their own kitchens and they were then given a tot with that food. The difficulty arose when they stopped giving food but continued to give those tots. It was there where the problem started and it has given rise to a great many difficulties. Many farmers still give food and wine to-day and there is no drunkenness whatsoever on those farms. The problem started when the farmers stopped giving food but continued to give wine. That is why I want to avail myself of this opportunity of appealing from this House to the farmers of our country not to separate food and wine; and that is envisaged in this Bill.

The object of this Bill is clearly to change the drinking pattern in South Africa for the better. Let me say immediately, however, that there are certain qualifications. The object is indeed to change the drinking pattern but not at the expense of vested interests which have been acquired against payment of large sums of money. That is why there are a few apparent anomalies in the Bill, or as the hon. member for Vereeniging would put it, that is the reason why we are violating the rules of logic. That is not so. It has been drafted in this way for the very reason that the Minister wants to act strictly logically. Allow me, Sir, to congratulate the hon. the Minister most heartily on a brilliant piece of work. This is indeed an extremely difficult problem which he has tackled but he has eminently succeeded in making the best of it. Because he had to take into account the fact that vested rights were obtained against payment of large sums of money, to the State as well, there are certain aspects of this Bill which do not completely satisfy some of us. The refusal to allow grocers to sell beer appears to be such an anomaly but the reason for that is that you cannot summarily interfere with those vested rights. The second apparent anomaly is the fact that those grocery shops in the districts in which a certain percentage of wine is already being sold by vested liquor interests will not get a licence to sell wine either. There too it is a pity that we cannot act strictly in the spirit of the principle to change the drinking pattern. There is a very good reason for that, however, and that is why we accept that position.

If we analyse the Bill strictly logically, therefore, we find that beer is indeed included in the licences to be issued to restaurants, that beer is indeed included in the licences to be issued to private hotels, because in those instances vested rights are not being affected so much. The same applies in those districts where the sale of light wines through existing liquor trading channels exceeds a certain percentage. There too the Minister has succeeded brilliantly in striking a balance between the pattern and those vested interests which cannot summarily be interfered with.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay is worried that this Bill may possibly not have the effect which we should like it to have. Mr. Speaker, just as little as any law can succeed 100 per cent in creating a certain pattern, just as little can the hon. member allege that the absence of legislation can create a certain pattern. We know what strong opposition there was inside and outside this House to making liquor available to the Bantu but experience has shown us to-day that it has not had the dire results prophesied. I hope that similarly the effect of this Bill will not turn out to be the bugbear which the hon. member for Mossel Bay expects it to be. It may be said, however, and I am prepared to accept it, that it will not be easy to change the drinking pattern of those who have been drinking hard liquor for years. But surely you do not only legislate for the present. You also have the future in mind when you legislate and I want to state very definitely that as far as our young people and the rising generations are concerned the effects of this Bill will indeed very definitely be to the good. Those who have been used to drinking hard liquor will not perhaps switch over to natural wines so easily but my experience has been that it does happen in some cases because, as I tried to indicate in my second-reading speech, we did not in the past have those wonderful natural wines which will today assist in steering the drinking habits of our people in that direction. But they are available to-day however. That is why I believe that with this legislation and with those wonderful natural wines which are available to-day in South Africa, we can and we shall indeed be able to steer the drinking pattern in that direction. May I say again that you cannot expect everything from legislation. That is why I trust our people will avail themselves of this measure in order to assist in steering the drinking pattern in that direction because in the long run it depends on the people themselves what they wish to do with this problem. Because these excellent young light wines are available—I emphasize “light” in spite of what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has said, because excellent and definitely light wines are available in South Africa—we can and shall change the drinking pattern of the people of South Africa to the good.

I think members of this House will all appreciate that the tot system has now been abolished, and I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) when he says that food combined with a stimulant will be of greater benefit to the farmer in general. We all realize the deteriorating effect the tot system has had on the stamina of our Coloured population, and following on the hon. member for Paarl, I also want to say that I hope farmers now will realize that an extra food ration, or some food given during the hours of work, would be of a more enduring stimulation to a labourer than wine just as a pure stimulant.

Mr. Speaker, there has been little change in the contents of this Bill since it was introduced. The principle of promoting sales of table wines through the medium of grocers’ licences remains the same, and on that account I am still totally opposed to this Bill and I will vote against it at the third reading. Of course a result of the Bill will be that grocers now will seek the larger profits to be obtained through selling light wines than those obtained on selling food. Another result will be that although light wines are a stimulant and are supposed to promote a good appetite, in the houses of the poor, there will be less food to eat, and that of course is one of the main reasons why I am opposed to this Bill. Unfortunately the greater portion of the population of this country is unable to buy enough food. We are endeavouring to increase their wages, and to induce them to earn higher wages, but they do not endeavour to earn a higher wage. Social workers and others are always advocating higher pay and better conditions without trying to encourage the worker to put his shoulder to the wheel and to earn a higher wage.

There is much I would like to express appreciation for in the Minister’s attitude towards this Bill. I appreciate his undertaking that no grocers’ wine licences will be granted in areas or districts where prohibition is practised, like at Fish Hoek. Perhaps in the Minister’s reply he may elaborate a little more on this concession, because I do not think it is entirely clear to the public, in general, how a concession of this nature can and will operate. I also appreciate the Minister’s concession in Clause 36 that no grocer’s licence will be granted in any district where the sales of table wine exceed those of liquor by 30 per cent in the year previous to the application. This is a concession but I hope that when the Bill comes back from the Other Place the Minister may have been induced to reduce this concession to 10 per cent. Then it will be a practical concession and I have no doubt that it will not in any way detract from the Minister’s intention to increase the sales of our light wines. I also appreciate that the Bill will not be brought into operation for nearly two years. Anything can happen in that time. Our country is progressing and there is an enormous endeavour to improve the lot of the poorer sections of the population, and a two-year delay may also bring home to the public some of their responsibility in regard to the people who constitute our labour force in this country. I appreciate, too, that the Minister has relaxed some of the restrictions on the producer-wholesaler, and I think the Minister will receive the fruit of that concession because I myself am very doubtful regarding the improvement of our table wines and the reduction of the alcohol content, and I imagine that the only people who will sincerely endeavour to do this are the producer-wholesalers. I would like to see that the Minister provides the producer-wholesalers with an incentive to bring this about. Our table wines cannot be regarded as being of low alcohol content, and I know it came as a shock to the Minister when I mentioned that a bottle of table wine contained as much alcohol as six tots of brandy. I feel that the wine producers must bear that in mind, and if their wines are to become more popular, and if we are to see a bottle of wine on every table in this country, we must have a wine with a low alcohol content similar to that on the Continent. I hope the Minister will bring some pressure to bear on the wine producers. On the one hand the Minister is doing everything in his power to improve the lot of the wine producer and to make this country noted for its light wines, but I hope the Minister will use his powers, in a practical way, to compel the producers to respond to this generous attitude he has adopted towards them. I hope that eventually it may be that this Bill is a benefit to the country, but in its present form it is a bad Bill, especially in regard to Clause 3, where wine licences will now be granted to grocers, and on that account I, in particular, will vote against the third reading.

We have now reached the stage where this House must decide whether the House in Committee has introduced amendments which have achieved the objects the Minister had in mind when he introduced the Bill and which I also dealt with in the second reading; in other words, whether the amendments have balanced the interests of the public, whom we all represent, and those vested interests which, because of the laws of South Africa, have a stake in the liquor trade. I must say at once that on balance I believe that many improvements have been introduced. I am not happy about some of the provisions of the Bill. For instance, in regard to grocers’ wine licences I am certainly opposed to that as a general rule but I accept this as a sanction which the Minister can apply when the normal channels of distribution have failed to promote the lighter drinks.

You have swung around now.

I have not swung around, as the hon. member says. I stated my position clearly in the second reading. I said that I would not like to see every grocer shop in South Africa having a wine licence, but I said that I recognized that where the existing channels, either through over-pricing or through their sales policy, had failed to promote the sales of wine, I recognized and was prepared to grant the Minister a sanction which he could apply. I think to some extent the Minister has met that point of view, but not far enough in my opinion. I still hope that the Minister will reconsider in the Other Place the point of view we put in regard to the level of sales he demands from the existing channels, which we say are too high. I hope he will consider also the exclusion of the lightest of all drinks, beer, from the basis of of calculation. But he has met arguments to some extent in the reduction from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. I particularly welcome the moratorium, but I would ask the Minister whether he will not consider introducing that moratorium in the provisions of the Bill. He has given it as an undertaking, but if he inserts it in the Bill it will be clear that what is stated as policy will in fact be carried out. I know the Minister will carry it out, but in the future there might be a Minister like the hon. member for Albany or the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and then the attitude will be quite different. Therefore I suggest that the undertaking given should be included in the Bill.

The Bill as it stands—I do not know whether the Minister realizes this—makes it possible for a grocer’s licence to include Bantu beer. It is a point which I think most of us missed, and I do not think it was the intention, but Bantu beer is not classified as liquor and the Bantu Beer Act provides that any holder of a liquor licence may sell Bantu beer.

But this is an authority, and therefore it does not apply.

Not as I read the Bantu Beer Act. In terms of that Act, the authorities granted also applied to the holder of any liquor licence to sell Bantu beer, and therefore, technically, as I see it, this grocer’s wine licence is a liquor licence. It falls under the section which lists the types of licences and therefore it is a liquor licence. Therefore in terms of the Bantu Beer Act the holder of a grocer’s licence is a liquor licensee. I think that is the point we missed. [Interjection.] Being a liquor licence, the question arises in regard to people of under 18 years and whether they are entitled to enter licensed premises. I hope the Minister will clear that up as Well, because it might be that every grocer who takes out a wine licence may find that no one under 18 years may enter his premises. The Minister should investigate that point. All the prohibitions applying to licensed premises will then also apply to the grocers. Meetings which are sometimes held on the verandahs of grocers’ shops could not be held on election days. These are all aspects which should be taken into account. I think that if a person holds a grocer’s wine licence he should be subject to the same prohibitions which apply to the holder of any other liquor licence, because otherwise he will have an advantage over his competitors. So I say that I have my reservations in regard to this grocer’s licence. I accept it as a sanction, but not willingly as a normal distribution channel. I believe it should be used where other channels have failed, but I would again ask the Minister to consider whether the level of sales he demands from the existing channels is reasonable.

In regard to the other major principle, that of classification, I think this is an excellent provision which outweighs my reservations in regard to grocers’ licences, because if it were not for classification I would probably have opposed this Bill outright. But I believe that the advantages particularly to the travelling public and to tourism and the advantages to the hotel industry outweigh what reservations I have. As the result thereof I think there will be an improvement in the general standard of the hotel industry throughout the country.

The other major issue is that of pseudo-wholesalers and producer-wholesalers. There the House failed to find a satisfactory solution. We considered various possibilities and the Minister said he would deal with this matter in the Other Place. But as the clause reads at present, I believe it does not meet the requirements. I should like to ask the Minister to consider a slight amendment in the Other Place to this clause, and that is to stick to the two gallons which has always been part of the law, to stick also to the proposal inserted on the motion of the hon. member for Hercules making it a condition that one gallon should be of one kind of liquor, but to add to that a proviso that such wholesaler, if he is also a producer, shall sell at least one gallon of one kind of his own product, whether it be wine or brandy or gin. Whether this one gallon consists of mixed products of wine, it should still be the product of that producer. The other gallon can be anything, like whisky or brandy or gin or beer. But as it stands now there is a minimum of two gallons of one kind of liquor, which makes it a wholesale quantity, of which not less than one gallon shall be of the same kind, description or brand other than malt liquor. If we make it so that the producer-wholesaler must supply one gallon of his own product, we could eliminate the discrimination against malt because it would be unnecessary. If the producer has to sell a gallon of his own product, whether it be brandy or wine or gin, or mixed wines or liqueurs, then you would be saying to the producer-wholesaler: You have an advantage which other wholesalers do not have; that advantage enables you to produce your own products at a lower price than other people, and therefore you should sell your own products as the basis of a wholesale licence. That means that they could sell it cheaper than any other wholesaler because they produce it themselves. They cannot then object to being obliged to sell six bottles of their own product before they sell mixed quantities of another product. So you can include malt, which I think is an unfair discrimination. Where the wholesaler buys his malt from the same source and at the same price, he should be able to include it, unless they are producers, in which case they should use their own product as the basis for the minimum quantity.

Then I also feel that while the Minister is right in saying that he will not destroy vested interests which exist to-day, he should prevent future wholesalers from dealing direct with the public, and those people should have the choice of either becoming retailers or genuine wholesalers. I put forward those two suggestions to the hon. the Minister.

Finally, I want to make an appeal to the Minister. In terms of the Bill before us, he has very wide powers which he can exercise by regulation and by individual decision in the case of the granting of licences, the conditions of classification, etc. My appeal is that in regard to the regulations he is empowered to make, he will, as he has said he will do, consult with the existing channels of distribution, but in drafting those regulations he should aim at the maximum simplicity; if one looks at some of the forms required they are really so complicated that the normal person cannot complete them. I trust that in drafting those, and also in regard to the existing regulations which will have to be amended, the keynote will be simplicity. I have much sympathy for the legal profession, but they will not collapse if they do not get 15 or 20 guineas a year for filling in an application for a licence, and that is what happens now. The licensee must pay 15 or 20 guineas merely to have a form filled in, because it is so complicated that he is afraid that if he makes a mistake he will lose his licence. In that way a great deal can be done to meet the existing distributors.

Do you want me to go against my own profession?

No, but with the extended liquor sales there will be plenty of crimes to defend on charges of drunken driving, and I think the profession will gain more on the swings than they lose on the roundabouts. Well, I do not really believe that will happen, but I am suggesting that the argument is invalid. The procedures which are involved could be simplified. So I say that with the reservations I have mentioned I will support the third reading because I believe that on balance the public will benefit. I do not believe there will be a great increase in drinking. Although I made a joke about it, I do not think there will be an increase in drunkenness or crime. From the point of view of possibly everyone except the bottle stores, which I think have had rather a rough deal, this Bill will benefit everybody. The bottle stores will have a great deal of additional competition with no compensation whatsoever.

What about the windfall they had through the liquor they supplied to the Natives?

That was not so much, but I am merely saying that it should be recognized that one of the vested interests has suffered through the Bill. But I believe it was inevitable in order to get a proper balance between the good of the public and the good of all the other interests, and therefore I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of the limitation of 30 per cent, which would decrease the damage done to the bottle stores. I think the public will benefit from this Bill and therefore I will vote for the third reading.

I just briefly want to give the reasons why I am going to vote against the third reading. But before doing so I wish to say that this Bill will not have the dire results which some people would make us believe it will have. It is a pity that when people are opposed to anything, they are inclined to exaggerate the disadvantages and to indulge in extravagant statements such as that this Bill will turn our country into a drunk Republic. Not only is that not true but despicable and reprehensible. The allegation that this Bill will give our school children an opportunity of obtaining liquor can similarly be discarded. The role which some liquor traders have played in opposing and in agitating against this Bill is equally despicable and should be similarly discarded. For the liquor trade to come and tell us of the destructive effects of liquor, of how alcohol is the cause of crime and divorces, is nothing less than hypocrisy in its worst form. I cannot but disapprove of that most strongly.

Where I am opposed to this Bill I think it is nevertheless just as well that somebody who is opposed to it should tell all those prophets of doom, those hypocrites and public liars that I know this Minister and the advocates of this Bill as people who are as good a guardian of the moral standards of our people as anybody else and at least much better than those hypocrites can ever be.

I wish to emphasize therefore that the effects of this Bill will definitely not be as catastrophic on the moral standards of our people as some people would have us believe. Although I differ from those who are in favour of this Bill, I differ from them only as far as the method is concerned. I do not doubt for one moment the good intentions of those who are in favour of this Bill. I want to tell you, Sir, why I am against this Bill. I am not at all concerned about what benefits may flow from it for the liquor trade or for the wine farmer. The effect of this Bill is going to be that more distribution points will be established for light wine and I am against that in principle. I believe there are people who cannot resist liquor and who have an inherent weakness to overindulge, those weaker brothers of ours who do not know when to stop. I do not want to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, nor do I wish to condemn those people. Everybody who is able to withstand the temptation of liquor should rather thank Heaven than to boast about it. The fact of the matter is that we have those people in society and I believe we should not make it easier for them to acquire liquor than it is already. That is why I am in principle against increasing the number of distribution points of liquor and that is why I am against the Bill. I have asked myself the question whether it will only remain at the wine licences which are now to be issued to grocery shops. No, I believe the effect of this Bill will be to take the first step on the road of the free sale of liquor. Quite a number of members of this House are already in favour of that. This Bill will just be an encouragement to those people who believe in the free sale of liquor and to the interests concerned to make further and further demands until they eventually attain their object. I am neither convinced nor impressed by the argument that this Bill will change the drinking pattern of our people. Nor do I believe that this is a serious attempt to do so. In that case beer should also have been sold in grocery shops as recommended by the Malan Commission. In that case the drinking pattern argument would at least have been logical and consistent.

In conclusion I believe that the effect of this Bill will be to place a further effective weapon in the hands of big grocery concerns in order to break the retailer, the small man in the industry and to drive him out. It cannot be denied that these big interests have the capital and the buildings to obtain these licences and that they will use that as a very effective weapon against the smaller trader who neither has the capital nor the space to be considered for a licence. For these reasons I shall also vote against the third reading.

I want to appeal to hon. members at the third reading to support this Bill. I accept the fact that it is impossible to get the various interests concerned with liquor, directly or indirectly, or concerned with it as a social problem, to agree on all the points of such a Bill. When you think of the diversity of interests with which you are dealing, Sir, you will realize that. You have, for example, in the first place the farmers who produce wine; you have, in the second place, the co-operative societies who are concerned with the further processing and to a certain extent with the distribution of the product of the wine farmer; you have the wholesalers who have their particular interests; you have the so-called small wholesalers who constitute a completely different facet in the industry; you have the bottle stores who stand on one side and who do not want to have anything further to do with liquor except to sell as much liquor as possible in the most profitable way. You have the hotels which are going to be seriously affected by this legislation; you have the shops which may also be affected; you have the consumers to whose interests we have not paid much attention and you have those who are interested in the social problems which we have in South Africa just as they have in any other country in the world. It is impossible to try to satisfy all these people. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is going to support this Bill but talking as someone who also has the interests of the hoteliers at heart I realize that he is not getting everything which he and those whom he represents would have liked to get, but he is convinced that generally speaking the provisions of this Bill are better than those of the old legislation and that is why he supports it. We have the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) who is an abstainer who said that had this measure provided that no liquor may be sold he would have voted for it but where this Bill is only changing our existing liquor laws, what weighs with him is whether that which he stands for, namely to prevent the abuse of liquor, will be promoted by this measure. Well, he must admit that this measure does indeed promote it and that it takes the position nearer to the ideal position which he aims at. On the other hand you have the wine farmers in contrast to a certain extent to those farmers who press grapes for spirits who believe in it that we should steer the drinking habits of the people in the direction of an increased consumption of the less harmful or harmless wine as against the more harmful spirits. You have these various interests, Sir, and not one of them is given 100 per cent satisfaction by this Bill—not a single one—but I think practically everyone who looks at this matter objectively will admit that the position under this Bill will be very much better than it is under the existing legislation. I say everyone will admit it except perhaps the bottle-store keepers. When you have to decide whether or not to support this Bill you have to ask yourself certain specific questions. The one is whether it is going to promote drunkenness, a social evil which, like the poor, will always be with us, as is the position in every country in the world. Is the effect of this Bill going to be to increase drunkenness or to decrease drunkenness? We already have the proof that drunkenness among the Bantu and the Coloured did not increase as a result of the legislation passed last year which made it possible for them to buy liquor freely, not only to buy wine freely but even spirits. In reply to a question figures were to-day supplied to us in this House which showed that the number of convictions on account of drunkenness amongst Natives had decreased by about 7,000 during the first year after that new legislation came into operation. We all accept, even those who opposed that legislation last year, that the prophecies of those prophets of doom as far as that legislation was concerned, did not materialize.

This is only the beginning.

This is only the beginning, but those hon. members who opposed that legislation prophesied that the position would deteriorate at the beginning and that it would improve later on, but the position improved right from the start. The fear that we would promote drunkenness if we made liquor more freely available, therefore, has not materialized, particularly where we were dealing with primitive people; where you are dealing with civilized people the danger is of course so much less. In the second place one of the very objects of this Bill is to prevent drunkenness and to prevent it by making people more accustomed to taking a drink, something which is less conducive to drunkenness than spirits. Everybody will admit that spirits have a much more harmful effect; that it promotes drunkenness much more than wine. The opportunity to drink spirits is different from the opportunity to drink wine. I agree that there are drunkards who drink wine, but the percentage of drunkards who drink wine is much lower than those who drink brandy. If you can get the people to drink wine instead of brandy I am quite convinced you will be able to prevent drunkenness to a very great extent.

A great deal has been said about vested interests. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has referred to vested interests. There are many vested interests in the liquor trade, and some of those vested interests are going to be affected to a great extent by the changes contemplated in this Bill. But there is another class of person who is concerned with liquor whose vested interests have not as yet been mentioned in this debate, namely, the wine farmers themselves. I think it is necessary for hon. members also to know what the vested interests are of those wine farmers in South Africa who are also going to be affected by this legislation. I think I can say that the vested interests of the wine farmers in the liquor industry in South Africa are greater than those of any other organization or company or group of companies concerned in the liquor trade. If you take it that the average farmer gets a return of about 10 per cent on his capital, it means, as far as I could ascertain, that the interests of the wine farmers, in the form of their vineyards, amount to between R160,000 and R200,000. The economic interests of the wine farmer have not yet been raised in this debate or if they have been raised no particular attention has been given to them. The vested interests of the hoteliers and of the bottle-store keeper and of the wholesalers and of the shop owners have, however, often been raised in this debate.

In conclusion I just want to say this. The real test whether we want this legislation or not was applied at the second reading. The House in its wisdom accepted the principle at the second reading, namely, that it was desirable, by means of this legislation, to try to change the drinking pattern in South Africa. Some people told us that we must not expect this legislation to change the drinking pattern very much. It will not change it much to start off but the question is not whether you are going to change it materially immediately but whether this Bill will have the effect of improving the drinking pattern in South Africa. The object of this Bill is to improve the drinking pattern of South Africa, and for that reason it is praiseworthy. I do not think it will bring about a material change immediately but I want to say that the drinking pattern of South Africa is beginning to undergo a change. The number of people, particularly young people who in the past, when they went on a picnic, revelled in brandy and who have now switched to wine, is increasing by the day. May I give you one example, Sir, based on my own experience. About two years ago my children invited me to a picnic. When I arrived there they were busy packing in the liquor. They and their friends were people of between the ages of 30 and 45 years. When they had finished packing I said to them: “But you did not pack any brandy.” Their reply was: “No, dad, we are no longer drinking brandy; we are drinking wine.” That change is already taking place, and it is good that it is taking place. What we have to do by means of this legislation is to encourage that change which has already started in South Africa. We should not do anything to make the position more difficult for those people who themselves feel the need for a new drinking pattern in South Africa. We should encourage them and this legislation gives them that encouragement. We are telling those people via this legislation that Parliament supports them in their effort to establish a new drinking pattern in South Africa. As I have said, we already accepted the principle at the second reading. Some hon. members voted against the second reading of this Bill because they felt that justice was not being done to the breweries, that the bottle-store keeper was not getting what he should and that the wholesaler was not getting what he should get. I am now asking hon. members to view this question as a whole and to ask themselves whether this Bill will be an encouragement to change the drinking pattern in South Africa, a change which has already started so that that change can go in the right direction. I am asking hon. members not to look at the interests of the various branches of the liquor trade but at the problem as a whole. Seeing that the principle was adopted at the second reading let us give this legislation a chance. After the second reading we had the Committee Stage where a large number of changes were made to the Bill in order to meet those people who objected to the Bill on certain grounds. I think there are few members in this House, even those who voted against the second reading of this Bill, particularly those who voted against it, who will not agree that this Bill, as it is before the House at the moment, is better than it was when its second reading was moved.

Much better than the old Act.

If those people voted for the second reading, they must approve of the third reading all the more, and those members who had objections to it during the second reading can to-day, after those multitude of changes have been effected to it, with a perfectly clear conscience decide to vote for the third reading of this Bill. I want to appeal to hon. members, seeing that the principle was laid down at the second reading, to give this legislation a chance. Let us see if we cannot improve the position in South Africa by means of this legislation.

The hon. the Minister of Lands who has just sat down can always be relied upon to make a very convincing statement on any subject that he deals with, and on this particular subject there is no doubt that he is a master of his subject, and therefore one must view his suggestions in a serious light and give him credit for the fact that he not only knows the subject he is talking about but that he deals with it in a responsible manner. But that is about as far as I am prepared to go. The hon. the Minister has made an appeal to hon. members who voted against the Bill at the second reading to view the Bill as a whole from the point of view of its general effect of what has come to be the theme song of this Bill, and that is to establish a new pattern of drinking in the country. Sir, I sometimes wonder what that pattern really is. I do not speak with any fanatical ideas as to the use of liquor. I oppose the use of liquor as the result of experience over a long period of years of the misuse of it. I support the Minister’s plea that we should view this Bill as a whole, but I say that it is more necessary than ever in the third reading to register our protest against the adoption of the Bill because I believe that it is opening the door to a much wider use of liquor, no matter what fine words we use about our desire to change the pattern of drinking. It opens the door still wider for the increased consumption of liquor at a time when the country can ill afford to open the door wider.

Did you not say the same thing about the Bantu Liquor Bill?

I am glad the hon. the Minister mentioned that, because it has repeatedly been stated in this debate and it was reiterated here this morning, that the predictions of the prophets of doom, as they were called when we discussed the Bantu Liquor Bill, have not been realized and that the pattern of drinking of the Bantu has not developed as those who opposed that measure thought that it would develop. In support of that contention we are referred to the figures in the police reports with regard to cases of drunkenness which have come to the notice of the police. I want to say without any hesitation that those figures are not the correct basis to use. The very legislation which is being quoted in support of this Bill changed the pattern of drinking for the Bantu and made it possible for them to drink in their homes. The police report figures relate to the number of cases of drunkenness found in the streets and picked up by the police. I wonder how much trouble there is in our Native locations as the result of the fact that liquor is now readily available in those locations. These are factors which have to be weighed and I would say to those who so glibly support the view that the Bantu Liquor Bill has not caused any damage, that they should wait for another four or five years and then consult with Government social workers and with the Health Department to find out what damage has been done through malnutrition and through the diversion of a portion of the little money available for food, to the purchase of liquor which is now so readily available to them. That is when the real test will come. The test will come when the undernourished children start to come on the market as applicants for support from the Government because they are not physically fit to do their work. That is when the final answer will come. I therefore discount that argument altogether.

Reviewing the Bill itself, the Bill is supposed to set up a new pattern of drinking. It is one of the most amazing Bills that we have had to deal with for a long time, because in allegedly seeking to set up a new pattern it is full of contradictions. With regard to Clause 3 of the Bill, which is the major clause of this measure and gives authority to grant liquor licences to grocery shops, we find now, in spite of the fact that in the earlier stages of the debate we were told that there was an urgent need to establish these grocer shop licences, that we can afford to wait another two years while the liquor traders in the other provinces have an opportunity to try to build up their sales of wine to a given percentage in order to protect themselves against the competition of the grocers. The whole thing is contradictory. If the granting of licences to grocery shops is so important to the wine industry, then why on earth must we have a delay of two years in order to give the other three provinces an opportunity of preventing grocery shop licences by building up the sales of wines by the bottle stores?

Because the grocers never had a licence.

What the Bill is in fact going to try to do now is to make sure that they will never have grocers’ licences there even under this Bill. There is no change in the position. In establishing that competition on the part of grocers with bottle stores, what do we find? We find that the bottle stores which have been so roundly condemned and which sell hard liquor as well as wines and malt liquors, are the people who are now being given the opportunity of building up their trade. It is true that only the wine sales will count in the percentage quotas, but this Bill by no means releases the country from the so-called stranglehold of the bottle stores that we have heard so much about. My own views on the bottle stores are quite simple. I believe on the basis of my experience that no further bottle-store licences as such should be granted at all unless they are attached to an established hotel of good standing. To my mind a bottle store or an off-sales department, attached to a responsible hotel which is under good management, with a good capital investment in the country, an hotel which under the Minister’s scheme will be improved by this Bill, an off-sales licence is a necessary portion of such an establishment. From the police control point of view, from the national control point of view, you are not dealing with isolated small premises, tucked away in some side street, with no other commitments; you are dealing then with a huge business, a properly run hotel, where you can expect a better management of the bottle-store section, where you can expect better control and where you have a better come-back if anybody starts to break the law. It affects the hotel as well as the bottle store. That is why my view is that no licences should be granted to bottle stores which operate independently from hotels. Licences should only be granted where the bottle store is an adjunct to the hotel premises. We have been told that the aim of this Bill is to set up a new drinking pattern, to encourage the drinking of light wines and thus to reduce the extent to which alcohol is being consumed in the country. That is a very good motive and I have no complaint in that regard. But it is an amazing fact that all attempts which have been made in this debate to introduce malt liquor together with wine, malt which has a still lower alcoholic content than even light wines, have been resisted. If the argument is correct that one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill is that we want to reduce the consumption of alcohol in the country, then surely it is only common sense to permit grocers also to sell malt liquor, which has the lowest alcoholic content of all liquors, together with wine, and yet that right has been steadfastly resisted throughout. The bottle stores which are now going to be allowed to build up their wine trade can sell malt; it will not count in determining the percentage quota but they can sell it to help to create a general financial stability, which will enable them to meet the competition of the grocery shops. But the grocers themselves who get licences to sell wine will not be permitted to sell malt. To me that seems to be a clear contradiction, and it leaves one with no alternative but to accept that the Bill, apart from its avowed intention to bring about a change in the pattern of drinking, is also designed to give further support to the wine industry of this country. One can arrive at no other conclusion in that respect.

I want to raise one point with regard to the provisions of the Bill as it now reads. We have heard again from one of the last speakers that this Bill has become necessary largely because of the failure of existing licensees to develop the sales of wine, particularly in the three northern provinces. I would like to look at the position in quite a different light. I would say that the failure to expand the sales of liquor is due to the successful efforts of the very large school of responsible thought who have been trying to reduce the consumption of liquor in the country as a whole. The failure to expand the sale of liquor is a measure of their success rather than the measure of the failure of the bottle stores to increase their sales.

Then I want to deal with the clause which provides for authority to permit hotels to move their off-sales department to another spot within their own district but some considerable distance away from the hotel building itself. I can see quite a lot in the Minister’s argument in those cases where the hotel is very isolated. From the revenue-producing point of view I can see quite a lot in the argument that it would only be fair to allow such a licensee to establish his off-sales department in a more suitable place. I have already said and I say again that a bottle store or an off-sales department is a necessary portion of any first-class hotel, and it must be readily accessible to the hotel, but I would urge that the greatest discretion should be exercised in authorizing the transfer of off-sales departments in those few cases where it is probably justified. In considering such application regard should always be had to the convenience of the residents of the hotel itself. I am naturally referring here to the larger hotels with a big holiday clientele requiring these facilities. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that when these facilities are authorized, the greatest discretion is exercised so that we do not err too far in the other direction. What it really amounts to now is this: The principle of an off-sales licence of an hotel, as it was originally conceived has disappeared. It now becomes a bottle store attached to a hotel. I agree that the bottle store should be attached to the hotel but my plea is that the greatest care should be exercised to see that by its siting we do not rob the hotel of a facility which it requires.

I want to come back for one moment to the allegation that the bottle stores have not pushed the sales of light wines. I want to urge again that there is also a duty on the producers of the wine in that regard. It is a question of producing wines of a consistent quality, not a wine which is a good wine to-day and which you find, when you buy it next year has deteriorated in quality. That unfortunately has been our experience in the case of a number of our wines. The quality is improving that it is the responsibility of the producers to see that they maintain a constant standard, a good standard. Then there is also the question of price, and most important also the question of display. I put it to all hon. members here: In your experience throughout the country, how many bottle stores you have looked into or gone into which are dim, dusty, dark, gloomy, hide-holes, one might almost say? Those conditions do not attract the public. The modern method of buying, whether you are buying a pair of socks, a suit of clothes or a tin of bully beef, is to buy the commodity which is displayed under the most attractive conditions possible. To buy in nice, airy premises where you can see what you are buying and where the commodity which you buy is wrapped up in attractive containers. If the wine traders want to expand their trade, then there is a responsibility on the trade and producers to see that that aspect is taken care of. It may involve expenditure or will undoubtedly involve the expenditure of a certain sum of money. But it is not the responsibility to be placed only on the individual who is running a bottle store, generally under very onerous conditions imposed by the owner of the premises, usually one of the producers or one of the big distributers. They also should see to it that they spend the necessary money to carry out improvements to help to sell their own products. They can help; nobody else can help them in that respect. The hon. member on my left has just given me an example. The petrol companies can give them a lesson as to how they promote sales, although I am not advocating that they should altogether follow the lines which the petrol companies have adopted. Sir, the Bill before us, in all its terms, good and bad—because there are good points in the Bill—comes onto the Statute Book under the most peculiar conditions. It comes onto the Statute Book against the advice of the churches of this country, probably speaking with a more unanimous voice than they have ever spoken before. It comes onto the Statute Book against the joint advice of welfare associations all over the country, people who know what they are talking about. It is against the advice of many responsible bodies with widespread national representation. What is even more strange, Sir, is that this Bill with its potential for good or evil, has come before us as a Bill which, according to a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, has never been considered by the Cabinet. I would say that a Bill as important as this merited the closest scrutiny of the Cabinet before it was placed on the Table of the House. Yet we had that statement; it is practically being disowned by its foster-parents.

You know what the tradition is in this regard.

I know the tradition is that when it comes before the House hon. members have a free vote. One has the right, however, to expect that the Cabinet would have satisfied itself that the Bill which was coming before the House at least met the best needs of the country.

That is also part of the tradition. The moment it is a Cabinet measure it becomes a party measure.

The Bill when weighed against all its aspects must be regarded as an indication of the measure of the strength of the industry itself, when it comes to supporting their own industry.

I want to refer to the young people of the •country. Like other countries we are passing through a time when the behaviour of a certain section of our younger people is running a bit wild; I admit that it is a minority section. They either lack parental control or there is some other reason but they are running a bit wild. They are taking to liquor; do not let us delude ourselves in that regard. I have experience of a number of cases which I have brought to the attention of the Minister’s other Department, the police. You find that they pour about half the contents of a bottle of Coca Cola out and fill the bottle with Natal cane spirit. That is one of the favourite drinks along some of the beaches of the Peninsula to-day. They leave in just enough Coca Cola to make it look like Coca Cola. A number of responsible bodies are alarmed at this behaviour of the younger generation yet this Bill must result in making hard liquor much more accessible to these young folk. In that connection it cannot be regarded as either helpful or wise in the eyes of those who are interested in the well-being of our young people, the Bill also actually abolishes the tot system as we know it, but in its next clause then re-introduces a provision which has not existed before, a provision which to a large extent nullifies the abolition of the tot system. It makes it possible for any employer, not merely the wine farmer employers, but any employer to give his Native employees liquor. The ordinary public are not allowed to do so but the employer of both male and female Native employees can supply them with liquor. I think it is a shocking thing that we are making it possible for an employer to supply liquor to his female employees. I think this is one of the most dangerous experiments that the Bill could introduce. That is not restricted to the Cape which is the home of the tot system but it is extended to the other three provinces of the Republic as well. One of the strictest rules in any factory or any works is the total prohibition on any liquor on the premises. But here we are inserting a provision that the employer can serve liquor to his employees. I think it is one of the most shocking provisions in this Bill. There I would ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity to consider putting some form of control on that provision. We all know what human nature is like. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has outlined the position which existed under the tot system and the same position may well develop here. In the old days men were made half tight on rum before they went into battle so that they could fight better. Have we reached a stage in South Africa where we have to lace our Native employees with a drink of wine in order to get more work out of them? Because that is what this provision can well lead to. I think this is something shocking to introduce into a so-called civilized country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will not consider introducing a proviso to that clause in the Other Place similar to the proviso which was on the Order Paper but which could not be dealt with because of the time limit, whereby the regular giving of liquor to an employee will be construed as a breach of the previous sections which provided that liquor could not be given as an incentive or as a substitute for wages.

Section 152 of the old Act deals with that. It covers the amendment you had on the Order Paper.

That would go some way towards applying a measure of control, difficult as it would be to exercise that control, but it will apply a measure of control in cases where the privileges provided for in this Bill were being abused.

We put the whole onus on the employer.

I am pleased to have that assurance from the hon. the Minister. This is one of the clauses of the Bill about which I personally feel very strongly. I am not going to take up more time of the House, Sir. I believe this Bill as it is before us now, in spite of the very eloquent appeal by the hon. the Minister of Lands, has too much of the experiment in it, too much potential risk and danger to the country in it, for the House to accept it and I would ask those who like myself believe that the good of the country must come before the good of any particular industry to vote against this Bill in the third reading as I shall do.

When you want to determine what the effects of this Bill will be you must be careful not to lose sight of an important factor in this problem and that is man himself. You must take into account the fact that man reveals peculiar tendencies when a commodity is prohibited. When a commodity is prohibited or partially prohibited it is obvious that that prohibition awakens a craving in man to possess that commodity even though he does not need it. Let me give a few examples. You will remember that when petrol was rationed during the war years, Mr. Speaker, everyone was given a number of coupons, depending on the nature of his work and the nature of his requirements. Hon. members will remember that everybody tried to get as many coupons as he possibly could from his friends. That petrol had to be used before the end of the month. Many a person, perhaps some hon. members as well, went on an unnecessary trip just to use that petrol. Let me give another example. There was partial prohibition in a certain European country. Do you know what the result was, Sir? Every White person over the age of 21 years was entitled to a litre aqua vit and 7 cc. at a meal. That litre aqua vit was all drunk on the first day. That person then goes to the cafe, orders a meal and gets his 7 cc. aqua vit. He then goes to the restaurant next door, orders a glass of milk and a sandwich and gets his 7 cc. aqua vit. He goes on like that until he is drunk. That human tendency disappeared completely when liquor was made freely available.

I want to give another example. Liquor can be obtained freely in Mozambique; you can buy it in any shop. During all the years that I have been visiting Mozambique I have never yet come across a drunk Portuguese or a drunk Native. I am not only talking about Lourenço Marques but of the areas inland as well. I want to give another example. I have a Bantu on my farm who, when he could not get brandy, bought any kind of concoction he could get. Now that he can buy brandy he does not think of drinking the White man’s liquor; he has reverted to kaffir beer. No, Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this problem you have to keep count of human nature and human tendencies. It has been proved over and over again; it is proved daily that the moment there is prohibition that craving in man to possess that thing is stimulated. When rice was rationed a friend of mine acquired a whole bag of rice. He did not need it; half of it was eaten by weevils. Just because rice was scarce and he could not buy it freely he tried to get that bag of rice. That will also be the position in the case of liquor. That is a tendency on the part of man that you cannot get away from; it is a tendency which is self-evident. If you place a prohibition on liquor you make it dangerous. It has been proved that partial prohibition has more or less the same effects as total prohibition. I want to give an example of partial prohibition. There is a tendency to buy too much liquor on a Saturday because the person is afraid he may not have enough over the week-end. He consumes all that liquor over the week-end because he knows he can get some more on Monday. Partial prohibition is the cause of all the drunkenness over week-ends. In view of all these facts I cannot do otherwise than vote for the third reading of this Bill.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is obviously one who advocates the drinking of liquor, and one gained the impression that he would like to see the facilities even further extended than is provided for in the Bill before the House.

The contents of this Bill have been debated during the Committee Stage and also during the second reading, and I think the discussions indicated that the main purpose was to provide an extension of the distribution points for the sale of wine and at the same time to encourage the consumption of liquor as such and more particularly of wine. Now we have had several speakers during the course of this debate mentioning the fact that those persons who are opposing the Bill also opposed the extension of strong liquor to the Bantu and that the arguments that they put forward at that stage had proved to be wrong. However, Mr. Speaker, certain figures were provided to this House by the hon. Minister of Justice this morning, and in looking at these figures, and in reply to the points raised by the hon. Minister of Lands, one should clearly realize that the overall number of convictions for drunkenness decreased during the years 1960, 1961 and 1962. In 1960 the total number of convictions for drunkenness was 74,678, in 1961 it was 72,841 and in 1962 it dropped to 65,905. Now with special reference to the convictions among Bantu people, there was a decrease from 39,097 in 1961 to 33,667 in 1962, which is a decrease of some 5,430, and not 7,000 as was mentioned by the hon. Minister of Lands. However, these figures also show a decrease in respect of the other racial groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asiatics; it was not merely a case of a decrease amongst the Bantu people, but there was also a decrease in respect of the other racial groups. We must also remember that the effects of the legislation in regard to the Bantu are still really to be felt by the country as a whole. Similarly I do not think that we can judge the contents of this Bill, and thus the effects of this Bill before a period of two or three years has lapsed. That is why I think we are misjudging the position when claiming that the extension of strong liquor to the Bantu has not had a detrimental effect on the welfare of the Bantu people. One must also bear in mind that in the past liquor raids that were made in Bantu areas for illicit brewing and the consumption of strong liquor often resulted in convictions for drunkenness; when a raid at a certain drinking party occurred, large numbers of people at the drinking party who were drunk were arrested for drunkenness. At the present time these raids are not being carried out and consequently that in turn can provide answers as to why that figure has decreased.

While the contents of this Bill have to a certain extent been improved during the Committee Stage, the one overriding content of the Bill in Clause 3 is the one which I find most repugnant, for the reasons that Clause 3 still stands and that it provides an extension of the distribution points for the sale of wine which is intoxicating liquor, by providing for special grocers wine licences. That is one of the main reasons why I intend voting against the third reading of this Bill. Sir, the persons and organizations interested in the welfare of the people and the problem of excessive drinking, have been unanimous in their condemnation of this provision, and I believe that at this stage hon. members before supporting the third reading of this Bill, should take into account all these factors of public opinion that are opposed to the granting of grocers’ wine licences as provided for in this Bill. The opposition to that particular provision of the Bill has been indicated by the volume of opposition that has come from all parts of the country. However, the one particular aspect which I think at this stage we should have some clarity on from the hon. Minister is that in regard to the objections raised by a certain church, that church being the Seventh Day Adventists. The hon. Minister saw fit during the course of the debate on this Bill to mention that telegrams were received from one person by the name of Swart and that these telegrams had been sent from one particular post office in Orange Grove, and that he considered that the telegrams to hon. members were misleading in forming an opinion as to whether the provision of grocers’ wine licences should be proceeded with or not. The Minister also saw fit to say that he was handing this matter over to the police for further investigation. I believe that that statement had some bearing on the voting and acceptance of that provision in Clause 3. So now the position is: Has the hon. Minister obtained any results in consequence of his instruction to the police to investigate these objections, and also whether the Minister is satisfied that the information, he provided to the House is substantiated by those inquiries? Because the Natal Daily News of Friday, 14 June carried a statement from this particular church saying that this telegram and this objection was sent in good faith and was a genuine protest against the Bill. They mentioned that this telegram—telegrams of the same type—was sent from ten congregations of the church in the Transvaal, in the areas of Alberton, Boksburg, Edenvale, Germiston, Melville, Booysens, Tzaneen, Pietersburg, Potgietersrust and Louis Trichardt.

The name of the church was never mentioned.

The objection was that this particular person sent a number of telegrams to Members of Parliament showing the objection that they had to the inclusion of this particular provision in the Bill.

No Church was ever mentioned.

That is so, but I will be pleased if the hon. Minister can in his reply give some indication as to what the result has been of this investigation.

I will give the full particulars.

I am glad to hear that, because the statement that was made to the Press showed that this person had no connection whatsoever with the bottle stores, and the hon. Minister mentioned that fact, which I think did have some bearing on the attitude that members took when they had to decide whether to support the provision in regard to grocers’ wine licences or not. It would appear from the information supplied in this statement by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, that this was a genuine protest which I am sure they were fully entitled to lodge, and they were fully entitled to submit their view to members of this House.

The other aspects concerning the contents of the Bill have also been debated fully, and the one dealing with the changing of the pattern of drinking in South Africa has been can vassed continually. When we study the contents of this Bill, one becomes more and more dubious as to the wisdom of proceeding with this Bill. The Bill may be well intended, but the contents of the Bill are not convincing in that direction. We have yet to hear the reason why it is necessary to have these further distribution points in the form of grocers’ wine licences. That necessity has yet to be proved. The position of the wine farmer I am sure must continue to improve after liquor has been made available to the Bantu people. According to figures I have got here, the consumption of wine for instance in the Orange Free State has increased from 2 per cent to 18 per cent since August of last year, when liquor was made available to the Bantu people. I feel that sufficient markets are available to the wine industry and to the wine farmer to exploit their products if they so wish to the fullest extent, without the necessity of incorporating a further extension as provided for in this Bill.

The question of the increase in the consumption of wine, I think must have some bearing on the position in the western Cape, which I am sure, many persons who support this Bill and indeed those who are interested in the wine-farming industry are pleased to see. But it is alarming to note that the pattern of drinking in the western Cape with this high consumption of wine is lauded by certain members who advocate the greater consumption of wine and the furtherance of the sale of wine, because clearly the Coloured people are those who suffer most in terms of drunkenness in the overall problem of excessive drinking in the Republic, and I feel that that is sufficient proof to show that this is a serious problem when one tries to push the sale and the consumption of this intoxicating liquor. We find for instance that whilst the Coloured people only represent 10 per cent of the population whereas almost in 50 per cent of the cases Coloured people are involved in convictions for drunkenness according to the latest available figures. Surely this is not the pattern of drinking that we would like to see encouraged throughout the Republic. The provision in Clause 72 whereby liquor can be supplied to Bantu people throughout the Republic has been referred to by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and I fully associate myself with the fear expressed by him in regard to the wisdom of such a step. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in voting against the third reading of this Bill and I hope that hon. members who are satisfied that the interests of the wine farmer and the wine industry can be met by other means, other than extending the distribution points for the sale of wine, will also reject this Bill at the third reading.

The hon. the Minister of Lands correctly stated this morning that the Bill in the form in which we have it before us at the moment, is practically a compromise between the various interests concerned in the liquor trade. It is correct that no single section has been given everything he wanted, and perhaps that is right. I just want to say to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who pleaded very strongly for the hotel industry and who still expressed certain doubts, that it also applies to that important industry in our country that liquor legislation alone cannot solve their problems. I am convinced that what is already being done for the hotel industry in this Bill as it reads at the moment, will, as a well-known hotelier in the Western Province told me a few days ago, create opportunities for the hotelier with initiative and with a little imagination as never before in the history of the hotel industry. The hon. member for Simonstown said he spoke from experience when he spoke about the abuse of liquor and that that was why he opposed this measure so strenuously. He said he opposed it because we were opening the doors wider for the distribution of liquor. But it is precisely there where the hon. member’s argument is wrong, and how wrong it is is also evident from something he said later when he said: Yes, but if light wine were made available more freely it was the function of the trade to advertise it. Mr. Speaker, if I were to adopt the attitude which the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who is opposed to liquor in any form, adopts, I will not at the same time say that the liquor trade must advertise in order to increase its turnover. If the hon. member is so impressed by the abuse of liquor he cannot at the same time argue that the liquor trade should advertise the sale of wine. The approach of the hon. member and also that other hon. members who oppose this legislation is wrong in that they often talk about “liquor” and that they lose sight of the fact that the object of this legislation is to create a bigger market for the lighter forms of the product of the vine. This Bill deals with natural wines and not with strong liquor. When the hon. member talks about “liquor” and of his years of experience of the abuse of liquor, I agree with him. Liquor is abused in our country to such an extent that South Africa is known in the Western world to-day as the country in which, proportionately speaking, most strong liquor is consumed, and we want to get away from that position. Hence the attempt on the part of the Minister in this legislation.

May I just say a few more words about the tot system about which people with no intimate knowledge of the system so often talk. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred to the tot system and said that as far as he was concerned, the position could remain as it is because with the abolition of the tot system it would be possible to supply employees even more freely with wine. I think that is a very wrong approach. I am speaking as one who has an intimate knowledge of the application of the tot system in the Western Province. Let me say immediately that it is a system which even the farmer regards as a burden. I do not think there is one employer of Coloured labour in the Western Province who would not like to get rid of the tot system, if only he could, because it places an additional burden of supervision on him.

How did the problem in connection with the tot system arise? It was because the Liquor Act of 1928 imposed certain restrictions as to the amount of wine you could give, namely, not more than 1½ pints per day. I want to correct the hon. member for Mossel Bay. It was five quarter bottles per day and the law said it could not be given at intervals of less than two hours at a time. What was the result of that? What did the Malan Commission find? They say in paragraph 28—

That was precisely the problem that was created. That is why the Minister is quite correct in saying that he is repealing this provision completely. What is going to be the result? Unlike the hon. member for Mossel Bay who regards this as something that will be abused, I believe the farmers are given an opportunity of showing that the pattern which they too advocate, namely, that food and wine should go together and that we should drink light wine, can be carried out in practice as far as their labourers are concerned.

On the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for the third reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on 5 June.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage where we have to vote for or against the third reading of this Bill. Before I reply to the arguments which have been raised in the course of this third-reading debate, I am sure you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a few general remarks, firstly with regard to the telegram episode to which the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) referred. What were the facts which we had before us at that stage? It was perfectly clear from what I said that the statement which I made to this House was based on information received from hon. members who had received the telegrams. The hon. member received a telegram warning him to vote against the Bill and the sender of the telegram was the Boksburg congregation. What conclusion could the hon. member draw other than that that telegram had been sent by his congregation at Boksburg? No one could have come to any other conclusion. In the nature of things the hon. member felt obliged to make inquiries of his own accord before he handed the telegram over to me, and what he did, as was done by other hon. members, was to inquire who had sent that telegram; to try to find out the name of the person who had signed the original telegram. The hon. member discovered that the telegram had been despatched by a certain L. Swart with a post box number at Orange Grove. In other words, there was no indication even on the original telegram that it had been sent by any religious denomination. I find it very strange that it was done in that way and one asks oneself what the reason for this was. Why was it not stated in the telegram that it came from the Boksburg congregation of such and such a Church? If that had been done there would have been no misunderstanding. All I did when I received these telegrams from hon. members was to pass on that information to the House. It now appears that these telegrams which were despatched by this L. Swart came from a certain Mrs. L. Swart, but that fact was not indicated on the telegram either. It also appears that they emanate from a certain religious denomination and not from a bottle-store owner, a Mr. Swart, as the hon. member had inferred. But I want to tell the hon. member that nobody can be blamed for drawing the conclusions which were drawn from these telegrams. It also seems strange to me that one individual, a woman, should send telegrams from a certain post office on behalf of congregations extending from the Witwatersrand up to Tzaneen. One asks oneself why the telegrams were not sent by the congregations themselves.

They were probably holding a congress.

I was not aware of the fact, of course, that a congress was being held but if a congress was held, then with the best will in the world I cannot understand why it was not stated in the telegram that it came from the congress of a certain religious denomination. One would then have been able to understand it more readily. With the evidence at my disposal—I do not want to impute motives to anyone without having any proof—I accept that this was done in all good faith, but I want to add that to my mind it was a very strange way to act in good faith.

May I ask whether the hon. the Minister made any further investigation before reading out these telegrams to the House or did he simply accept that this Mr. Swart was a bottle store owner?

The fact is that the telegrams were handed to me just before the House met, and at that stage there was no opportunity to make any further investigations. But having regard to the fact that I was told that there was a certain Mr. Swart who owned a bottle store and who lived in that area, there was only one conclusion to draw at that stage, and if certain people are annoyed because that conclusion was drawn, they have only themselves to blame for the way in which those telegrams were sent, particularly having regard to the fact that the hon. members who received the telegrams took the trouble to find out who the senders were and that no other conclusion could be arrived at in view of the information at their disposal.

There is another matter that I want to mention in passing and that is the question as to whether hotels which do not have off-sales departments but which have acquired other licences in the normal course of trade will all be given off-sales licences under this Bill. I have given further consideration to this point; certain hon. members have put their points of view to me again and I do not think that all hotels can or should automatically receive these licences. One will have to exercise discretion in this connection, and I want to warn the hotels therefore that if the result of granting off-sales licences to all hotels is going to be that there are going to be too many licences in a particular area, with a consequent disruption of the trade, then it will not be in the interests of anybody to grant these licences automatically. But where licences can be granted—and that will be in most cases—without causing disruption, they will be granted.

It is not my intention to emphasize once again the arguments which have been advanced so capably in this debate in favour of this Bill by the hon. members for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) and Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and the hon. the Minister of Lands. I just want to say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to those arguments. I do not hold it against anybody who has misgivings as to whether this Bill will serve the purpose outlined by one and other supporters of the Bill. All of us have the elementary right to have misgivings as to whether it will in fact serve that purpose. But in deciding whether it will serve its purpose or not there are certain important factors which do serve as a guide to us and we also have certain examples. The obvious example, of course, is the supply of liquor to the Bantu. There were very few of us, even those of us who voted for it, who wanted to put those provisions into practice and this applies to me particularly since I would have had to shoulder the responsibility if things had gone wrong—who did not have our doubts as to whether we were doing the right thing. Why did we vote for the Bill? We did so because it had become clear to all of us that in spite of the prohibition which had been imposed in respect of the Bantu, they were still obtaining liquor. Moreover, the Malan Commission had ventured to suggest that the best way to combat that evil, of which we were all aware, was to make liquor available to the Bantu. We had the opinion of the Malan Commission in that connection and it is remarkable that the same arguments which are being used to-day, more specifically in regard to the grocery shop were also used at that time in regard to the Bantu. In spite of the fact that that measure only came into operation as from 15 August last year, we are already in a position to gauge its effect and I want to say here unequivocally that those who not only had misgivings but who expressed their misgivings very strongly in this House and outside and said that this would result in very great evils, have been proved to be wrong. There is not the slightest doubt that they were wrong and I shall quote figures in a little while to indicate just how wrong they were in that connection.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was pointing out in passing that when the Liquor Amendment Bill which provides for the supply of liquor to the Bantu was introduced, whether we were in favour of it or not, we all felt a certain measure of understandable doubt, not whether we were doing the right thing but whether it would have the effect that we wanted it to have. The position which faced us at that time was that notwithstanding a complete prohibition on liquor as far as the Bantu were concerned, the Bantu were not only obtaining liquor but that as a result of the consumption of hard liquor drunkenness amongst them was assuming disturbing proportions. We all realized that we had to do something to rectify that position. We had before us the recommendation of the Malan Commission, which consisted of members of both sides of the House, that we should make liquor available to the Bantu, and that was what we did. I just want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) in passing for the speech which he made here. I think he put his case very fairly. I want to go so far as to say that if I had been opposed to the Bill, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) would have convinced me that I should vote for it. I differ from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) in one respect. His arguments boil down to this, that because we are going to have these additional distribution points, there will be more drunkenness and more crime. As I understood him, that was the essence of his argument. If that was not true in the case of the Bantu—and I will prove in a moment that it was not true in their case—then we do not have the slightest reason for assuming that it is going to be true in regard to the Whites; not at all. What do the figures prove to us? If we take the figures for the period 1 January 1962 to 30 April 1962 when we had a general prohibition, and we compare them with the figures for the period 1 January 1963 to 30 April 1963 we find that in the corresponding period this year, in comparison with the same period last year, there were 2,868 fewer convictions for drunkenness than in the previous year when there was a total prohibition in the case of the Bantu.

What was the total number of convictions for drunkenness?

I will give the hon. member the figure. Since the hon. member has asked that question, it is interesting to note that the total number of convictions in 1961 was 73,577, while in 1962 the figure was 66,098, and the new liquor provisions were only in operation from August to December, 1962. In other words, in 1962 there were 7,479 fewer convictions after the Act had been put into operation. If the pattern which has revealed itself this year—as it has consistently revealed itself—continues until the end of the year, there will be more than 8,000 fewer convictions this year than there were last year. In other words, the only conclusion that we can draw is that the fact that we have made more lawful distribution points available to the Bantu has not resulted in an increased number of convictions for drunkenness. On the contrary, it has resulted in fewer convictions. I want to be perfectly fair, I do not want to say that the fact that there were 7,000 fewer convictions last year or the fact that there are going to be 8,000 fewer convictions this year is due to the fact that there have been more lawful distribution points. My argument is that if there had been more convictions, then hon. members like the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) would have said that the increased number of convictions was due to the fact that there were more distribution points. I want to be perfectly fair and say that there may be other factors which may have played a role in this regard but it is a striking fact that these two things go hand in hand. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that the number of convictions has not increased but has decreased. But even if we attach no value to the fact that the number has diminished, I say that we do not have the slightest right to say at this stage that the incidence of drunkenness is going to increase because we are going to have additional distribution points. What did we have before us? We had the report of a commission which consisted of hon. members from both sides of the House. We all agreed that too much hard liquor was being consumed. Here we had a commission which had studied this matter for a number of years, a commission consisting of honourable members, a commission which informed us that this was the solution. That is what I base my argument on and nothing else. I do not have the slightest reason to doubt their word. As a matter of fact they proved to be right in the first instance and I must assume therefore that they are going to prove correct in the second instance as well.

May I ask a question? You say that you base your attitude on the report of the commission. Why then should the Government not also accept the recommendation contained in that report as far as beer is concerned?

It is not a question of why the Government did not accept that recommendation; the question is why the Minister did not accept it. The Minister did not accept it for the very good reasons that he mentioned here and that is that beer is freely available throughout the whole of the Republic, which is not always the case with wine, as the figures prove, and also because there are two principles at stake here. I have made it perfectly clear that I do not want to interfere unnecessarily with vested rights which people have acquired at great cost to themselves, and that is what I would have done if I had not followed this course. For the rest, I have made my attitude perfectly clear—that I have no objection at all in principle to the inclusion of beer and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will agree with me that I have put my attitude very fairly in that connection.

Of course, I should have liked you to have put it a little more fairly!

The hon. member for Mossel Bay wants to know what is going to happen if we find that we have made a mistake. If I find that I have made a mistake, I will tell the House that I have erred. It is no crime to admit that one has been guilty of an error of judgment. I am sure that no one will even ask me to resign for having been guilty of an error of judgment of this nature. If I find that I have made a mistake and that the effect is not what I anticipated and that hon. members who are opposed to this measure were right, then I shall be the first to come to this House and say that things have not worked out as anticipated by the Malan Commission and that we will have to make other plans. We can rectify the position if we find that we have made a mistake. We are not doing anything here that is irrevocable. The people who are going to receive these licences will not be compelled to make large capital outlays; they will not be compelled to invest a great deal of money. We find every day that because of certain circumstances a business has to be told that it cannot sell this, that or the other commodity. It is then simply told, “You can sell your present stocks but thereafter you will not be allowed to sell this commodity because the affect is not what we originally anticipated”. One can very easily rectify this sort of thing. But if we vote against the Bill, we will have no way of rectifying the situation.

And what about the people who learn to drink in the meantime?

If there are people who learn to drink more as a result of the passing of this measure it will be a pity, but we will still only be guilty of a mistake made in all good faith. I simply cannot see how this Bill is going to encourage more people to learn to drink.

I come now to the question of the tot system. We have been asked for some years now to abolish the tot system and here we are doing so. In Clause 73, which follows on this provision, it is provided that it will not be an offence to give one’s servant something to drink. This matter was discussed by the various agricultural unions. Let those of us who have servants be honest with ourselves. Is there anyone here who has never given old Andries a drink? We have all done so. Do we want to impose another prohibition? We have already had experience of the other one. We would only create the same evils. I do not want to discuss the tot system any further. I think the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) put the matter very clearly. Moreover, I told the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) by way of interjection that Section 152 of the old Act covered the case which he and the hon. member for Mossel Bay had in mind.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) raised two matters. The one was that Bantu beer can be sold automatically in grocery shops. The hon. member is not correct in his interpretation of the position, of course. I want in passing to refer the hon. member to Section 69 of the principal Act and to Clause 49 (f) of this Bill which make it perfectly clear that Bantu beer cannot be sold automatically by grocers. The hon. member is also wrong in regard to Clause 49 in believing that children will not be able to enter those grocery shops. They will be allowed to enter them at all times; but they will not be allowed to take liquor home to their parents. The old Act prohibits it. As far as the attitude of the hon. member in regard to a more simple form is concerned, I will go into the matter to see whether we cannot bring about a simplification. If it is possible to do so, I would like to do it. With regard to the proposals of the hon. member that we should try to reconcile the interests of the producer-wholesaler with those of the rest of the trade, I want to say that that is still an open question as far as I am concerned and I will consider it if and when I take this Bill to the Other Place. In that connection I just want to say that I arranged a meeting of the various interested groups in an attempt to see whether they could come to some agreement. They were unable to reach agreement. We are often asked why we do not allow the trade to be represented on the National Liquor Board. Mr. Speaker, my considered opinion is that there are so many conflicting interests amongst the various groups that if we had to ask the group interests to frame a Bill, no Bill would ever be framed for the simple reason that unfortunately these people cannot agree. Unfortunately—it is understandable—every group adopts the attitude that if its own point of view is not upheld, the Bill will be worthless and result in a fiasco. That is why it has to be left to outsiders to, solve this problem.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has expressed the opinion that this Bill is simply the forerunner of other Bills and that hard liquor will eventually also be sold by grocery shops. In his haste the hon. member forgot that I gave a very positive undertaking—and after all the hon. member knows that I am still going to occupy this position for many years—that I would not introduce another Bill of this nature. I think my successor would be foolish to put his head into this hornets’ nest. I do not think the hon. member has any reason for assuming that this Bill is the forerunner of other measures. On the contrary, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that that is not correct.

The hon. member for Simonstown adopted the attitude—and he raised this point in passing—that the unrest that exists in the Native townships may perhaps be attributable to the availability of liquor. If the hon. member has in mind the unrest that did exist in the Native townships, I just want to remind him that at this stage no liquor was made available by the city councils in those particular townships. When the hon. member talks of unrest that exists in Native townships, at the moment, I can only say that I am not aware of such unrest. Of course, I do not know what the position was in Havelock in Swaziland. That is something of which I have no knowledge at all. The hon. member also adopted the attitude that the reason why the number of convictions had apparently decreased was because people v/ere drinking in their homes. That statement is not in conformity with the facts. The hon. member is aware that the liquor Amendment Act which provided for liquor to be made available to the Bantu made provision for on-consumption facilities for the Bantu for the first time. In other words, it is not so much a question of liquor being drunk in the home; liquor is being consumed in public places with very good results. The hon. member’s argument in this regard therefore contradicts itself.

In conclusion I want to say that in this Bill, partly for the reasons that I have mentioned, we are accepting one of the recommendations of the Malan Commission. I believe that after years of study the Malan Commission has found the answer to this problem. I believe that the effect of those provisions will be as foreshadowed by the commission. Because I have that confidence I take the liberty of asking hon. members to vote for this Bill. I want hon. members to understand perfectly clearly that I am not making a plea ad miseri-cordiam that they should vote for this Bill. I am asking hon. members to vote for this Bill because it is acceptable on its merits; because we have considered it from all angles and because I, and those who share this conviction with me, believe that as far as the future is concerned this is one way in which to try to solve this problem which is causing us so much trouble. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of asking hon. members, as the hon. the Minister of Lands has done, to give this Bill a chance to bring about a change for the future.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—81: Barnett, C.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; Durrant, R. B.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henwood, B. H.; Heystek, J.; Hiermstra, E. C. A.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, S. F.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Taurog, L. B.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring F. W.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—41: Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jonker, A. H.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Otto, J. C.; Radford, A.; Rall, J. J.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, F. S.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and D. M. Streicher.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I move—

I believe that this Bill which I now have the privilege to introduce, will be heartily welcomed by all hon. members, particularly the lawyers. I believe therefore that it is not necessary for me to say much in respect of this Bill. Hon. members are aware that this Bill is the outcome of the Van Winsen Committee’s report, which made a very exhaustive inquiry into all the matters referred to it. The committee not only consisted of Judges, but it also had on it representatives of the Bar and the Side Bar. I should like to take this opportunity to place on record that I have nothing but the greatest respect for and appreciation of the work performed by the Hon. Mr. Justice van Winsen and his fellow-commissioners. I think we owe them a great debt of gratitude. They have provided us with an exceptionally thorough piece of work to build upon. The Van Winsen Committee report was made available by me to the Bar and the Side Bar. The Chief Justice and the various Judges-President, apart from the puisne Judges who had access to it, held a meeting in the course of this year at which they very thoroughly discussed the recommendations. Arising from their conference, they recommended that this Bill as we have it before us, should be passed. In passing I should like to refer to first a few of the provisions. Clause 2 of the Bill provides as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order of the court of a provincial or local division in proceedings in connection with an application—

1. (a) by one spouse against the other for maintenance pendente lite;
2. (b) for contribution towards the costs of a pending matrimonial action;
3. (c) for the interim custody of a child when a matrimonial action between its parents is pending or is about to be instituted; or
4. (d) by one parent against the other for access to a child.”

I think hon. members who have been in active practice will agree with me that it is unnecessary that these cases should be taken on appeal for the reasons mentioned in that report. As far as I am concerned, I accept it.

The main object of this Bill is to make it possible for the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Judges-President, to issue uniform Supreme Court rules. Every one of us who has practised knows that the fact that every division has its own rules, gives rise to many problems. It is readily admitted and accepted that there are certain peculiar rules in respect of one division which do not necessarily apply in another division. Provision is made for that in that in the first Dart of Clause 10 it is made possible for the Judge-President of a division to make rules in respect of that division which are peculiar to that division, while in the second part of that clause, it is made possible for the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Judges-President, to issue certain rules in respect of matters which are very clearly and very fully specified in this Bill. I have no hesitation in asking hon. members to accept this Bill as it stands, in view of the fact that these matters have been discussed at a Judges’ Conference under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice, and as it has been recommended by that conference.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate this side of the House with the thanks expressed by the hon. the Minister of Justice to Mr. Justice van Winsen and those who sat with him on the commission. There is no question that they did a first-class job of work. Not only the legal profession but the whole of the country which places such reliance on our courts cannot but be grateful for the really splendid job of work which has been done. I am also glad that there has been consultation with the Chief Justice and the other senior Judges in regard to the matter. I can say that I know there is unanimity in the legal profession. I know of no dissentient voice in relation to the matter which is before us. It is believed that this Bill will lead to a further improvement in what is already one of the outstanding systems of administering justice throughout the world. I believe it is right that steps should be taken to ensure that we shall have one set of rules applicable in all the provinces. It seems to me really remarkable that it has taken us something like 50 years since Union to have reached this stage. We must be very glad that that stage has now been reached. It is undoubtedly going to be in the interests not only of the legal profession but in the interests of the country as a whole.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the question of maintenance. I must say that to an extent I think we should regard the particular provision now included as one which we should watch in its operation. I am very hesitant at any time to remove a right of appeal. I know the difficulties and this will probably be found to be the correct solution. But even Judges do on occasion nod, Sir. I do ask of the Minister to ask his Department to keep a special record and to see if there are cases where it would appear that this provision might result in some injustice. For the rest, Sir, it is only necessary to say once again that we support this Bill fully. We can only hope that the new rules of court will be available at an early date. I do hope everything possible will be done to complete the new set of rules. It is in the interests of the profession and of the country that we have it at as early a date as possible.

I just want to say a few words about this Bill. You will remember that some years ago I moved a motion here in connection with the high costs of litigation. I therefore want to welcome this Bill because it is an effort in that direction, particularly as far as uniform regulations for the courts are concerned. I want to make use of this opportunity to express my appreciation to the commission for the work that it did. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister has said but I also want to express my doubts once again as to whether simply by making the court rules uniform we are going to be able to lower the high costs of litigation in this country. Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to consider the questions of having a more comprehensive investigation made into this whole matter at some future date? It is indeed a very real problem. I feel that every person ought to have the right to be able to bring his case before the court and that he should not be deprived of this right because of poverty. Apart from this doubt I welcome this piece of legislation.

I want to express my thanks to the hon. members who have participated in this debate; I welcome the fact that they support this Bill. As far as the last argument of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is concerned, I just want to point out that the authority that is being given here to the Chief Justice not only affects the question of uniform rules; it goes further than that. I also want to tell the hon. member that the Van Winsen Committee gave a great deal of attention to this question of the high cost of litigation. To sum it up in one sentence, it seems to me that they feel that by simplifying the procedure they will lower the costs of litigation. The Van Winsen Committee found that attorneys and advocates did not generally charge very high fees. I readily agree with them that that is so. If complaints are made about the high costs of litigation, it is very definitely not because attorneys and advocates charge unduly high fees in comparison with other professions. As a matter of fact when one compares the fees, it is perfectly clear that that is so. One instructs an advocate to appear for one for a whole day or two. Compare his fee with that of a specialist who performs an operation for three or four hours. There is actually no comparison between the fees charged by the two persons. They are both professional people. They are both people who have had to study a great deal and whose time is very valuable. In the circumstances therefore from whatever angle one considers the position, I do not think that the fault lies with members of the Bar or the Side Bar who make people pay too much for the work that they have to do. The hon. member will remember that we passed legislation last year and this year as well to simplify the procedure. I hope that that will have the desired effect and that the hon. member will still be able to enjoy the fruits of his motion during his lifetime.

I have noted the views expressed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) who says that we should see whether the other provisions of this Bill in fact have the desired effect and whether they will not affect people adversely. I want to give him the assurance that we will see to it that they have the desired effect. The hon. member also expressed the hope that the rules would be made available as soon as possible. I have every reason to believe that these rules will still be made available this year. The General Bar Council will make its representations to the Chief Justice as soon as possible in regard to this matter and will have discussions with the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice in consultation with the Judges-President will frame the rules and submit them to me for submission to the State President. If necessary, I shall discuss the final rules with the Bar Council before they are submitted for promulgation.

The hon. the Minister has not mentioned the law societies. Although the advocates are very closely connected with one aspect of the matter, the law societies are far more closely connected with the other.

I am pleased that the hon. member has reminded me of that. I should have said that I also made the rules available to the law societies, not only to the Bar.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a short formal Bill. It is actually the second leg of a Bill which we passed earlier this Session. Hon. members will remember that we passed the Maintenance Bill earlier this Session. South Africa has reciprocal agreements with dozens and dozens of countries to the effect that we will recognize their maintenance orders here and enforce them and that they in turn will enforce our maintenance orders in their countries. This Bill in the main consolidates an old existing measure which we are merely adapting to the new measure which we passed earlier this Session so as to be able to enforce the maintenance orders of other countries. It has nothing to do with our own maintenance orders.

It is not necessary to discuss the details of this Bill. We agree with what the hon. the Minister has said and we support the measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I was away when the hon. Minister replied to a number of matters which I had raised. The circumstances were explained to the hon. Minister. I had no idea that his Vote would come on so soon, otherwise I would have seen the hon. Minister before I left.

I would like just to say a few words in relation to another aspect of a matter which I raised with the hon. Minister. It dealt with the operation of legislation which has been passed over the period in which this Government has been in power, legislation designed to deal with the situation existing in this country. I would like just to say this to the hon. Minister in that regard: He has explained that he has carried out the duties which have been placed upon him by statute, and he stated that in fact he believed that certain organizations which were guilty of subversive activities and other illegal acts have to a large extent been dealt with under the powers vested in the hon. Minister. I would like to say to the hon. Minister that it is my belief that a particularly heavy onus rests on this hon. Minister, because no one in this House, I hope, certainly not we on this side of the House, would like to see those measures become a permanent part of our law. They are in the nature of emergency measures. There is no need to stress the point, but I would just like to put it for the sake of the record that I believe that apart from the administration of those measures a very heavy onus rests on this hon. Minister who is closely in touch with what is going on in these matters, to use his influence with his colleagues in the Cabinet to tackle the positive side of seeking to bring about a better state of affairs in this country. I think all of us are concerned about these difficulties, but all of us should be particularly concerned too with looking deeper than the mere surface and seeking to eliminate whatever can be eliminated of the causes upon which activities of this sort have flourished in this country. The hon. Minister of Justice, I hope, will regard himself as having a very special role to fulfil in persuading his colleagues that they should re-examine their policies, re-examine the base of South African life, because clearly no one can be happy about the fact that in the circumstances of to-day it is necessary that we should have upon our Statute Book in this country measures of the nature as those to which I have referred. I will leave that matter, but there are a couple of details I would like to raise with the hon. Minister. Firstly, I would like to raise the question of the statement which was made by the new head of our Police Force in this country, General Keevy. I think this is the first opportunity I have of saying to that gentleman that we wish him well with the tremendously responsible task which has been placed on his shoulders. We know that he has had a distinguished career and we can only wish him great success. Sir, this Chief of Police recently referred to the question of the traffic police in South Africa, and I would be very glad if the hon. Minister can inform us whether that statement had his support as Minister of Justice and whether he proposes to take any steps, and whether it was purely a matter which came from our Chief of Police. I leave the matter there. I do not propose at this stage to carry it further.

I rise immediately to rectify one matter because I should not like to see the time allocated for the debate on this Vote taken up by a discussion on this matter. The hon. member adopted the attitude, as his leader did, that I should discuss the matter with my colleagues and that we should do something positive to rectify things in South Africa. If I were to preach to my colleagues, I would be preaching to the greatest coverts because they all do it already. If I have to preach to anyone—and I do not want to preach on this occasion—then I must preach to the hon. member and to hon. members on the other side. Let us consider this matter. What positive steps must be taken? More housing has to be made available. There we are all agreed. But in all fairness, who has made more housing available than this Government? Who has made more housing available than my colleague here next to me, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs? Who provided more Bantu housing than the hon. the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Native Affairs, and his successor? Let us be honest in regard to this matter. Statistics are available and they speak for themselves. But in regard to the question of franchise, we may differ in regard to the effect that the granting of the franchise would have. We know that the franchise is a source of irritation and friction. Who has done anything more positive in this regard than this Government has done in respect of the Bantu? Moreover, who has taken more positive steps in all spheres to make facilities available to those people, facilities which they never had before? Who has taken more positive steps to eliminate sources of friction between the races than this Government? In pursuance of an incident that took place, I want to finalize this matter once and for all as far as hon. members are concerned. Do not tell me that the things that are happening in South Africa are due to the policy which is being followed by this Government. That has nothing to do with it.

Let us consider this matter in pursuance of the Maseko case. He was a person who was a ne’er-do-well and a paid agitator of the Communist Party. I had him placed under house arrest. There were newspapers which held it against me that I was dealing with the poor innocent Maseko in this way. But I knew what I was doing and I had him placed under house arrest. He made use of the first judgment of Mr. Justice Trollip, when house arrest was declared invalid, to leave the country and to go to Swaziland. The authorities there knew what sort of person he was. They accommodated him and what happened? Now, a few months after Maseko was allowed to take up residence there, we have an admission from Swaziland—and Swaziland does not follow our policy—that he has created such a turmoil in Swaziland that 800 troops have had to be sent there from Nairobi. Hon. members cannot tell me that this happened as a result of the policy followed by Swaziland. It happened because this brood of vipers entered the country and stirred up trouble there. One knows, if one has a number of apples on a plate and one of them is bad, how soon that bad apple infects the rest of the apples. Hon. members must see to it that we do not have any of those bad apples in this House. They would infect the good apples. I want to give the hon. member the assurance—and having said this I think we must leave this sort of argument—that there has never been a Government which has been so patient in eliminating friction as this Government has been, and not only in eliminating friction but in making facilities available which were never available before. Let us differ in regard to our political outlook if necessary, but please do not let us make the mistake—because by so doing we merely strengthen these undermining elements—of saying that it this, that or the other policy that is responsible for the fact that this, that or the other has taken place in South Africa. Let us call a spade a spade, the reason for the difficulties in Southern Africa is not this, that or the other policy; we have seen what has happened; no matter what policy is followed, trouble is caused because the communists are paid to create trouble, and if we want an example of just how it is done and, moreover, how it is done in a very short space of time, then the Maseko case is an excellent example.

As far as the statement made by the Commissioner of Police, General Keevy is concerned, I said in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) that this was an argument which the Commissioner used to test public feeling in this connection. It is not the policy of the Government or the policy of the Ministry; it was a statement made by the Commissioner, with my knowledge, to see what public reaction in this regard would be. It was necessary to test public opinion in this regard because certain commissions and certain bodies had recommended that this should be done. It is far easier to decide that one is going to do something once one knows what the spontaneous reaction of various people is in that regard. Hon. members saw what the reaction was. A certain group was in favour of it and a certain group was opposed to it. As far as I am concerned, the matter rests there and it is not my intention to take it any further at all at this stage.

The hon. Minister has referred to the causes of the difficulties in South Africa. I shall not refer to that now but save it for another occasion. In any case I think I have mentioned often enough what I believe to be the root causes of the troubles in this country and that it does us no good to put our heads in the sand like ostriches and pretend that everything is due to communist infiltration.

Sir, it may not come as a surprise to the hon. Minister when I say that I have not got the intention of joining in the general chorus of praise which seems to have been his lot during this Vote.

Did I ask you for that?

You were not here.

I am talking of the accolades in the Government Press and all the other remarks of hon. members opposite. On the contrary, I have got a number of complaints which I should like to voice in terms of a good old parliamentary custom to which we still at least pay lip-service, and that is that redress of grievances should precede supply. I want first of all to point out to the hon. Minister that he appears to be setting a new standard in this House by not replying to formal questions put to him. I am not referring to the hon. Minister’s Press statements and I am not referring to the speeches that he makes in this House. He is certainly very vocal and very talkative. He makes many speeches and makes many Press statements. But all that is a type of “managed” information that he wishes to hand out, and nobody can have any control over what he says, naturally. But I am referring to questions which are directly put to the hon. Minister at question time in Parliament, and the custom which he is now building up of either telling the House that the information can be obtained by looking through Press reports, because the information has been published, or by telling the House that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information, or by giving what I can only call evasive replies. I want to point out to the hon. Minister that even during a declared state of emergency in 1960 in South Africa, his predecessor gave a great deal more information for instance about the number of detainees, who they were, where they were being held and the conditions under which such people were being held. Indeed regulations were in fact published for anybody who cared to look at them. But this Minister does not give us such information. Incidentally the hon. Minister is apparently keeping a dossier on a lot of people, and he may be interested to know that I have been keeping just a small dossier on him as far as questions and answers are concerned. Searching through the questions and replies, I find that he has, over and over again, to me anyway, replied that I can look through Press reports to get the information that I want. I say this in particular with reference to the number of people who have been held under Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act. The hon. Minister told us that reports had been published in the newspapers. I do not believe that it should be necessary for Members of Parliament to have to search through the Press to get an aggregate of the replies to questions that an hon. member wants. Press reports conflict for one thing, and members cannot be expected to follow every newspaper, and cannot be expected in fact even to read the newspapers every day in one town, and if the information is available then I think the hon. Minister should produce the information, particularly as this is the sort of information that changes from day to day. More people are detained and some are released, and I think that we are entitled to this information. The other point that I want to make is that the hon. Minister has not given us the regulations under which such people are detained. I was told that there are no special regulations for them but that they were held under ordinary prison regulations. I tried to find out what that means. So I got the Prisons Act and I found that there are different regulations in regard to the different categories of prisoners. I got a little pamphlet which presumably was issued by the State Information Department which tells us all about the prison system and tells us that prisoners are classified in different groups, and that some have certain privileges such as receiving visitors and receiving letters, additional food, and cigarettes and so on, literature and the rest of it. But I want to know what regulations in fact have been issued in respect of these people who have not committed any crime that we know of, who have not been brought before any court or any tribunal, but are simply confined under ministerial edict for 90 days. Do the regulations differ from prison to prison, each prison superintendent for instance having his own set of regulations? I want to point out to the hon. Minister that he gave a lot of assurances to this House when he took these drastic powers unto himself. He told us that we would be kept fully informed and that his own reputation would stand or fall by the way in which people were being handled under the Act.

And he kept his promise. You did not attend the debate.

I have taken great trouble to read up the debate and to follow Press reports and all the Minister’s statements. I too did not know that the Justice Vote was coming up when it did. It was sprung on us as a surprise, as the hon. Minister knows. It is seldom that I am absent from this House when any important matter comes under discussion. I repeat that I do not think the hon. Minister should expect us to make a check on the information handed out in Press releases. He should supply information as it is required. Now this business of “not in the public interest” is being used more and more frequently by hon. Ministers in this House. But another reply is that it is too much trouble to obtain the information. I am not the only member who suffers from this. If one looks through the questions and answers, one will see that over and over again one gets the reply that it is too difficult to accumulate the information, that it is too much trouble for the Department. For instance very important questions in regard to the number of people serving sentences for the so-called political crimes, the number who are awaiting trial, and so on, have not been answered when I have put those questions. Recently the Director of Prisons gave us the figure that 10,000 people were awaiting trial on all types of crimes, and I want to say at this juncture that I was appalled at the new high that has been reached as far as our prison population is concerned. In that same report the figure of 67,636 people in prison, or one in every 236 South Africans, or about .42 per cent, appears. Just compare these figures with figures in other countries. In the United States the most recent figure I could get was that out of a total population of 182,000,000 people, 220,329 people were in prison, which comes to one per 827, or .12 per cent, and we are always told about the troubles and violence in America. In the United Kingdom out of a population of 52,673,000 people there are 53,406 people in goal according to the information I was able to obtain and that is one per 985 of the population or .101 per cent. I admit at once that statutory pass offences cover a great number of these people who are imprisoned, which, I would like to say to the hon. Minister, is one of the causes of difficulties in this country. There were 375,000 people who were convicted of pass offences in 1961, not all of whom went to goal, but I think one can say categorically that out of the 1,000 a day who were convicted under pass offences, according to figures the hon. Minister did give me, quite a number ended up in goal because they were unable to pay the fines. What a waste of manpower and what a source of racial friction!

To come back to the Minister and this question of people in goal. People on both sides of the House have been complimenting the hon. Minister on the result of the security raids which have been carried out recently and the hon. Minister stated that 5,000 people had, been arrested in these security raids of whom something like 3,800 were actual members of Poqo. I cannot help having a nagging suspicion that a great deal of haphazard arrests have also taken place during these countrywide raids, based on information which is superficial at best and is inaccurate at the very worst, based on information obtained from people who are frightened or people who are acting out of pure spite. Now, Sir, of the cases that have been arrested, let us take the Paarl arrests. A great many of these people were not charged. Of the ones who were arrested something like 137 were released without, being brought to trial at all,. 67 of those people afterwards were endorsed out of the area, apparently because they were unemployed. [Time limit.]

There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee and of the hon. the Minister, and that is in connection with the penalties that are imposed by our courts for robbery and other, crimes. A number of voters in my constituency expressed doubts in this connection at the beginning of the year. It is of course a fact that the sentences imposed by magistrates and Judges differ as a result of circumstances. But I have perused a few newspapers during a period of one month and in the Transvaler of 21 March 1963 I found the case of a certain Pieter Willem Smit, 19 years of age, who was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment and four cuts with a cane on two counts of the theft of cigarettes. In that report it was also stated that he had no previous convictions. In the Transvaler of 3 April, I also found that a certain Jan Adriaan Venter was given seven years’ imprisonment for apparently having stolen an amount of about R50,000. In going further, I found that on 6 March, according to the Burger, a certain Herbert Hyman Gluckman appeared before a Judge in Johannesburg on certain charges and according to the report he was found guilty on six charges of forgery and uttering, and he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The amount involved in those six charges was R15,000. The report stated further [Translation]—

The two years and four years’ imprisonment, respectively, for the last two offences will be served concurrently with the four years’ imprisonment for forgery and uttering. This person is now only going to serve four years’ imprisonment and an amount of R180,000 is involved, although it was alleged that the amount involved was R318,000. But then we have the case of the young fellow who stole cigarettes and who was sentenced to two years and six months and four cuts. There were no extenuating circumstances in the case of the man who stole the R180,000, according to the report, and the money was stolen from the South African Board of Executors where trust moneys are invested for widows and orphans. This person stole money from all those people; they may perhaps have lost all their money but that man was only sentenced to four years. It is not always possible to prescribe the sentences that Judges should impose but it is clear to me from the few examples that I have mentioned that something is wrong. Where we have cases of fraud and theft of this nature I think that far heavier sentences should be imposed.

I want to raise another point in connection with our Insolvency Act. There are a few wolves amongst the large number of people who administer insolvent estates on the Rand. There are a few wolves who prey on these people. A man must be fantastically rich if he goes insolvent and still has something left in his estate. A few years ago I investigated a matter where the creditors were offered 15s. in the £ but the man was declared insolvent and later the estate paid out 1s. 4d; in the £.

We know that a departmental inquiry into the Insolvency Act is being undertaken at the moment but I want to ask whether a public commission of inquiry cannot be appointed to inquire into the Insolvency Act. If things go on in this way the Department will eventually be stigmatized and so will other people who do not deserve it. We know that the Master of the Supreme Court is doing good work but his hands are tied in certain circumstances. This prevents him from being able to investigate and dispose of certain matters properly, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission to inquire into this matter.

The hon. member who has just sat down has raised a very important and difficult matter, the different standards applied by the different courts in punishing offenders. He gave examples, but the one which struck us all the other day as a shocking example was when a policeman was sentenced to goal for four years, two years of which were suspended, for raping two Native women, one a girl of 15 years. That is a shocking example of the different standards applied by the courts. But our difficulty is that it is impossible to get a uniform standard unless you lay down a minimum punishment for the offence, and of course we are very lot to do that. So I am afraid we must continue to give our courts these powers to sentence in the way they see fit, but it is just as well that we voice our disapproval of some of the sentences meted out and I hope that the acting Judge in this case will note that we in Parliament feel that the sentence he meted out certainly did not fit the crime.

On the last occasion when we discussed his Vote, the Minister quoted from a circular which emanated from Cairo and was sent to the A.N.C. here. It read—

The Minister then remarked that one problem he. had was sabotage itself and the other was the arousing of the masses, because they say they must have this fertile soil of the aroused masses before sabotage can be effectively committed. This afternoon the Minister, in dealing with political agitation, said that his Government had done more than any other one to remove points of racial friction and he went on to quote what had been done, and he mentioned housing for non-Whites. We have paid tribute at different times to the Government for the housing it provided. Then the Minister dealt with political rights. He knows that we disagree with him completely on that question. We do not agree that giving the Transkei independence and full political rights is the solution.

Order! That is not relevant.

I just want to reply very briefly to the Minister. I want to point out that because he could quote housing as the only instance of where the Government had done something to ease. the lot of the Africans, when the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) spoke, and the Leader of the Opposition, we were thinking of the harsh application of the pass laws and the abolition of the exemption certificate and the endorsing-out policy of the Government.

Order! That is not relevant either. That is an indirect method of discussing irrelevant matters.

Cannot I reply to the Minister briefly?

NO, I am sorry, but I have given my ruling.

I have a long list to deny the Minister’s claims that his Government has removed points of racial friction, but as I cannot deal with that now I will ask him something else. It deals with one section of the Transkei Bill, which falls under the Minister’s jurisdiction, the administration of the police in the Transkei. In the First Schedule of that Act details are given of the matters in respect of which the Transkeian Government can make laws and paragraph 7 mentions the control, organization and administration of such personnel or such part of the Police Force stationed in the Transkei as may have been transferred to the Government of the Transkei by the Minister of Justice. Can the Minister tell the House, because this is the last opportunity we will have of discussing it before the new Government actually takes over in the Transkei, what is intended? What Police Force will be transferred to the Transkeian Government? Will they all be Bantu police, or will they be White and Coloured officers and non-commissioned officers who will fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice of the Transkei? Can he give us any information as to what duties it is expected that they will have to carry out, because it is important to the House to know that if part of our Police Force is to be transferred to; another authority, whether this Minister will then lose control of it. I would like to know what the position will be of the police who are transferred.

While I am dealing with that, the Minister is also responsible for the carrying of the provisions of Proclamation 400 in the Transkei. We saw a statement the other day by the Minister of Bantu Administration that the elections are likely to be held in the Transkei in November, and the Minister made certain references to Proclamation 400. Has this Minister given the matter consideration, and has it been discussed with the Territorial Authority as to what provisions of this proclamation will apply during the election?

I am not responsible for that.

Order! The Minister is not responsible for that proclamation.

But in terms of the proclamation, it is illegal to hold a meeting of more than ten people without permission. If they hold such a meeting, this Minister’s Police Force will have to act, and I want to know from him whether he has been consulted with regard to the application of the law, and are they going to relax the enforcement of the proclamation during the election? It is not only a question of meetings of more than 10 people being banned, but I raise this issue because the Minister of Bantu Administration indicated that the provisions would be relaxed. Has this Minister agreed to it?

Order! That is a matter for the Minister of Bantu Administration.

But the police of the Minister of Justice will have to act.

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling. The administration of that proclamation does not fall under this Minister.

I will be glad if the Minister can give us any information about it, because we are discussing his Vote and his policy and we are entitled to know from him what he envisages will happen during the election.

Then I should also like to ask the Minister in regard to the provisions of the General Laws Amendment Act, Section 70, whereby it is incumbent upon a magistrate to visit people who are detained under the 90-days’ clause. I see a report in the paper that the Chief Magistrate visited detainees. Is it the practice, in whatever goal these people are detained, that the senior magistrate of the district will visit them?

Yes.

And what happens after he has visited them? There is nothing in the law to say what should be done. To whom does the magistrate report what he finds there?

If he finds anything wrong, he reports to me immediately.

Then I hope the Minister will make a statement in regard to it.

There is one matter of importance that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I speak on behalf of myself and my colleagues representing constituencies in the peri-urban areas and I refer to the triangle between Krugersdorp, Pretoria and Johannesburg and the Vanderbijlpark-Vereeniging complex. On the occasion of a visit to my constituency recently, it was brought to my attention that amongst other things a water pump to the value of R1,400 was stolen from its platform. I am not even referring here to the theft of poultry and large stock. The problem is that we have these periodical raids from places like Roodepoort, Atteridgeville and other Bantu areas which are situated nearby. There are relatively few police and police stations in that vicinity. My personal conviction is that both as regards the C.I.D. and the strength of the Police Force, and also as far as transport facilities are concerned, the hon. the Minister should consider it a matter of urgency to strengthen the Police Force in this respect and to have patrols carried out more regularly. By this I do not mean that the police should only drive up and down the main roads; I feel that they should also investigate various premises here and there. I am not exaggerating in bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The position is also very serious because of the fact that there are many small farms which do not have European overseers, farms which are actually small squatter farms where all these evils originate. The Whites have to pay for it. They are the ones who are trying hard to make an honest living. I want to tell the hon. the Minister in all earnestness that special attention should be given to these areas as far as police stations and the number of police at those stations is concerned. From the nature of the case these areas cannot be compared with the usual rural areas where one very seldom comes across this sort of thing. This has been brought to my attention in all earnestness by the public and after I consulted various of my colleagues, I found that they agreed with me that it was a general problem. I will very greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I should like to finish off the one subject I raised with the Minister. I mentioned the number of people who have been detained, and no doubt a great number of them will ultimately be charged and found guilty, but I am worried about the wholesale arrest of people, many of them who will never be brought to trial, and what happens to them and their families. I am not concerned with those who are found guilty, but I am concerned with those who are innocent, and who are held in the police cells and whose cases are remanded from time to time and ultimately they are discharged without being brought to trial. There have been cases where the families have been endorsed out of the urban area as the result of the man losing his job because he was arrested on suspicion, and later he is discharged, but he was endorsed out of the area because he became unemployed. The Minister will agree with me that this is a travesty of justice and I hope he will do something to see that people who have been arrested by the police in an effort to bring members of Poqo to trial but who have been discharged as innocent should not suffer afterwards because they were arrested. I hope the Minister will contact the Minister of Bantu Administration and give the necessary instructions to his Department that people should not suffer as the result of this. My information is that about 1,000 people have been arrested in the Western Cape alone, many of whom were held and then discharged. I asked questions about the dependants of these people and I had a reply from the Minister of Social Welfare that special arrangements could be made for them if they applied. I hope some effort will be made to inform the dependants of these people what their rights are in this regard, because they are ignorant of them. I have not yet had a reply from the Minister of Bantu Administration concerning the dependants of Bantu prisoners, but I am told that it is extremely difficult for them to get any assistance because they have to produce birth and marriage certificates and certificates to show that they are legally in the area, and even in some instances, a note from the policeman who arrested the husband. The Minister stated in the House some time ago that he was proud of the arrangements he had made to see that the dependants were looked after. I hope he will carry that through in the present circumstances.

I want to raise with the Minister again the question of trials on Robben Island. I raised it with him twice before by way of question and I raised it again when the General Laws Amendment Bill was under discussion, but I am not satisfied with the answers he gave. I asked the Minister how open were these trials on Robben Island, what access did the public have to such trials, and whether persons who were tried there had the normal facilities of obtaining legal assistance and contacting their witnesses. The Minister told me that normal procedures were being followed. I want to know how it is possible to follow normal procedures when the entire Robben Island is a prison and when the court is in fact therefor inside the prison. The Minister knows how difficult it is under the regulations to get near a prison and how one has to get special permission to get into a prison, and he knows how difficult it is for the accused persons to get into touch with their legal advisers and to call witnesses. I want to remind the Minister of something he said at the Orange Free State Congress of his party last year, when people asked him that persons charged under the Immorality Act should be protected by the trials being held in secret courts, and when the Minister himself quoted the well-known legal maxim that not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. I do not believe that this is the case when trials are held at Robben Island. The normal procedure is that any member of the public of or the Press can walk into any court, which is the correct and democratic way, but taking the court to Robben Island places great difficulties in the way of people who want to attend the court. Even if the prosecutor gives permission, people have to make application to get into the prison and they have the trouble of getting across to the island, and I believe that this procedure of holding trials on Robben Island is something which should be discontinued immediately. I think it is a bad thing and contrary to the normal concept of law that we had, until recently anyway, in South Africa.

I want to make one other point and ask the Minister why he reacted so strongly to the suggestion of the Judge-President of the Cape that the time had come for an independent commission of inquiry into the prison system. The Judge-President had some strong words to say about the prison system. The whole thing arose out of the case at Klein Drakenstein where a prisoner was kicked to death by warders. The Minister reacted sharply to that suggestion and said that this would mean a witch-hunt in the Prison Service and he would not have it. I am quite sure that was not the intention behind the Judge-President’s suggestion. After all, there have been many cases of ill-treatment of prisoners, and the Minister has given us the assurance that he disapproves of it, and I know that Brig. Verster certainly did the best he could to initiate prison reform, but there is no doubt that we still have many bad prisons where there is overcrowding and bad conditions. I know efforts are being made to bring all our prisons into line with modern practice, but far too many and far too alarming reports are being published in the Press of assaults in prisons, both by members of the staff and by prisoners on other prisoners, and I think the Minister should do something about it.

Why exaggerate and generalize like that?

I am not exaggerating. I could produce a file of reports for the Minister to look through and it does not make good reading. Why does the Minister not want a prison inquiry? The last independent prison inquiry we had in this country was the Lansdown Commission in 1948, and that is a long time ago. There has been, admittedly, a departmental inquiry since then, but no independent judicial inquiry. I say there are numerous and disquieting reports of assaults in prison, and the ill-treatment of prisoners. [Interjections.] Why are hon. members afraid of an independent commission? [Interjection.] Does the Judge-President of the Cape indulge in gossip? “Perhaps,” says the hon. member for Heilbron, who is a member of a Bar, and I think that is a scandalous allegation for him to make. People in prisons are in the most unfavourable position vis-à-vis their warders for the making of any complaints and they are obviously liable to victimization if they complain. Although many instances of ill-treatment are known, I have no doubt that there are many cases which we do not know about, and the only way to clear it up is to have an impartial judicial inquiry.

There are other matters I wish to raise, like the sending of ambulances and the rendering of assistance in the case of accidents in the country districts, where I gather that the police have to send the ambulance with the consent of the district surgeon, but there are many delays, which in at least one case that I know of led to loss of life. [Time limit.]

I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed for the news that I have just received from the Secretary for Justice in connection with the promulgation of separate magisterial districts for Koster, Swartruggens and Thabazimbi. The proclamation in terms of which these magisterial districts will be established as from 1 August will be appearing in the Government Gazette shortly. This means a great deal to me and particularly to those districts. The simultaneous promulgation of three full-fledged magisterial districts within one constituency—Marico—is probably a record. Part of Thabazimbi falls within the Rustenburg constituency. I want to thank the Secretary for Justice for the sympathetic manner in which he has dealt with my request in this connection. I am sure that the municipalities and the organizations that have been striving for this are very grateful to the hon. the Minister to-day. In the second place, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having realized an ideal for which I have worked for a long time—the better safeguarding and control of the north-western border or the Republic. Even though our becoming a Republic has hastened the realization of that ideal by making the establishment of a number of police control posts more necessary, I nevertheless want to say that I am very grateful for what has been done. Six of these police control posts will be established on the north-western boundary of my constituency—at Ramathlabama, Skilpads, Swartkopfontein, Kopfontein, Derdepoort and Buffelsdrift—and all of them have to be occupied by 1 July next. These posts will mean that the vitally important part of the border of the Republic connecting us with the northern Black hinterland, with all its evils, can be protected far more efficiently as far as entry from the north and also the escape of undesirable elements from the Republic is concerned. That border runs for a distance of nearly 70 miles parallel with the only railway line running from the south to deep in the heart of Southern Africa. It runs parallel with—and at some places it is only a few hundred yards away from—an important road from the northern Cape along the western border of the Republic, deep into the northern areas. This means that undesirable persons who are easily able to cross the border have immediate access to rail and road communications in order to enable them to reach their destinations in the northern states which are very hostile towards us. Because of the nature of the terrain, that border is also very convenient for similar persons wanting to escape from the Republic. The country is mountainous and bushy and on both sides of the border live Bantu of the same ethnic group who know one another, who are sometimes related to one another and who can therefore offer shelter to persons wanting to escape across the border from the Rand or from the interior of the Republic. They can also help these people to cross the border at night. In this connection I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister and also to Gen. Keevy who is present here to-day and who is controlling our borders in a very capable manner. In spite of the number of police control posts I maintain that it will still always be possible for undesirable agitators and even saboteurs to slip through those control posts from outside, particularly where there are Bantu living on both sides of the border. In order to control this position I want to suggest what I have suggested previously—this suggestion may perhaps already have been considered: That a helicopter should be stationed at the defence station at Zeerust. This machine can then be used effectively in co-operation with defence to patrol the border. In this way we will have better border control in that mountainous and bushy terrain. In the second place, I want to suggest that a bloodhound post be set up near Zeerust, not only to provide the normal services in those parts where thousands of foreign Bantu are settled on the small mines and where stock theft takes place on a large scale, but also to be used to good purpose together with the helicopter as far as the patrolling of the border is concerned. If for example a border guard reports that suspicious tracks have been discovered at some place indicating that undesirable persons have crossed the border from outside during the night, then the best way to track them down across that kind of terrain is by means of bloodhounds. The nearest bloodhound station is at Rustenburg which in my opinion is much too far away and is also not sufficiently strategically situated to enable swift action to be taken in this important border area. In the third place, I want to suggest to Gen. Keevy that there is a very urgent need at Zeerust for a division of the C.I.D. Up to a few years ago a detective was stationed at Zeerust but he was removed at a later stage. We would like that post to be restored with a view to the better control of this difficult and important border district.

I want to make another suggestion. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is fencing the border between the Republic and the Bechuanaland Protectorate. I make this suggestion with a view to the better safeguarding of our borders. In the last week representations have been made by various farmers’ associations asking that that border fence should consist of eight strands and be six foot in height.

(Mr. Faurie): Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

Yes. I submit that it does fall under the Vote because the border has to be guarded by the police. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department cannot request the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to erect a uniform fence throughout instead of having the fence which is 4½ feet high at some places and 6 feet high at other places. This border fence is being erected not only for the purposes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services—for controlling the movements of stock and game—but also with a view to the general control of the border. This is an international border line. My request is simple; this fence must be erected properly and well and it must have a uniform height of at least 6 feet.

I want to conclude by expressing a word of thanks to Gen. Keevy for taking immediate action to comply with a request for the removal of the police station from Ganskuil to Dwaalboom, a police station which for many years functioned under the most difficult and unfavourable conditions because of inadequate accommodation. The fact that building operations on the new police station will be started next month compels me to express a word of thanks to Gen. Keevy. As it happens, when he was a young constable he was stationed there at one stage. We want to express our thanks on behalf of the police who are stationed there at present and also the persons who have agitated for the transfer of the police station. The new station will be far more effective and will provide more facilities as far as its staff are concerned.

The first matter that I want to raise is the practical working or the working in practice of Section 16 of the Immorality Act which is, of course, the section in that Act which makes sexual intercourse between persons of different races any offence. I consider that the working of this section in practice requires the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister, and I say that on the basis of the official figures.

Do you want the law changed?

The hon. member should know that in a discussion of the Minister’s Vote I cannot deal with matters of that sort. What I am discussing is the working in practice of this section. The official figures for 1961 show that 801 persons were charged under this section. Of those 425 were Whites and the rest non-Whites. I am not sure whether this is a record total for one year but it is in any event a very large figure. What I believe particularly requires the attention of the hon. the Minister is that of the 801 charged, only 389 were found guilty or convicted. This, I believe, is most disturbing. It is most disturbing because as we all know there is a great stigma attached not only to convictions under this Act but also to the very fact that a person is charged under the Act. It places a stigma not only on the individual concerned but also on the members of his family. Persons under such a stigma suffer a great deal of misery and degradation. The point I make is that cases should not be brought to court, that individuals should not be charged at all until the Attorney-General himself or a senior official has decided that the evidence justifies a prosecution, that is to say, that he considers that the case is provable in a court of law. This is, I understand, supposed to be the procedure in terms of a ministerial statement made by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor.

That is still the position.

Apparently that is still the position; the Minister interjects to say that it is. If it is, then in my submission this does require his urgent attention, because either this instruction is not being observed in practice or else the Attorney-General’s staff is not doing its job properly. I am sorry to have to make such a statement and I hope that that is not the case in practice, but one or the other must be the case; either it is not observed in practice, or the job is not being done properly. I say this because from the nature of such cases there is no complainant whose allegations need to be investigated. These are cases which are prosecuted at the insistence of the police. They come to the attention of the courts as a result of police action, and no doubt the police do take reasonable care, but in my submission the figures show that there is a grave weakness somewhere, and I do urge the hon. the Minister to give his very urgent attention to this matter. The other matter in regard to this subject which I think does require the urgent attention of the Minister is the fact that contrasting sentences are imposed on a man and a woman convicted of the same offence. This occurs time and time again. There is a separation of trials; the man is tried by one court, the woman is tried by another court and for the same offence there are contrasting sentences. In some cases the contrast is almost alarming. We do have cases where one person is discharged and the other one put in jail for periods of six months and longer. This, I believe, is a matter which does require the attention of the Minister. To sum up, Sir, Section 16 of the Immorality Act in its practical application has undoubtedly produced by-products which do not do honour to our public life and to South Africa’s name. These, I may say, are not my words; they are the words of the Burger in February of last year. The figures for 1961 which have been produced since this statement was made by the Burger prove conclusively, I suggest, that some sort of investigation of the operation of this section is urgently required.

The next point that I wish to deal with is the question of police patrol posts along the borders of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. I put a question to the hon. the Minister on this subject; I asked—

The reply was—

In due course the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement on this subject—in fact on 29 April—and he dealt with passport control posts. He mentioned in the case of the Basutoland border that 12 posts had been established, in the case of Swaziland ten and in the case of Bechuanaland 14. What I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether these posts will be police control posts in addition to being passport control posts.

Yes.

Secondly, I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister contemplates establishing any further police control posts as opposed to purely passport control posts in addition to those mentioned, I do not necessarily want to know where they are to be situated but I should like to know whether he contemplates establishing any further posts, and if so, how many. I do suggest that this is a reasonable request to make, because we have had a lot of evidence during this Session of Parliament and even during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote to the effect that subversive elements escape from the Republic into these adjoining territories and that they conduct subversive activities from the adjoining territories and also that undesirable elements come from these territories into the Republic. I suggest that it is reasonable that the public should know to what extent these subversive activities are to be controlled by police control posts along these borders. [Time limit.]

There is only one matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention and that is in connection with the degrading of magistrates’ courts, particularly in the rural areas. It appears from inquiries that there is a new arrangement, and that the Minister is not really responsible for the new degradings that have taken place fairly generally in the rural areas in recent months. It seems that the Public Service Commission effects these gradings. The position is somewhat unclear to me, and I do not know precisely where I have to turn to make a plea in regard to the magisterial districts, particularly in my constituency, which is affected very detrimentally as a result of these degradings, that the old arrangements should be reverted to. The position is that at least two magisterial districts in my constituency have been affected detrimentally, namely Winburg itself and Senekal. This has resulted in the office in one case being graded down two grades, an office which is really in the principal town of my constituency. The effect of that is that in the same constituency there are now several other offices which are in a higher grade than the principal office, namely the magistrate’s office at Winburg. The result is also that in the same district there is another office which is on the same grade as the magistrate’s office in Winburg. This of course creates a great anomaly. The position is, I am told, that the gradings are made only on the basis of the volume of legal work in the office, and I should like to plead for a different approach, because in the rural districts, particularly, legal work does not constitute by far the only or the most important or the bulk of the work in the office of a magistrate. The position is that the magistrate in the rural districts acts as the chairman of various committees such as the Farmers’ Assistance Committee, the Housing Committee and a whole lot of committees of that nature. It really is outside work the magistrate has to perform. He must act as chairman and the administrative work in connection with those committees must be performed in the magistrate’s office itself. In addition, the collection of taxation, particularly as regards provincial taxation, also takes place in that office; it is the only place where it can be done, and in consequence of the fact that the rural towns, particularly, consist of settled and steady populations, and that the attorneys in the rural towns try to keep cases out of court, because it is a rural community and because everybody in the town knows everybody else and people wish to live in peace and harmony with one another, we find that such a magistrate’s office is degraded. The attorneys in the rural towns try to settle the cases, and this arrangement can definitely have a very detrimental effect upon the community itself. The consequence may be that the attorneys are now going to try to take matters to court so that the magistrate’s office may have a higher status. This may have a detrimental effect upon such a community and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether some other basis cannot be found on which these gradings can be effected, so that the rural districts need not be placed in this rather disadvantageous position.

I would like to take up just a few minutes to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a few practical points which I think can be of great assistance in bringing criminals to justice. I make these points as the result of experience which I gained during the last war as chief area commandant of the Civilian Protective Services and also as officer commanding a Civilian Guard, in which my function was to serve as a link between the civilian services operating to assist the police and the police themselves. It is that experience which has set my mind continuously on points which I think are of value and which I would like to put to the Minister.

The first point that I want to stress with a view to getting quicker contacts between the public and the police is the necessity for the universal use of the two-way radio. Within the past few weeks that has been installed at East London, and I want to say that the public of East London is appreciative of this service. But I feel that every major police post, where-ever patrol vans are sent out, should be able to keep in continuous contact with the patrol vans by means of the two-way radio. This can do a great deal to bring the van to a point where it is needed urgently. In the absence of a two-way radio, these vans usually contact the police posts at half-hour intervals whereas they could be in contact all the time.

The second which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is one which I really think is of widespread importance throughout the whole of the Republic, and that is the present system of indicating in telephone directories the telephone numbers by which the public have to contact the police. At the present time there is no uniformity. I tried an experiment at Sea Point the other evening just to see how long it would take me to get in touch with the police in an emergency and I did what I think anyone would do, and that is to get a telephone directory and to look for the number of the police under “Police”. What did I find there? After paging through page after page to get to “Police” I found: “See under Government section: Police.” I then turned to the Government section under Police and what did I find? I found four columns of numbers in small print. It took me quite a time to wade through the numbers and eventually I found the number of the Sea Point charge office which is 44-2345. I tried to picture what would happen if one had observed someone on the point of committing sabotage of some sort and one was in a hurry to get in touch with the police, or if there was a burglar at the window or if a neighbour was crying out for help. One would naturally be in a state of panic or at least in a hurry which would make it all the more difficult to look up all these numbers. If it were at night time it would mean that one would have to switch on the lights which is the last thing that you should be doing if you are trying to get in touch with the police in such an emergency. You would probably end up by holding a torch under your armpit while you are paging through the directory to get the number of the police.

I maintain that there should be a uniform number throughout the whole of the Republic and that number should be either the first digit or the last digit on the dial, either 000 or 111, a number which you could dial without having to switch on any light at all. It would enable many a culprit to be brought to book in that the person involved would be able to telephone the police without even having to switch on the light. This is done in other countries so I am not putting forward something unusual or ridiculous. I feel that that is a system which could be adopted throughout South Africa; that we should have one uniform number for the police so that wherever you are in an emergency you would know what number to dial and so that you would be able to do so without switching on the light.

The third point is one which I have raised in this House before with the Minister of Education who referred me to the Minister of Justice. I think the Minister of Justice is possibly one of the Ministers to whom this matter should be referred. Sir, the Minister of Justice has pistol clubs. Those pistol clubs no doubt serve a very useful purpose, but in how many cases of assault or emergency is a person even if he has had training in the use of pistols in a position to get to the pistol? The pistol is probably put away somewhere. What is needed is for the people to be trained in methods of self-defence, and I again want to urge that a combination of the methods of Judo and Karate should be worked out by experts. This should be combined with training at pistol clubs, which would mean that people trained in these methods, which are very effective and which are used by the Japanese because they are such small people that they need some scientific method of dealing with an opponent, would be able, even in the case of a woman, temporarily to cripple the opponent, thus giving that person time to get to the pistol or to the telephone or to escape. I feel that these suggestions are definitely of value in the circumstances which prevail in South Africa to-day and I submit them to the Minister for his consideration.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has told us what an elderly man does to keep himself occupied in Sea Point in the evenings. If he had just looked at the front page of the telephone directory, he would have seen this: Oproepe aan Polisie: Calls to Police: Emergency Calls to Police, dial 414. That appears right in the front of the book.

Who knows it is there?

While the hon. member was speaking, the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) went out and fetched the directory just to look at the front page. In all the directories the police number is given right in front in the book.

However, I did not rise to talk on this matter. I also wish to say something in regard to the question of punishments which was raised earlier in this debate. I am very well aware that this is a matter which rests in the discretion of the courts exclusively. However, I feel that we as the representatives of the people should make ourselves heard from time to time so that the courts also may know how the public feel about this matter. It is anomalous that the man who steals up to R200,000 and another who steals a quantity of cigarettes are respectively sentenced to four and two years. It is completely out of proportion. I am merely mentioning this as an example; there are many other instances. However, I should like to add that usually it is not the magistrate who makes this blunder. In general the magistrates impose fairly uniform punishments throughout the country. I attribute it to the fact that they deal with these cases every day. Certain Judges of the Supreme Court, however, do not impose the punishments they ought to. I feel we should mention it here from time to time. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reply to this debate and to tell us what his views are; it will embarrass him considerably. But I hope that the fact that we are merely mentioning it here will come to the attention of the Judges, that there should be some degree of uniformity in the sentences imposed. The manner in which sentences are imposed at the present time results in our administration of justice being brought into disfavour with the public; it makes our administration of justice suspect to some extent, and that is something all of us wish to avoid.

The other matter I should like to mention is in regard to prisons. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) now insists that there should be an inquiry into our prisons. Let me repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, namely that at present our prisons are of a very high standard in South Africa. Indeed, I think our prisons leave very little to be desired. She says it is so difficult to contact anybody in prison. I myself practised and I frequently found that the prison warder rang me to say that so and so asked to see me, and that I should come down. I have never experienced any difficulty in contacting any client in prison. I do not understand why she raises these difficulties here. The Judge-President last year referred to one single instance he had come across. Must we now, because there has been one single instance of misconduct, have a full inquiry into the whole prison system? Must we now, because one attorney has embezzled trust moneys, place the whole profession under suspicion, and ask for an inquiry into the whole profession? Because one farmer has given his employee a thrashing and assaulted him, must we now have an inquiry into the whole farming industry? Therefore I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the Judge-President of the Cape last year that there should be an inquiry because he came across one single instance. We know that the prisons are of a very high standard, and that there are numerous warders who know how to observe the prisons regulations.

The matter I really wished to raise is the lack of police in the rural districts. I realize there is a shortage of police throughout the whole country. I am glad about the larger number who have reported for duty and about the large number who passed out last year from the training school for police. However, there is still a great shortage of police, particularly in the rural areas. I should like to mention two places in my constituency as an example. In Heilbron we are entitled to three police sergeants, a police officer and a number of constables. At present there are one constable and one sergeant. The head of that police post died from a heart attack last week. It is wholly impossible for that small number of police to perform the necessary police duties in the district of Heilbron. Then there is Frankfort. That police station was graded a long time ago as a head constable’s post, yet a sergeant is in charge there. He has tried on several occasions to obtain the rank of head constable, but he has not succeeded in doing so as yet. Although we have asked that the position should be filled by a head constable, the sergeant is retained there because there is a lack of personnel. The position in the town of Villiers is almost as bad. There are two White policemen, a sergeant and a constable. It is very difficult for them to perform night as well as day duty as there are only the two of them. Villiers is near the bridge across the Vaal River and they are frequently called upon from Johannesburg to stop a certain motor vehicle at the bridge. Then the one man must remain in the office and the other has to go and stand guard at the bridge. Apart from this difficulty, it is impossible for those two police officials to cope with the police duties of the whole district. I realize there is a shortage of policemen but I should like to ask, if it is possible at all to do so, to make more policemen available for the rural areas. I should like to make a suggestion. I notice from the newspapers of a couple of days ago that numerous White policemen are retiring from police duties in Kenya at the present time. I wonder really whether we cannot ask some of those White policemen, who have completed their training, to emigrate to South Africa. If their training is not of the same standard as that of our police, they could undergo a refresher course here. We must do something to try to bring our Police Force to full strength.

What about bilingualism?

Many immigrants who are employed at the present time are not bilingual; we employ them because we need their services. Bilingualism could perhaps be overlooked in the case of these police, or we could send them to Durban.

Before I resume my seat, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. She says that she is not getting replies to her questions because it is always said it is not in the public interest to reply to them. She says that excuse is always offered. Let me now say this to the hon. member. There is a great responsibility on the shoulders of an Opposition of a country. When the Minister of Justice gives information such as he furnished the other evening, he must know that that information, which he imparts in confidence to the Opposition, will be dealt with in the proper light, and that it is not a fishing expedition on the part of the Opposition in order to obtain information for other purposes.

Like what?

I am not saying “like what”; nor am I making any allegations. I say that the Minister can only give information when it is in the public interest and when the Opposition also receive it in the spirit in which it is given, namely that it is for the maintenance of peace and order. So that it is not, as she has said, always an excuse. The Minister must act with full responsibility when he refuses information. He indicated the other evening that he would not withhold information unless it was necessary to do so. All the things about which she complained, the Section 17 cases she mentioned in regard to which he refused to furnish information—the other evening already the Minister gave the number of people who have been detained under this section. I think she made a very unjust attack upon the Minister. [Time limit.]

The matter I wish to raise with the Minister to-day is the question of housing for married policemen in the rural areas. To a certain extent it follows on what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has said and relates to the shortage of policemen in some rural areas. There are a number of small country towns and villages in my constituency. In almost every one of those there is a shortage of housing for people who are temporarily stationed there for a short period of time. The housing for people who are temporarily transferred there is not only in short supply but it is expensive. You have the position in these towns and villages that where accommodation is available to married policemen—and very often there is no accommodation at all—they cannot afford to rent it. That is the position in a number of centres. I wish to illustrate the point by referring to certain correspondence which has passed between a farmers’ association in my area and the hon. Minister’s predecessor in regard to accommodation for married policemen at Empangeni. It started in 1959 when this farmers’ association wrote to the Minister’s predecessor saying that they were very perturbed at the situation at that centre because there were a number of married policemen for whom there was no accommodation. That was in November 1959. All the facts and figures were set out showing the cost of privately rented accommodation and the shortage of accommodation at that time. Later in the same year the then Minister’s private secretary wrote saying that the matter was receiving his attention. In February 1960 a letter was received from the private secretary of the then Minister to the effect that it was contemplated to convert certain brick non-European single quarters and stables into houses for European married personnel because they had not been used for those purposes for some time. It was said that the matter was receiving attention and that it was hoped that the new houses would be completed in the not too distant future. That was in February 1960. Two months later a letter from the then Minister’s private secretary to this farmers’ association indicated a change of plan because it was said that due to the situation of the buildings which the S.A. Police Department proposed to convert into married quarters, it had been decided to abandon the project and to erect six houses for European married personnel at Empangeni. So in April 1960 the first plan was dropped and the proposal was to build six new houses. In May of the same year nothing further had been heard in this regard and the farmers’ association raised the matter again with the then Minister making a strong appeal to him for some action to be taken, there being seven married policemen for whom there was not proper accommodation. In June of the same year the private secretary of the then Minister again wrote saying that the matter was receiving active attention. In July 1960 a long letter was received from the then Minister’s private secretary to the effect that the conversion of the single quarters had been included in the scheme to provide six new houses in the Police Department’s major works programme. The letter went on—

A reply was written by the farmers’ association regretting this situation and the matter was again raised in 1962. They again stressed the urgency of the matter and expressed their regret that after a lapse of nearly three years nothing had been done so far as the housing for married policemen at that centre was concerned. Things went on and further letters passed from the association in September 1962.

In October the private secretary of the hon. the Minister again wrote in regard to these six houses. The position then appeared to be this that the Public Works Department advised—

That was in October of last year. The position is that now in 1963, some years after that issue was first raised, there is almost no housing for married policemen at Empangeni which is becoming a major centre in Zululand. Great dissatisfaction is felt by the community at this centre because whereas it is known that there is no shortage of houses for married personnel in certain other Government Departments—Bantu Affairs is one—as far as married policemen are concerned there seems to be no possibility of making any progress at all.

I do not need to stress with the hon. Minister the desirability of haying experienced policemen, who are usually married, in that area. The Minister knows all the reasons why I say that. I do urge upon the Minister to take steps to see that not only at Empangeni but at so many other centres in my constituency and in other rural areas, active and urgent steps be taken to provide accommodation for married policemen so that this sort of thing does not occur. It is regrettable that it has happened in this instance. I realize that it is not entirely this Minister’s Department; Public Works is also involved, but it does seem as though there has been some bungling somewhere along the line. I do not think the Minister’s Department can go entirely free in that regard. I do request that as far as this centre and every other rural centre is concerned he takes immediate steps to see whether something can be done in the way of providing houses for married policemen.

While we are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister and the Department of Justice and the police act with great circumspection when it concerns matters affecting the different races, I nevertheless wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a minor matter. We find that when a White person and a non-White person are involved in a lawsuit, and when the magistrate as a result of a conviction finds it necessary to reprimand one of those parties, it usually happens in the presence of the other party. All of us are concerned about our race relations. Our experience has been that when there is such a reprimand, it sometimes prejudices these good race relations. I know the hon. the Minister cannot consider instructing a magistrate or a Judge how he should reprimand a person. We know he does not wish to interfere in these matters. However, it has been our experience that a wrong method of reprimand may harm race relations in a certain environment. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot consider bringing these matter to the attention of our magistrates and Judges by way of a circular, namely that when two persons of different races are involved in a matter, they should be most circumspect in giving a reprimand. We have no objection to there being a reprimand in the presence of the other party when both parties are of the same race. We do feel, however, that whenever there is a matter resulting from an assault or whatever it may be, between a White man and non-White, the reprimand of the one party should not be delivered in the presence of the other party. If a reprimand is necessary, cannot it then be given in the chambers of the Judge or the office of the magistrate, so that they can discuss the matter in private? Can we not avoid having this done in public? As I have said, we realize that it is a difficult matter to handle, and we do not wish to ask the Minister to interfere. We know he will not do so. However, we are concerned with the fact that these reprimands are damaging race relations. I believe that we, and when I say we I mean all of us and the Department of Justice with its officials, have to avoid doing anything that may in any way damage race relations in this country. I should like to ask the Minister whether a different arrangement cannot be made in this regard, so that we do not do anything that may damage our race relations.

I shall be very brief. I have nothing to complain about regarding the police. I think the public outside ought to be very pleased and satisfied with the conduct of the police in South Africa. I merely wish to ask the Minister whether it has come to his notice that on a certain occasion the Commissioner of Police made a speech in which he referred to the traffic police, and suggested that the traffic police should be incorporated in the ordinary Police Force. I should like to tell the Minister that the idea found much favour with many people outside. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he has given consideration to this matter; if he has not done so, I should like to ask him to do so.

I was too busy with the Liquor Bill.

In formally replying to the debate on this Vote, I should like to place on record that as the Commissioner for Police retired last year, and as the Commissioner for Prisons retired this year, for the first time we have had present here two new senior officers at the discussion of this Vote. I should like to assure the House that in Brigadier Steyn who has now made his first appearance here and in General Keevy who is known to hon. members, we have not only two experienced officers but also two officers who are academically and otherwise well equipped to perform the duties of the offices they occupy. The country is very fortunate in having two such officials.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the kite General Keevy sent up in regard to the taking-over of the traffic police and traffic matters. The hon. member would have noticed immediately from my reaction that this is a very delicate matter, and that there is no unanimity on the matter at all.

Nor in regard to the Liquor Bill.

Yes, in respect of that matter there was no agreement either, but at least we had a unanimous report recommending it. That of course makes a difference. We are concerned here not only with traffic matters as such, but also with the relations between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations and that of course makes the matter somewhat complicated. The Provincial Administrations must necessarily feel—one must concede that—that this is an encroachment upon their preserves, and if that is so, then this is not a matter which rests with my Department, but with another Department.

As regards the matter raised by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall) I do not think I can say more than that I have noted his remarks. I assume that the interested parties for whom his remarks really were intended also took notice because the hon. member raised it here. I think there is considerable substance in what the hon. member said and one should be particularly careful as to how one approaches that matter.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) outlined the history of housing for police at Empangeni. I am sorry that happened. The hon. member will realize that my Department is not the only Department concerned with that matter, as he also rightly stated. I should like to assure him, however, that provision is being made in the Estimates for 1963-4 for the six dwellings. If the hon. member looks he will see that this is so. So that problem is now apparently solved. I can only tell hon. members generally that the question of housing has caused a lot of difficulties. The matter has been discussed from all angles. I think that eventually a very practical formula has been found between the police and the Department of Housing, which will eliminate many of the problems we have had in the past. Hon. members will hear more about this scheme later.

I have noted the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron with regard to the police position in the rural areas. It is very difficult for the reasons the hon. member himself mentioned and in recent times it has become more difficult because we had to call up people for special duties elsewhere, of which the hon. member is aware too. The position will improve as we pass out increasingly more recruits from the training college, and in order to improve matters we have indeed—and this reply is also directed at the same time to the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) and others who raised this matter—decided that this year—and I believe the same position will apply next year and the succeeding years—we shall not keep the matriculants in the training college for their full year, but to introduce a more intensive six months’ course in order to pass them out sooner to be available for duty outside. This will be the first year the matriculants are pushed out in July, and it will bring about a considerable improvement in the position, because a few hundred of these youngsters will be available for service in that way. But I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that we are constantly conscious of the needs of the rural areas, and if we could do so at all, we shall gladly do something about it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The police report indicates that the authorized establishment of officers has been increased by 202 posts, but as regards White sergeants and constables the authorized establishment has been reduced by 508. Can the hon. Minister tell us why that reduction has taken place, whereas the number of officers has been increased?

There have been conversions, with the approval of the Public Service Commission, to officers’ rank. There was a shortage because there were not sufficient people to fill the authorized establishment.

But the authorized establishment as regards officers was increased, while the other was reduced.

I do not quite understand the hon. member’s misgivings, but I shall reply to it later if he wishes to argue the matter with me.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) has made certain suggestions as to how we can improve the police service. It is a great pity the hon. member’s age is so advanced otherwise we could easily have recruited him as a reservist, but I thank him for the suggestions he has made. We shall give effect to them if possible. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) for understandable reasons is concerned because certain magisterial districts in the Free State have been degraded. Unfortunately that is a matter I can do nothing about. There are certain scientific standards which have been laid down for the grading of magisterial districts. There has been a thorough O. and M. inquiry on the part of the Department and in consequence of that inquiry certain magisterial districts came into the picture. On the other hand I may give the hon. member the good news that some of his magisterial districts have been upgraded, such as Theunissen, which has been upgraded from a magisterial district to a senior magisterial district. It does not depend only upon the legal work done there, but other factors also are taken into consideration. I am particularly sorry that old towns such as Winburg and others have had to be the victims.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) has referred to the police control posts which have been established. I can give the hon. member the information that on 1 July 1963 there will be in operation 27 posts, 12 of which will be manned jointly by the police and by Bantu Administration; the remaining 15 will be manned by police only, which will also perform the duties of Bantu Administration at those posts. I may tell the hon. member also that further posts will be established there next year. I shall furnish the hon. member with the figures later on. The hon. member has referred to the effect of Section 16 of the Immorality Act. The position is still as it was under my predecessor, namely that these matters receive the personal attention of the office of the Attorney-General. The hon. member is a practising barrister and he will understand that for obvious reasons one party to such a case may be found not guilty. If that happens, the case of the other party is submitted to the Minister and then the necessary action is taken administratively to put the matter right. But in order to satisfy the hon. member I should like to say that I will, during the recess, once again discuss the matter with the Attorney-General at Pretoria to see whether anything better can be done in this regard. I have noted the requests of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler).

Then I come to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member has unfortunately become spoilt in politics. She is a spoilt politician. The hon. member for many reasons received much attention when she first came to this House, and now the hon. member once again is receiving much attention because she is the only member of the Progressive Party in this House.

Are you jealous?

No, I am not jealous. I am merely stating the facts as I see them, and for understandable reasons the hon. member demands attention, and unfortunately the hon. member cannot always be given attention. She has now for instance accused me of not replying properly to her questions. If that is true, then the hon. member has failed in her duty. The hon. member knows the rules of the House as well as I do, and she surely knows what to do according to the rules if I do not reply to her question. But the hon. member must excuse me if I talk to her in a very forthright manner on this occasion. I do not know whether I am contravening the rules of the House, Mr. Chairman, if I say to the hon. member very frankly that I am very loth to furnish the hon. member with information affecting the security aspect of South Africa.

What do you mean?

I mean by that that I am not so sure that it will end up in wrong places if I were to give the hon. member the information.

What is your insinuation?

I am not insinuating anything. I shall now mention an instance to show why I am saying this to the hon. member. I have never yet made a charge in this House which I was not prepared to prove. The hon. member knows an organization called “The South African Defence and Aid Fund”.

Yes.

What is more, the hon. member is very closely associated with these people, and to show the House what type of person the hon. member is associating with, I have here their circular of March/April 1963. The organization collaborates very closely indeed with the hon. member and she gives them information, and I want to go further and say that she acts as their agent in this House.

That is untrue, but I shall reply to that.

I am charging the hon. member with acting as their agent in this House. I shall now read to the House what these people say—

Then they continue—

The apartheid laws were not at stake here, but the safety and security of South Africa, of her South Africa too, were at stake.

What have I to do with that report?

I shall show the hon. member what she has to do with it. Hon. members will remember that on a previous occasion I told hon. members that we had detained a few dozen people in regard to whom we had every reason to believe, and in connection with whom we had evidence at our disposal, that they had attended sabotage camps in the rest of Africa. Hon. members will remember that I said this at the time. The information leaked out that we were detaining those people, and I told hon. members subsequently that we were detaining such people. What happened then? An attorney turned up in the Transvaal. I do not blame the attorney; he did not act improperly at all. An attorney turned up and said he had been instructed to interview these people, who were his clients, in this connection. The police authorities then very correctly said: “You may interview your clients, but you must tell us who your clients are.” The names of the clients could not be furnished. And now it is very interesting, Sir, that these people, the friends of the hon. member, refer to these people—

But what is interesting furthermore is this. During that very period the hon. member for Houghton put a question on the Order Paper to me in this House and that question was as follows—

What on earth does the hon. member wish to do with the names of those people?

Why not?

Suddenly the hon. member is particularly interested in the names of these people who had left South Africa illegally in order to attend these sabotage camps. But the hon. member not only wished to know their names. Her further questions were these—

Yes. There is nothing wrong in that.

I have outlined the history and I have read the questions put to me by the hon. member, and it struck me as being very strange indeed that the hon. member in such a matter of the greatest security, should ask me the names of the people and where they were being detained. At that moment of all times! I am not ascribing motives to the hon. member. I merely say it struck me as being strange. The hon. member’s general conduct in respect of security matters is such that I wish to tell her very frankly that while I shall not hesitate for one moment, when questions are put to me by hon. members opposite, to give the requisite information, I shall think twice before I furnish the hon. member with confidential security information.

Are you accusing me of treason? *

No, I am accusing the hon. member of nothing more or less than that she associates with company which is very suspect. Every human being at one time or another makes a mistake and allows something to slip out without perhaps realizing that he has done so, and I am just afraid that the hon. member may at the wrong time permit some information to slip out in the wrong company, without her having necessarily wished to divulge it to them. That is what I wish to protect the country against, and why I have to protect the hon. member against herself.

Th hon. member has referred to the trial on Robben Island. That happened once, but it struck me that the hon. member used the word “trials”. There was only one trial and that is the only one that has been held there, and it was necessary that if be held, and if it should be necessary in future (I hope it will not be necessary, and I shall limit it to a minimum) I shall not permit myself to be deterred from holding trials there if necessary, just because the hon. member does not like it. If it is in the interests of the administration of justice, it will take place right there. Nor do I propose to have an inquiry held into our prisons as such just because the hon. member feels that an inquiry should be instituted, or just because a remark to this effect has been made by the Judge-President. I reacted strongly at the time, and I am not sorry I reacted strongly, because it is not necessary at all to investigate prisons in South Africa. I have not only the highest regard and respect for the officers of the Prisons Department and for the men of that Department, but the manner in which the prisons of South Africa have been controlled and run and directed thus far have resulted in South Africa having become a model for the rest of the world in this respect. And hon. members know that. Hon. members know that they are welcome at all times to visit our prisons. I have issued invitations to them in the past, and I shall take the liberty in future of inviting them to visit those institutions. We have nothing to hide, and we do not have anything to inquire into at this stage as regards our prisons in South Africa. I wish to go further: As the daily prison population is very high, and as the number of people who have to look after and guard them is comparatively small, I should like to go so far as to say that nowhere in the world will you find such a small group of people who conduct themselves in such a splendid manner in every respect towards the prisoners as the warders and officers of the Prisons Department of the Republic of South Africa do. They are rendering sterling services under very difficult circumstances.

The hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) discussed the incidence of thefts in his area. I have noted that and we shall with due regard to the available manpower position do our level best to try to do something about the matters he has mentioned here.

The hon. member for Transkei asked me a question about the functions of magistrates under Section 17, and what is being done in that regard. I shall now read to the hon. member the instructions issued by the Department to our magistrates in that connection—

That was the instruction issued anew to magistrates on 20 May in regard to this matter, and I may tell the hon. member that to date I have not received any reports from magistrates that any irregularities have occurred in connection with these detainees. The hon. member will know that their families also visit them and that some of them have been released. I have not had any complaints. Neither from the families of those people, nor from those who have been released, or from magistrates that these people have not been treated well and fairly while under detention.

The hon. member has asked a question in connection with Proclamation 400. I am not allowed to discuss it, and accordingly I merely wish to tell the hon. member that as regards Proclamation 400, as far as the relationship of the Police is concerned, we of course have no other option but to act as long as Proclamation 400 is in existence and there are contraventions of it. The repeal of that Proclamation is not in my power, but I should like to tell the hon. member that had it not been for Proclamation 400, the position in the Transkei would have been vastly different from what it is at the present time.

I asked that question in regard to the election. *

That does not fall under my Department. I do not know when the elections will take place, nor do I know what attitude my colleague adopts in that connection. I take it that in due course he will discuss it with me and then I shall of course give him my point of view and my opinion on it. But for the rest it rests with my colleague.

As to the secondment of police to the Transkei, I can tell the hon. member that it is proposed to transfer the police who at the present time fall under Bantu Administration—all of them are Bantu police—but the Act provides that as regards the other police, it must be asked for and that the Minister of Justice will then decide. At the present stage there has been no request as yet, and therefore no decision has been taken in this regard. Nor do I expect there to be any decision in this regard very soon, but if and when such a request is made some day a decision will be taken in accordance with the then prevailing conditions.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) as well as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) referred to varying sentences, or apparently varying sentences imposed by the Courts. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the last thing one must do when expressing an opinion on the sentences of the courts is to rely upon newspaper reports. As a rule they are incomplete and they do not mention any previous convictions there may be and as a whole it is very unsatisfactory. In saying this, I am not saying that such a situation does not exist, or that it is not good and proper to discuss it, but when one sentence is compared with the other, you must have before you the full report before you can make a fair comparison. That is not in my province either, because it falls within the judicial discretion of magistrates and judges, and I cannot interfere with it in any circumstances, and for that reason it is obvious that I cannot express an opinion on it. Hon. members of course have the right to raise it here in this House, and it is a good thing that from time to time there should be a discussion of these matters here.

As regards the Insolvency Act, the Department has now completed its inquiry, and the matter of legislation will receive my further attention during the recess. The Department’s attitude at this stage is that it is not necessary to appoint a commission because all the interested parties who were invited to give their views to the Department have submitted their views, and the Department has investigated the whole matter very thoroughly. Therefore I can only say that during the recess I shall devote attention to the legislation that will be drafted as the result of that investigation.

The hon. member for Houghton has expressed misgivings about what she called haphazard arrests in connection with the suppression of the Poqo disturbances. This once again surprises me. The hon. member is as much interested in it as I am, and instead of expressing her joy and showing her gratitude to the police for the manner in which they acted in this matter, the hon. member finds it necessary to reproach the police for making haphazard arrests. The impression the hon. member has made upon me (and what impression must it not make upon the laymen outside) is that the police have simply arrested people haphazardly and at random without there being any need to do so or without having any regard to the people or without having information upon which they acted. What do we achieve, what does the hon. member achieve, if she makes it her business, according to her actions, to make the police suspect, to make the prisons suspect, to make the administration of justice in South Africa suspect? What does one achieve by that? I think it is high time the hon. member came to her senses. She can be a useful member of this House.

Thank you. That is very kind.

The hon. member can be a useful member of this House. She has the ability to be a useful member. Has the time not arrived for the hon. member to ask herself whither she is going? Has the time not arrived for the hon. member to ask herself whether the people who furnish her with information, whose front she is here sometimes, are not leading her along the wrong road? A little self-examination by the hon. member may achieve wonders.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) last time, during the short time we had at our disposal, asked me a question in connection with the Press. I have no hesitation in telling the hon. member that he can make inquiries, not only from the Afrikaans Press, but also from the English Press. He may make inquiries from the Cape Times and the Cape Argus and the other newspapers, and also from Sapa. He will find that not one of them has any reason for complaint. The hon. member can go along again now and ask whether they have any reason for complaint about the manner in which the section in question is administered by me. The only people with whom I have had problems and difficulties in the past, have been the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times, and if there are problems and difficulties, it is because of the manner in which these people not only approach the matter, but also approach me. I want to say no more than that I am surprised that the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times are the only papers which have difficulties, when the other newspapers have none. It is true that that article was submitted to me by the Sunday Times. It is true that I did not have the time—the hon. member is aware of conditions in my office—to reply to the letter of the Sunday Times. But any other newspaper would simply have raised the matter with me in person, and it would have been disposed of immediately. I am saying this deliberately, because the whole of the Press gallery knows that I am available to any newspaper at all times, whether or not it supports my side. But there are some newspapers which refuse to see it that way, and which will not do it on that basis, and accordingly I am very sorry if from time to time a report or two of theirs falls by the way. I feel that for the present I have now replied to all the questions.

Of course the Minister hates the questions I put to him, and he hates the complaints I make to him, and of course there is nothing he would like better than to be allowed to proceed on his self-appointed way and that is to turn this country into a full-fledged despotism with himself holding a very exalted position and everybody else toeing the line. [Interjections.] I want to tell the Minister that the questions I asked, I asked for my information, although I am perfectly prepared to get information for people who require it in order to get people defended in the courts. And I would like him as Minister of Justice, as well as the hon. member for Heilbron, to tell me what is wrong with obtaining defence for people charged with crimes in the courts of law, be it murder or any other crime. I want to point out to the Minister that the very organization of which he spoke so scathingly, for which I am not a front organizer, as he put it, Defence and Aid, was the organization which provided financial assistance for the people who were accused of treason in the Treason Trial, every single one of whom was acquitted by our courts. But if that defence had not been provided, those people could indeed have paid the penalty of their lives in the Treason Trial. I have no excuses whatever to offer for agreeing to help with the work done by Defence and Aid, although I am not a front for that organization. If the Minister would read the circular they sent me and him, he would see that there are reputable people in charge of that organization, people whose names are well known in this country and abroad, and he will see that they state quite emphatically that their main task is to provide defence for people who cannot pay for their own defence. What they put in their circular and how they assess the changing tempo of court convictions, is no responsibility of mine. I take the strongest exception to the implications of the comments the Minister has made about me. I shall continue to do my duty in this House, not because I desire attention, but because I think there are things in South Africa that need airing and have to be said, and I shall continue to say them. I take the strongest exception to the Minister’s remarks not only about me personally, which is a minor thing really, but to his whole attitude as a Minister of Justice, who should surely realize the importance of defence being provided for any person and the right of people to appear in court and to be defended. But because I believe that the Minister has shown himself to be utterly unworthy of holding the portfolio of Justice, I move—

I do not wish to speak to the amendment, but I want to come back to the Minister’s reply to me. I asked the Minister for various assurances relating to his failure to deal with the request of the Sunday Times for his consent to the publication of a statement by a banned person. After delaying for six weeks, the next thing one saw was that this particular article appeared in a Sunday paper supporting the Government. I appreciate that mistakes can happen, but in this case the Minister says it was the way in which the matter was approached. I suggest that the Sunday Times approached the matter in the most helpful way. It laid a photostat copy of the article before the Minister’s private secretary with the request that it be sent through for permission, and in the following six weeks’ period the Sunday Times made eight inquiries as to whether the consent had been granted, and was told that the Minister was still considering it. Nothing fairer than that could have been done by them. What is disturbing is that the Minister implied that he did not in fact give an answer to that question to the Sunday Times because he has had problems with them. I think that is a very serious state of affairs. He said that they were “die enigste mense met wie hy probleme het”, namely the Sunday Times and the Rand Daily Mail. I believe there is nothing whatever that those papers have done which justifies the treatment the Sunday Times received in this case, and I think the Minister should not attempt to justify it on that basis. I ask him again to give the House the assurance that there will be no discrimination between newspapers supporting the Government and opposing the Government in regard to statements by banned people being printed, and again I want to know the principle on which the Minister acts in giving this consent.

To reply again to the question of the hon. member, there is only one principle on which we operate and that is whether such publication can adversely affect the safety of the State, yes or no. In considering this point no discrimination at all is made between one set of newspapers and another set of newspapers. What happened here was that the article was sent in and was put on my table but because of the pressure of work I did not have an opportunity to look at it. If the newspaper concerned had approached me as other newspapers do, the matter would have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all.

But they asked eight times.

No, the newspaper concerned did not make personal contact with me here as other newspapers do every day. If it had done so, the whole matter would have been settled.

I would like to deal with a question put to the Minister by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. The hon. member referred to the 1961 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police, which incidentally has come to us very late. The 1961 report was tabled only two months ago. I should like to ask the Minister why it is that the 1962 report is not yet in our hands. However, to revert to this particular point, on page 1 of the report it appears that the authorized European establishment has been increased in so far as commissioned posts are concerned by four posts for brigadiers, six for colonels, ten for lieutenant-colonels, nine for majors, 44 for captains and 129 for lieutenants, but on the other hand the authorized establishment was reduced by 56 posts for European sergeants, and 452 for European constables. The fact that the authorized establishment is reduced in regard to sergeants and constables seems to require some explanation from the Minister because the position throughout the country seems to be that we want more constables than there are, and yet the authorized establishment is reduced. I would ask the Minister to explain this and to give us an explanation why the 1962 report has not been tabled yet.

I will repeat my answer. It is that one is allocated a certain number of posts, but one does not have enough people to fill all those posts. Until such time as there are people to fill those posts, there will be a shortage. If the hon. member considers the matter properly he will see that a considerable number of police will have to be recruited before that shortage will have been eliminated. Because of this fact we were able to approach the Public Service Commission to convert certain posts which were not filled into other posts. This did not mean that those people were dismissed. On the contrary; instead of dismissing men we retain the services of as many of those who retire as we can and they serve as special constables. I am afraid that I cannot take it any further.

I do not think the Minister quite understood my point. I was re-referring to the authorized establishment and not to the actual numbers on the establishment. I appreciate that the actual numbers fall short of the authorized numbers, but the 1961 report says that the authorized establishment was reduced, and then it goes on to say that at the end of the year there was still a shortage of 1,123 Europeans.

It is because the posts were not filled.

Perhaps the Minister would look at the report. On the one hand, it shows the authorized establishment and it then goes on to show the actual number of posts which have been filled, and it shows that the authorized number of posts were not all filled, as the Minister points out. The point I make is not to ask the Minister why there was a discrepancy between the authorized and the actual establishment. I appreciate that the reason for that is that he could not get the personnel. What I am asking is why the authorized establishment has been decreased.

There is one thing of which all of us in this House should be jealous, and that is the rights of members. I rise to express my sincere and deep disappointment at the attitude of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). [Laughter.] I need not say that as far as principles and policy are concerned, there has been a complete parting of the ways between the hon. member for Houghton and ourselves, but she is a member of this House, elected at a proper election by the people of the country, and as long as she is elected by the people of her constituency, she has all the rights of a member. I think that before any Minister seeks to deny a duly elected member of this House the rights of such a member …

What rights have I denied?

The right to obtain information. Before the Minister takes to himself that right, he should be able to satisfy the House that there is due cause for such severe action. But what have we had from the Minister? A mere statement that by a sheer coincidence the hon. member for Houghton asked a question which happened to be in juxtaposition to certain information needed by a particular Organization. There was just a coincidence in time between the two things. He could give no causal connection between the two things. He could not establish that there was any approach by these people to the hon. member for Houghton, but on that ground alone the Minister said he would not give information to the hon. member which is in the public interest. But more than that, why should the hon. member not get that information? Any Minister is perfectly free to say on a particular question that he does not regard it in the public interest to give information. Hon. members on this side ask many questions, and when hon. members over there were in opposition they also asked many questions which the Minister did not regard it to be in the public interest to reply to. But this is the second time this month that a Minister gets up, because he objects to a particular course of action, and announces a boycott of a member of this House. We on this side cannot be a party to that, and to show our extreme disagreement with the totalitarian attitude of the Minister, we shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

If the hon. member for Yeoville had not been so hasty in allowing himself to be taken in tow by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), and if he had made inquiries in regard to what my answer was to the question of the hon. member, he would have saved himself a great deal of trouble. The answer that I gave to the hon. member was “52 persons. I am not prepared to furnish the names as the investigations which have not yet been finalized will thereby be prejudiced”.

That is a fair answer but why do you boycott her? *

Was the hon. member here when I was talking to the hon. member for Houghton?

Yes.

You lie!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

I am going to resume my seat and I want the hon. member to tell me when and where I used the word “boycott” or, if I did not use that word what words I used that amount to the same thing. I want him to tell me when and where I said that I would “boycott” the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have complete clarity over this issue. I thank the hon. member for Yeoville for what he has said, but I want this issue to be completely understood. My objection to the Minister’s attitude was that he implied that it would be dangerous to the security of the State to give me certain information, if I understood him correctly, and therefore there were certain questions which I put to him that he was not prepared to answer and he cited the specific instance of a question I put to him about persons who had been arrested. I also asked him where they were being held, and I think he mentioned the fact that they were being defended by Defence and Aid. I do not deny that I got these answers for these people, nor did I deny it earlier this afternoon, because what does Defence and Aid do but provide a defence for people who are charged in the courts of South Africa? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing either treacherous or illegal or anything other than democratic about assisting people in getting defence. Murderers and criminals of the worst type are defended. Anyone is entitled to a defence in a court, and I mentioned that Defence and Aid have provided the funds, or some of the funds, for the treason trialists, all of whom were discharged, and without that defence the chances are that they may not have been discharged. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society that people who are charged should have the right to be defended. The Minister knows that I disagree with his house arrests and bannings and compulsory detentions because none of these people has ever been brought before a court of law and convicted of a crime. I admit that this might have been one of the questions I asked on behalf of Defence and Aid in order to help to get people defended, but I see nothing wrong in that. What I denied was that this implied any subversive activity. Defence and Aid act in the open. They even sent the Minister a circular. It appeals to the public for funds. They have at the head of their affairs people like Alan Paton and Dr. Ellen Helman and other very respected citizens. So that is not the issue at all. What I deny is being a front organizer for Defence and Aid or anyone else. I am no such thing. I supply them with such information as I think they are entitled to have and I have even sent them a cheque to assist them to provide defence for accused persons, and I shall go on doing so.

I put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in all fairness and the hon. member has not replied to it. If he wants to say something I shall resume my seat.

Because the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was involved in the matter, I thought it only fair to give her the first opportunity to speak and then the hon. the Minister rose before I was able to. The hon. the Minister stood up earlier this afternoon and I was in my place, notwithstanding the very distasteful remark of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). The hon. the Minister took the opportunity to say that he did not feel inclined to reply to the hon. member for Houghton on matters affecting the safety of the State. He went further and he said that he would answer that kind of question if it were asked by other hon. members on this side of the House, but that he would not answer it if it was asked by the hon. member for Houghton.

That is not true.

Now you are twisting the truth.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I want to warn hon. members on those benches. They are inclined to ignore it completely when I call for order. The next time that happens I shall have to take action.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) called out: “You lie!” when the hon. member for Yeoville said that he was in the House, and now he has again called out: “That proves that you were not here.” I suggest that he has again insinuated that the hon. member for Yeoville is lying, and that he should withdraw the remark.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) said: “Now you are twisting the truth.”

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

I am quite prepared to leave the matter which is apparently now under dispute to the decision of the hon. the Minister because I trust the hon. the Minister to stand by what he said. As I heard him, he appeared to say that while he would answer certain questions asked by members of the Opposition, he was not inclined to reply to questions of a particular kind affecting the security of the State if those questions were asked by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether I heard him wrongly or not; that was what I heard and understood him to say. I have sufficient confidence in the hon. the Minister to know that if he did say it, he will admit it. I have answered his question and now I want him to answer mine.

We have to be very careful in distinguishing between these two matters. In the first place I want to deal with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and whether I answered her questions. I made it very clear that I did answer her questions. I said that if I had not done so, she had not done her duty because she knew the rules of this House as well as I did and she knew what to do if I did not answer her questions. With that, we disposed completely of the subject of questions. Then the hon. member for Houghton and I discussed a completely different aspect—the people with whom she associates. I dealt with that aspect and I told the hon. member that I would think twice, because of the people with whom she associates, before giving her certain information that I would give to the hon. member for Germiston (District) without thinking about it at all. That was the attitude that I adopted and if the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) now wants to allow himself to be taken in tow by the hon. member for Houghton, for purposes of his own, that is his business. If he wants to meet his doom in that way, he can do so.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister. I knew that he would stand by what he said. I was therefore quite correct, notwithstanding the insinuations that came from certain quarters, when I said that the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Justice was that he would give information to certain members of this House but not to other members.

I said that I would think twice.

If the hon. the Minister wants to quibble about words, he is welcome to, but he stated quite clearly that he would hesitate, that he would think twice about giving information to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). But he has that right at any time in answering any question. He has the right to refuse to reply in the public interest but then it must be in the public interest, no matter which member it may be who puts the question to him. As a Parliament, and certainly as an Opposition in Parliament, we cannot tolerate a position where the hon. the Minister adopts an attitude which amounts to a denial of the rights of any member, and one of the rights enjoyed by a member of this House is to obtain lawful information from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has the right to decide whether it is in the public interest to supply that information or not, but he cannot place the matter on a personal basis; he cannot discriminate against an hon. member in an unfair manner on grounds that he cannot justify by refusing to give information. But that is the attitude that we experience on the part of hon. Ministers; we experienced it to-day for the first time on the part of the hon. the Minister for Justice. This has already happened in the case of other Ministers and we on this side of the House want to express our strongest disapproval of and our sorrow at the fact that this attitude is adopted by Ministers who sometimes protest that they want to maintain democratic institutions in South Africa. And in order to show how strongly we protest against this action and how strongly we disapprove of the attitude of the hon. the Minister, we are going to vote for the motion to reduce his salary.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—41: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and H. Suzman.

NOES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.: Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 47.—“Justice”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 48.—“Prisons”, R11,062,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 49.—“Police”, R45,870,000, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

During the second-reading debate we on this side stated that we were going to support the Bill. This is not because it is necessarily anywhere near the best Bill that could have been drawn up under the circumstances. Nothing has as yet been done or said to make us change our view—that the establishment of a staff board for the post office is but a small step in the right direction; that it is in no way a step which will create general satisfaction on the part of the staff associations. That attitude has been strengthened by information that has been since received in this connection, information that indicates that the dissatisfaction of the Post Office staff has not been eliminated by means of this measure.

During the second-reading debate we experienced what I still describe as the inexplicable absence of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs but I am pleased to see that where we are discussing this important Clause 2, he is now in his place. The information at our disposal in considering the desirability of Clause 2 and whether it will give general satisfaction to the Post Office staff is information that we have received from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and not from the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior to the fact that on 21 May the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said by way of an accusation against me—

I refer particularly to the words: “The Government announced that all those problems had been settled.” I ask the hon. the Minister whether the objections that have been lodged with him have been met and whether those problems have really been solved. Once again I must unfortunately refer to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs because the information that his legislation would be introduced came from him. He said that this Clause 2 and the establishment of a staff board would satisfy all those connected with the Post Office. When the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs mooted this Bill, he said—

I do not want to express myself on the desirability or otherwise of a separate Post Office Commission because that does not fall under Clause 2, but I want to ask why Clause 2 only mentions a staff board, while the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made a firm promise to the Post Office staff that a separate Post Office Service Commission would be set up, although, he said, it would still fall partly under the control of the Public Service Commission itself.

Although we are riot going to oppose this Bill and this specific clause, we want to make it very clear that we do not consider this to be the best step to be taken under the circumstances. We want to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to show what he can do in terms of this specific clause. We want to give him the opportunity during the next year to prove that something practicable can flow from the provisions of this clause. This is something that we doubt because we notice from this clause that the staff board will consist of three members, one of whom will be a member of the commission while the other two will be officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but that they will only be appointed after consultation with the Public Service Commission itself. We also notice from this clause that the powers of the staff board are greatly restricted by sub-section (4) which provides that if there is no general agreement amongst the members of the staff board, then the Postmaster-General must refer the matter in regard to which no agreement can be reached, to the commission, which will then take action in that regard—as though no function or power had been delegated to this staff board at all. In other words, the effect of this clause can be that the staff board may possibly be completely powerless and in reality not be able to do any important work at all.

I do not know what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) wants; I do not think he himself knows what he wants.

Ask the Post Office Staff Association.

Let me tell the hon. member that in my constituency I have 10 times more postal workers than he will ever have and I have received no objections from them in regard to this clause. The attitude of the hon. member gives one the impression that he wants a separate Post Office Commission; that the Post Office should become a completely separate organization from the rest of the Public Service. Is that what he wants?

I said that I did not want to express an opinion in that regard.

Precisely. The hon. member does not want to express himself in this regard; he is only trying to sow dissension, but the implication to be drawn from what he has said is that he wants an independent Post Office service. At the moment the position is that Post Office officials can be freely exchanged as far as promotions are concerned; they can be transferred back and forth, but if we have what the hon. member wants, this cannot be done because then the Post Office service will have to be a separate organization with a separate salary structure and separate conditions of service. That exchange of staff will no longer take place. This is where the hon. member contradicts his own argument because he said here the other day that promotion in the Post Office was far slower than in other Departments. I can mention numbers of postal officials to him who are employed in other Departments to-day and who were promoted to those positions. But if his suggestion, or at least, his implication, is implemented, these officials cannot be promoted to other State Departments. As an example I can tell him that the present Secretary for Defence is an ex-postal official and there are numbers of other people occupying senior posts in the Public Service who have also had postal service. They have these prospects of promotion to other Departments because the Public Service is taken as a whole. We have the difficulty to-day between the Railways and the Public Service that Railway officials and Public Service officials cannot be transferred back and forth because there are separate conditions of service in each body and because each body has a completely different structure. The hon. member is now deliberately trying to hold back the postal officials because there are not as many opportunities for promotion in the Post Office as there are in other Departments. That is all that he is heading for and the sooner he realizes it the better. Perhaps then he will stop this wrangling that we have every year about Post Office affairs. The postal officials laugh him to scorn because of the nonsense he talks in this House.

I must support the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) here, because whilst this Board is being created I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it has not much in the way of power at all. The hon. member for Orange Grove has made that quite clear. The wording in Section 4bis is so loose that obviously this board has not got much power at all. This section says that failing general agreement amongst the members of the staff board on any matter which in terms of the delegation under paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 falls within its powers or functions, the matter must be submitted back to the commission. Usually when a board of this nature is appointed, rules are laid down as to what will constitute agreement and will not constitute agreement, but here the term “general agreement” means that if the chairman who is also a member of the commission, says, “I do not agree with you other two”, the matter must immediately be referred back to the Public Service Commission. In other words, I believe that this paragraph is framed so loosely and so generally that it can be used to emasculate completely the whole of the work of this board. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me. It simply says “failing general agreement it does not say that it shall be a unanimous decision or a two-thirds decision or any specific decision. It simply says “failing general agreement” which is a general term, and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is quite right. If this board is set up in that spirit of generalities it cannot hope to succeed. It must have more power and the Minister must be more specific as to what the terms of agreement shall be. *

I would not have participated in the discussion on this clause because the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), although having rather a lot to say about it, eventually said that he agreed that the clause. should go through in this way and that the Opposition would not vote against it. In other words, the hon. member for Orange Grove has no other solution but to accept the clause as it stands, otherwise he would, I am sure, have moved an amendment. But then we had the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) saying that he was in complete agreement with the hon. ember for Orange Grove in regard to this matter. This House is hot a debating society. We are discussing a clause and our function is to adopt a clause or to reject it or to improve it. The hon. member for Orange Grove has said precisely the same thing to-day as he said during the second-reading debate. He does not believe that it will actually work but he will give us a year in which to test it out. In my reply to the debate I gave him the assurance that this clause would work and I mentioned a number of powers which would be delegated to the staff board. I assured him that there was no alternative to this clause. He himself does not want to suggest any alternative either. The only alternative will then be to have two Service Commissions, one for the Post Office and one for the rest of the Public Service, but the hon. member for Orange Grove does not want to suggest this either. After all, there has to be a certain amount of correlation and co-ordination between the Post Office and the rest of the Public Service. This board is called a “staff board”; it cannot also be called a “Public Service Commission”. Has the hon. member any other name for it that he would like to suggest? That was the best name that we could think of. I simply cannot understand why it is necessary for hon. members to say anything further about this clause, unless it is to make predictions so that if things do not go well in the future, the hon. members of the Opposition can tell us after a year: “We warned you.” It is of course not our intention to fob the Post Office off. In our opinion this system is going to work well. The powers that will be delegated will be such that the work will be accelerated and the cause of complaint removed. We will have the necessary co-ordination and if this arrangement does not work, I will be the first to come back to this House and say that some other arrangement should be made. We do not need prophets of doom to tell us this. Let us be up and doing. Because we are in agreement that this is the only way in which to tackle the matter, the clause must go through as it is. We need not take the postal associations into account because their views in regard to the operation of this arrangement are merely theoretical. Let us say: We are legislators; we are setting up this machinery and if it does not work well we can come back to this House. If the hon. member wants to move a constructive amendment I shall consider it, but at the moment we are merely wasting the time of the House.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has said in his reply that we should not consider what is said by the postal associations.

What they are saying now.

I do not agree. I consider the postal associations to be important public servants’ associations and we dare not ignore such important and responsible bodies as the large postal associations. The hon. the Minister in the sort of Romeo speech that he made here asked us: “What is in a name?” I think that there is quite a lot in a name. Because the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who has apparently not been listening to this important debate at all, spoke in his statement of a “Post Office Service Commission”, and because all that is being set up here will be a staff board, there is a difference between what the two Ministers said and I think that that difference goes deeper than merely the question of a name.

Move an amendment.

As far as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) is concerned, I think that the remark that he made that our proposal on this side of the House that more extensive powers should be given to this staff board.…

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I want to reply to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) who is not here at the moment. I hope that he will soon be here. The hon. member pointed out that he represented far more members of the Post Office staff than many other hon. members in this House. I accept that. At the same time I think that this forms the basis of an accusation that can be leveled against the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), an accusation that he is ignoring the members of the Post Office staff in his constituency, people who probably number several hundred.

I am protecting them; you want to exploit them.

The hon. member complained that if greater autonomy was given to a staff board such as this, if it became a sort of Post Office Service Commission, this would interfere with the promotion possibilities of members of the staff of the Department. I cannot understand that argument, Mr. Chairman. I cannot see how it can possibly affect the possibilities for promotion of the Post Office staff adversely if greater powers are given to any separate staff board. As the representative of so many members of the Post Office staff he ought to know that the promotion possibilities in the Post Office are one in seven while in the rest of the Public Service they are one in two. In the rest of the Public Service the possibilities for promotion are three times better. But now the hon. member comes here and tells us that any suggestion to give greater powers to this staff board will curtail those possibilities for promotion. I simply cannot understand that argument.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) referred to the case of heads of State Departments, amongst others, the head of the Department of Defence who was at one stage in the Post Office Service. That is quite correct. He added that if the Post Office became a more independent and more autonomous Department, that sort of appointment would become impossible. Where does the hon. member get that from? His own Government appointed people from outside the Public Service as heads of Departments and some of them were excellent appointments. I think of Dr. I. D. du Plessis who became head of the Department of Coloured Affairs. Does the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) want to tell us that if greater autonomy is given to the Post Office under this Government, the Post Office staff will be excluded from fair possibilities for promotion; that they will not even enjoy the rights of promotion enjoyed by persons appointed from outside the Public Service, like a Mr. Wennie du Plessis or a Dr. I. D. du Plessis? I think that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) owes his constituents in Pretoria a reply in this connection.

But what is more, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) occupies an important position. He is Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. As such he ought to be the watchdog over and the upholder of resolutions which have been taken by that Select Committee in the past, no matter under which Government those resolutions may have been taken.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution adopted by the Select Committee has a direct bearing on Clause 2. I want to quote the resolution adopted in 1940—

Order! I want to direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this clause deals with the appointment of a staff board in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I think that the hon. member is taking his argument much too far.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the precise wording of Clause 2 itself—

I want to move an amendment in this connection. The reason why I move an amendment is this: The hon. the Minister challenged this side to move an amendment. I want now to move my amendment and then I want to issue a challenge to the hon. the Minister. My amendment reads as follows—

It will be seen therefore that this will effect a change in the wording of this clause.

Does the hon. member want to substitute “Post Office Service Commission” for “staff board”?

Yes. The hon. the Minister may perhaps say that it is only a change of name in this case. Then I shall be prepared to issue a further challenge to him. If he is prepared to accept this amendment, I shall be prepared to move further amendments to this particular clause to give further expression to this change of designation. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has accepted my challenge and has moved the most illogical amendment that could be moved to this Bill. In the first instance, the hon. member poses as an expert on Post Office affairs, as a person who has his finger on the pulse of the Post Office staff. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that all these Post Office associations were represented on the Joint Advisory Board of the Public Service when it was decided to establish a staff board? Does the hon. member know that? If he did not know it, he knows it now. The staff board was not summarily established by the Government on the spur of the moment but the matter was referred to the Joint Advisory Board of the whole of the Public Service. All the Post Office associations were represented on that board. That is the first point.

The second point is that to talk of a Post Office Service Commission will mean the creation of a separate commission. As the hon. member has quite rightly said, if I accept this amendment, many other amendments will have to be made. A separate service commission will then be established. The hon. member knows just as well as I do—indeed, he said so during his second-reading speech—that there can be no question of the establishment of two separate service commissions because conditions of service such as salaries and so forth will become hopelessly confused. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) was quite correct in saying that the Post Office staff could then not be promoted to other Departments; that the Post Office would then become as closed a Department as the Railways. Two separate service commissions will throw the entire Public Service into great confusion. We admit differentiation; we admit that we cannot have only one grade of salary; we admit that one cannot have designations carrying the same weight—that a Post Office clerk cannot always be compared with a similar post in another Department. In the determination of the new salary scales this fact was given proper consideration. The hon. member will achieve absolutely nothing with his amendment because it simply envisages the establishment of two separate service commissions. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct your attention to the fact that if this amendment is adopted the whole principle of the Bill that was adopted at the second reading—that a staff board should be set up—will be destroyed. Under no circumstances do I see my way clear to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I was surprised to hear the hon. the Minister’s almost fierce refusal to accept this amendment. Does the hon. the Minister not know that when the amendment to this Bill was mooted, it was mooted by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? I have before me the exact words of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

Order! I have now had the opportunity of considering the hon. member’s amendment. I rule that if “service commission” is substituted for “staff board”, it will introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. Accordingly I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member. The hon. member can address me in this regard.

When the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs announced the change, he used these words. You will find that the words he used are precisely the same as the words appearing in the Bill—

And now I refer to Clause 2 of the Bill—

You will note therefore that when the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs used these words, he was not going very much further than this particular Clause 2 goes.

Order! I must confine myself to what is provided for in this Bill before me. It makes provision for a “staff board” and not a “commission”, and I rule that the hon. member’s amendment is out of order.

Is it not possible then to give it another name?

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that I am sorry that there has been no indication on the part of the Government that it will make any concessions in regard to this staff board; that it is only prepared to give these limited powers to this board; that it is not prepared to extend any of those powers and that it is thereby taking a step which will leave the 47,000 members of the Post Office in South Africa in the lurch.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

This clause deals with the establishment of a medical aid fund for the Public Service which members may have to join. During the second reading the hon. the Minister expressed the view that this medical aid fund that is going to be established would be a compulsory medical aid fund. He expressed the opinion that the majority of the members of the Public Service considered that it should be a compulsory medical aid scheme. I do not know whether I interpreted the hon. the Minister correctly but I listend to him and think that was what he intended to convey to the House. I, of course, am wholeheartdly in favour of a medical aid scheme being introduced as soon as possible but when it comes to making it a compulsory scheme I think we may come across a lot of difficulties. You see, Sir, this is going to be a medical aid scheme that is going to involve many, many thousands of contributors. Amongst those many thousands of contributors it is quite possible that a good many of them will not be 100 per cent fit. They may be fit to do their clerical work and they may have a very excellent attendance record but if they have to undergo a medical examination before joining the fund it may put a great many of them in jeopardy as far as their work is concerned. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that those people who are already employed in the Public Service will not suffer at all if they are required to belong to a medical aid scheme. I want an assurance that those who are in the service will not be penalized if they have any physical disability. Arising out of that you may find that the medical aid fund may be burdened with a high cost of contribution because of the non-selectivity of the personnel who are going to belong to the medical aid fund.

Then we come to the question of those people who want to join the Public Service and who, because of the medical aid fund, will have to undergo a medical examination. It may be that those people who do not pass the medical test may be excluded from the Public Service unless they are taken on irrespective of their physical condition. There are many important points and the hon. the Minister must take them in consideration when drawing up the regulations. If, on the other hand, the medical aid scheme is compelled to accept all those who are enrolled in the Public Service irrespective of their state of health, a medical examination will not be necessary. If this is going to be a compulsory examination I would ask the Minister to remember that in any large group of people who are required to join a medical aid scheme you will get objectors. There are many religious groups who object to such a type of fund; they object to having medical attention of any kind. I do not know whether they will be excluded as conscientious objectors as it were. But arising from that is another important point. Where there are people who already belong to a medical aid scheme will the Minister allow them to continue to belong to such schemes without having to join the medical aid scheme of the Public Service? If he does not do that it may mean that a great many of these medical aid schemes which have been doing a great service to these people in Pretoria and elsewhere will suddenly find that there is a terrific drop in contributors with the result that some of them may even go out of existence.

Those are points, Sir, which I think are well worth the Minister’s attention. I repeat that all of us on both sides of the House are in favour of having a medical aid scheme but if we make it compulsory we may strike a lot of snags. Rather than do that I suggest that the word, “may” be retained at all times in regulations and that the word “shall” shall not appear.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). I happen to know him very well. I know him as a person who takes a very keen interest in medical aid schemes. He knows a lot about them. I can assure him that the good advice he has given us will be taken into consideration. As far as this clause is concerned we only go so far as to permit the Civil Service to start a medical aid scheme. We have to take into consideration all the points raised by the hon. member in the first place and in the second place we shall also have to get our green light from schemes which have operated for many years and know exactly where the snags are and how to cope with all the difficulties in order to establish such a scheme. He may rest assured that we shall be very careful when it comes to drawing up the regulations especially as the Government has only guaranteed R240,000 as a contribution from its side more specifically for administrative costs. We shall take all points into consideration and those other points which may crop up later on.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he has the necessary qualified staff to carry out the requirements of this clause. We know there is a shortage of staff in his Department generally and for the administration of this Bill staff is essential. Can the Minister tell us what staff he has and who his staff will be; will they be extension officers?

The staff that will have to do this inspection work will be the extension officers. I think there are enough of them to do the job properly.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move as an amendment—

1. (5) If the appellant withdraws the appeal or fails to proceed with the appeal within the prescribed period, or if the committee of appeal dismisses the appeal, the appellant shall be liable to the State for the costs of appeal as determined by the secretary.
2. (6) If the committee upholds the appeal, the State shall be liable for such costs.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I wonder whether this clause is necessary. It does not seem to be a satisfactory clause because it states that the owner of such bull shall brand it in the prescribed manner with the prescribed brand to indicate that it has been so proved. In the Stock Improvement Act which is being amended by this measure the branding was not done by the owner but by the person who passes the bull as suitable for breeding purposes. Is this Clause necessary because Clause 11 covers the position where regulations can be introduced. Clause 11 (c) deals with the branding of bulls to indicate that they have been approved of by an inspector. So the regulations provided for in Clause 11 will cover Clause 6. I wonder, therefore, whether Clause 6 is essential?

Clause 6 has been taken over from the existing Act as it stands. Once a bull is approved of, it must be branded in order to indicate that it has been inspected and passed. Clause 11 deals chiefly with the problems that may spring from import and export regulations. That is why I consider that they are both necessary. It does not necessarily mean that there will be any overlapping.

Why should the farmer be responsible for the branding? Surely the Department owns the prescribed brand which is necessary to mark the bull. Why should the inspector or the extension officer who passes the bull not perform this branding? Why make it the responsibility of the owner?

This clause has been taken over from the old Act. But what is being changed, as far as I can remember, is that the inspector or extension officer no longer affixes that brand himself; the onus is now being placed on the farmer. My experience is that the inspector himself brands that animal in that specific way. He does not issue a certificate until he has branded the animal in that way. The responsibility has always rested on the inspector.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the inspector may have branded the animal in that way but Clause 6 has been taken from the old Act as it stands. In practice, if the inspector passes the bull, he brands the animal himself. The law provides that it is the responsibility of the owner to brand that bull in the prescribed manner. It is not the responsibility of the inspector. We are not making any changes in that regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

The amendment which this clause effects to the principal Act means that the ability of the Attorney-General and the Court to act as a court of review to correct mistakes or other wrong decisions by a magistrate, where he issues an order which can lead to the detention of people, is greatly reduced. This has always been in the Act. I think it was there because it was regarded as an important safeguard against mistakes, and against people being wrongly detained when they are perhaps not mentally defective. Consequently we are not entirely happy about this clause. But before taking the matter any further, and since I have heard that the Minister may have had a view expressed on this clause by the Judges, I should like to ask the Minister before I go any further if he will be so good as to give us a full explanation of the reason why this change is being made, the attitude of the Judges to the change, and whether he is satisfied that the attenuated procedure will ensure that errors will be avoided. I say again, this has always been a safeguard. I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister why it is being whittled away as it is.

As I explained during the second-reading debate, we are eliminating a large amount of unnecessary “red tape”. Our O. and M. officials have calculated that if we make the necessary amendments that we have in mind, we will be able to eliminate no fewer than 68,000 forms per year. Hon. members will note that all sorts of formalities have crept in to many of the old laws. These formalities were vaguely intended to act as guarantees but in reality are not guarantees at all. Let me remind the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) of the work of the Attorney-General. If the hon. member will peruse the Act, he will see that the Attorney-General is mentioned throughout as the curator ad litem; that is to say, he only has a legal function in a case in which the patient is concerned. Over the course of time the formality crept in of sending all kinds of reports to the Attorney-General. The poor Attorney-General does not know what to do with them. They are simply filed away. As the hon. member will note, the magistrate has to send to the Attorney-General the reception committal order, the application from the persons who want the patient admitted, the declarations that the patient is non compos mentis and the medical reports of the ordinary doctors. In reality, all these things are not necessary because in terms of Section 15 (1) it is a provisional order that holds good for six weeks. After this, everything is sent to the Judge and the Judge then decides whether such person may be detained finally. Then all the necessary documents are given to the Judge but the unnecessary ones are omitted. And so the judge is always there to give a decision. In this case therefore, the Attorney-General only acts as a canal. The detention order is of no use to the Judge and of even less use is the application from the members of the family of the patient or others that the patient should be detained. The declaration that is made by other persons that the man is non compos mentis is of no importance to him either because the Judge eventually receives the report of the experts, the psychiatrists, which forms the conclusive evidence, not the statements of the ordinary doctors. For these reasons the Judges-President of the provinces were approached and all were convinced that the protection afforded to patients was not being adversely affected at all. I also want to point out to the hon. member that it only affects Chapter I; it does not affect Chapter II. Chapter II refers to criminals, people who are actually imprisoned. In that case all the guarantees of the past still stand. This amendment is merely being made in connection with committed patients.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause has largely to do with the supervision by third parties, of those who are detained. I have for many years been worried about the type of control that we have in this country. I feel that in respect of the long-term patient there was a possibility of patients being overlooked. It all depended on the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene—one man. Knowing as I do the mental set-up generally, this service has never been over full of staff. There has been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of doctors and there used to be a shortage of accommodation. Instead of the long-term supervision of these patients, that is the patients who are confined more than two years, and more than five years being entirely in the actual personal control of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, some of the responsibility has now been shifted to the superintendents of the hospitals, except that actual supervision of the superintendent’s own patients shall not be his care. With the shortage of staff and the difficulties that we face, and particularly the shortage of skilled staff, that is psychiatric staff, I would like the hon. Minister to give very serious consideration, not to-night perhaps but from the long-term view, to see if he cannot devise something along the lines of the Mental Tribunal Act which exists in Great Britain by which a third party, a person who is not in the actual mental service although he may be in the State service, a person outside the actual mental service considers these long-term patients and decides what should be done. I fear not so much that they would be ill treated. Far from it. But I feel that they are forgotten in the pressure of work. These people who are quiet, decent people very often nevertheless cannot be let out because they cannot take care of their own affairs, etc., and they are apt to be overlooked and I feel that this aspect should be seriously considered by the hon. Minister. He should have a third party, outside his own service, perhaps on contract or some other system, who will go round the institutions and check on these long-term patients.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

When speaking on the second reading of this Bill I asked the hon. Minister how more effective would be the establishment of the proposed out-patient clinics now to be attached to general hospitals. While we on this side of the House welcome the cooperation between the central health services and the provinces in the establishment of these out-patient clinics, I wish to bring to the hon. Minister’s attention the functions of out-patient clinics attached to a community service. The functions of psychiatric out-patient clinics are primarily to treat the patients so as to obviate their admittance to a mental hospital and to provide the follow-up and after-care services that are so important to-day so that patients may be discharged early from the mental hospital. Especially with the new psychiatric drugs that are on the market to-day, these patients are being discharged from the mental hospitals much sooner than they were in the past. Now the facilities for coping with the patients once they have been discharged is of the utmost importance. What facilities are there to cope with this increasing problem in the way of a community service, a mobile team community service? In which way will district surgeons be trained to deal with this problem and do the State social worker personnel deal with this and are they going to be psychiatrically trained in the way psychiatric social workers should be trained? Because there should be direct communication between the out-patient departments and the State social workers in a community team service to serve the patients. Unless the service, I feel, is thus structured by the hon. Minister’s Department it cannot contribute as much as it should to the care of the patients. If it is thus structured it is going to contribute a great deal together with the out-patient department attached to the general hospital that the hon. Minister’s Department is going to establish when implementing this clause. Now every member of a psychiatric team to-day has a very important part to play in the community service. This has been proved during the last six years in Johannesburg. I am asking the hon. Minister to consider very seriously whether the State can provide for this and will the social workers be psychiatrically trained and will they work as members of a psychiatric team visiting those patients who have been discharged from the mental institutions and who are perhaps receiving service at out-patient departments but who need constant visiting in their homes. The present trend to-day in the out-patient departments and in mental health is to bring the hospital to the patient, and therefore I am asking the hon. Minister to consider very seriously in implementing this clause to establish a community service together with a mobile team service that can serve the mental patients outside.

I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will give thorough consideration to her remarks. At the moment we are still extending basic services. The hon. member knows, from the replies that I gave her earlier, that we have a shortage of psychiatric staff, but once we have supplemented our basic services, we may go on to improve the services further as advocated by the hon. member.

Following up what the hon. Minister has said, I should like to add something to this discussion and suggest to the hon. Minister that in view of the great shortage of psychiatrists we have in this country to-day and the need for concentration of patients where the psychiatrist can attend, he will for the time being, at any rate, have to establish throughout the country units in the larger centres which can be visited by the psychiatrist on a regular time-table. It will also become necessary because of the long distances that some patients may have to travel, to house the patients between treatments. It is possible that a patient may require shock treatment every other day or every day. That patient may have to come 150 miles or 200 miles from the platteland to the hospital. Immediately after the initial treatment, it would take at least an hour or two for the patient to recover, and if that type of treatment is going to be in an outpatient department, it will become necessary to hospitalize the patients. These out-patient departments will have to have a certain number of beds which can be used by these people who are receiving out-patient treatment and yet because of the distances they have to travel will have to be housed. Normally if they are in a big city and live within a mile or two from the hospital, it would not be necessary to keep them there; they can be taken home. But in these cases where you have these shortages and where there has to be a concentration of patients in the larger centres, it will become necessary for the Minister to provide beds in the out-patient departments. Then we come to the question of who is going to be responsible financially for the upkeep of these beds. It is a point the hon. Minister will have to take up with the provinces. Will the Central Government be prepared to pay for the costs of psychiatric treatment for these people who otherwise would be kept in an institution by the Central Government?

Dr. RADFORD: The crucial question in most cases is to keep the patients out of hospital and it is a movement of which we entirely approve, but it is not limited to mental diseases—it is a widespread policy in respect of all medical care. Now I want to remind the hon. Minister of what I said on his Vote, viz. that he is faced with the problem of developing a special type of nurse to care for these people. It is not an original thought on my part. It is a method which the United Nations Organization has pushed forward in countries where nurses and skilled staff are short, the hope is to get these people out and keep them out, particularly persons whose illness is not so serious as to justify certification. The idea is to keep them in their own homes and in their own environment. That cannot be done at an outpatient department. The homes must be visited, the homes must be studied, and even where a man. is mentally disturbed it is not always all his fault—he may have an environment at home, a family life which tends to tip the balance against normality. This is the important thing to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention again, namely the neglect in the past of the health visitor, and I want to ask him once again to give the matter serious consideration and to build up, whether you call it a health visitor or anything else, to build up that visiting nurse, a specialist nursing staff for out-patient care. They must be highly qualified. trained as a general nurse to start with and then as a social welfare nurse and as a mental hygiene nurse. I think the hon. Minister must be prepared to give that nursing service the same subsidy as he has in the past been giving to district nurses and clinic nurses. This is the more highly qualified nurse, the selected nurse, and it is important that we should develop this service, a family service for the people in their homes subsidized by the Minister of Health.

Perhaps I should make a few remarks in regard to what has been said by the two hon. members. I just want to point out to them that the suggestions of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) follow the direction in which we are developing. We are establishing a completely new relationship with the provinces so that we can also set up out-patient clinics at the provincial hospitals. By establishing these clinics we will avoid various problems. We will overcome the difficulty to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred, viz. that there may be a time when we will need to have beds for such patients. These are out-patient clinics for people who come and go, but it may be necessary for people to be detained and beds will have to be found for them. We are therefore working in that direction. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) emphasized the aftercare of patients who have been partly or even completely cured. Because of the tremendous shortage of staff needed for this work and the slow building up of that staff which it is difficult to obtain, we are continuing to make use of the very valuable services of the National Council for Mental Health, together with its associations. They are to a large extent rendering the services to which the hon. member referred. But I want to assure him that we realize that this is by no means adequate and we Want to develop these services as quickly as possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This is a clause on which I feel we have to get a little clarity. I am not at all happy about it because I think in a desire to do. away with a lot of paper work, we may not be protecting the patient sufficiently from himself. I am not altogether sure of the real meaning of this clause. If the amendment is accepted, the section will read—

And they also add a new sub-section which says—

Any certificate issued under sub-section (1) shall be sent to the Master by the Superintendent of the institution or the person in charge of the place in which the patient was detained.

My difficulty here is to make sure that this clause protects the patient sufficiently when the question of discharge comes up. I would like to know from the Minister that he has the assurance that the certificate that is issued is one which will prove conclusively that at the time of discharge at any rate, the patient is well able to look after his own affairs. Now I am not sure that this is the position under the clause, and I am afraid that one certificate from any one particular person may be sufficient to discharge a patient from the hospital to which he is confined. I am not sure about this and I would like the Minister to give me the assurance that it is not so. Because if one certificate is all that is necessary then we might find ourselves in serious trouble. It is possible that in an institution other than a Government institution, that is, a licensed institution, you may have a person there who may issue a certificate in all good faith without knowing the patient’s history. It may come about when a doctor, for instance, goes away on holiday and a locum comes in. To all intents and purposes the patient may look perfectly normal after treatment. His own doctor may not have discharged him, but as a result of pressure by the family and one thing and another, the locum may be persuaded to allow the patient to go home by issuing a certificate saying that the person is well able to look after his own affairs. Have we got the assurance from the Minister that that sort of thing will not happen and that there will be plenty of. cover and plenty of protection to make sure that a patient does not leave the institution before he is actually cured and before certification is complete?

The amendments that we are making here are actually to strengthen the existing provisions. The section we are amending did not provide for a certificate, but we are inserting this provision now. In other words, that section is being strengthened. Of course, one can never promise more than to make available at the hospitals the best forces that we. have at our disposal. The person who has to give that certificate is the superintendent, the. medical officer in charge of the hospital. Unfortunately, he is only human.

He does not even have to be a psychiatrist.

We are trying to appoint psychiatrists at the head of these hospitals. But of course, the human element is always present. Because we are human, we sometimes fail in our judgment and this can also happen in these cases. We cannot give any guarantee; we can only say that we will always try to appoint outstanding psychiatrists at the head of these hospitals.

I think the hon. Minister does not quite appreciate our difficulties. Generally speaking we are satisfied about the State institutions, but this also applies to licensed institutions, and these people are voluntary boarders. In other words, you are dealing here with people who go in of their own accord, and very often people like that are difficult because afterwards they regret and want to come out. They went in of their own accord but they cannot go out of their own accord, and in the case of the licensed institution it is true that a certificate must come from the person who is in charge of the medical care of the patient, but in the case of a superintendent—it may be a nurse, not even a fully qualified nurse. I admit that the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene has to be satisfied, but how can he be satisfied in the case of a patient whom he has not seen perhaps for a month and whom the doctor has only seen two or three days before? I feel that something more than merely the certificate of the doctor of a licensed institution is necessary. That is really what it boils down to. We are not concerned about the Minister’s institution.

May I make a few remarks. No great injustice can ever happen in these cases, because after all it is a voluntary boarder who would want to go out as soon as possible. It is not as if he wants to go out and you force him to remain. The problem raised is that he may be released too soon. So I do not really think it is a great problem here. It is quite possible that he may be released by someone who may not be capable of deciding whether he is compos mentis or not, but then in a case like that he will naturally return for further treatment.

I disagree a little with the hon. Minister because the certificate states that it is a certificate to the Curator. Now a man when released in these circumstances can do a lot of harm to his. own affairs in a very short time. That is the problem. We are not worrying about him driving a motor-car and hitting a tree, or something like that, but he may spend his means and do himself and his estate a great deal of harm.

In the case of a voluntary boarder, you are not dealing with a certificated person. In other words, he has not been found incapable of managing his own affairs. He comes there of his own accord. So he is a person who can still look after his own affairs, but for his own benefit it may be worth while for him to receive treatment in institutions.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I want to refer the hon.

Minister to the definition of “psychiatrist” on page 6. I welcome it and it brings up the whole question of the implementation of all these clauses in the Bill. How many psychiatrists are we going to have to implement this scheme? I understood from the hon. Minister that a further ten posts had been created for psychiatrists in 1961, and I understand that this has been increased by a further eight, so that we now have 18 posts created for trainee-psychiatrists who have to serve a portion of their time with the State service after they have qualified. That is 18 posts together with an extra four post-graduate qualifications for psychiatrists, but in spite of this the Minister has told us that there are seven vacancies for psychiatrists. It is essential that the organization of the Minister’s Department does everything that it can to attract psychiatrists to the service and also to keep them there. Psychiatry is still the stepchild of medicine. It is expanding enormously, but the recognition accorded to it by other branches of medicine is still insufficient and in South Africa we only have one full-time professor of psychiatry at the Witwatersrand University, and for the most part the subject is still taught by part-time psychiatrists in private practice. That is hampering the development of psychiatry in South Africa, the shortage of teachers. This is a matter of urgency and this should be remedied immediately. I am asking the hon. Minister to consider establishing more post-graduate scholarships and opportunities for psychiatrists for higher degrees. This is of first importance because of the expanding needs of a community psychiatric service which will stem from the clauses in this Bill which will demand large numbers of highly trained psychiatrists. I feel to-day that I want to ask the hon. Minister what his Department is doing to train psychiatrists to serve the non-Europeans, because in South Africa to-day there is not one non-European psychiatrist, neither Bantu, Coloured nor Asiatic, and the Government policy to-day of separate development will call for an enormous number of trained personnel, and that no doubt will include psychiatrists. I should like to know from the hon. Minister what his plans are for the training of psychiatrists and also for the training of non-European psychiatrists.

It is very difficult for psychiatrists to work in a foreign language. In Natal, of course, we have the non-White Medical School, but it is staffed by Whites and that presents great difficulties. To carry on with the thought expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), I wonder whether the Minister would consider sending one or more Indians over to India to learn this particular craft or skill, because as far as one knows most of the universities in India are acceptable to this country, and therefore that is probably the only way in which we will be able to train an Indian psychiatrist. What we are going to do about the Bantu I really do not know.

As far as the last problem is concerned, the first question that we must ask ourselves is what the requirements for psychiatric treatment are. It will not help for us to train Indian psychiatrists if we have no work for them. If there is work for them, we must, as the hon. member suggested, gradually start training Indians to do that work for their own people. I want to assure him that I will give my attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) asked what steps we were taking to obtain more psychiatrists. I think that during the second-reading debate I explained to the hon. member that our first task was to break down the prejudice which has existed in the past on the part of doctors and medical students in regard to institutions for the mentally ill. They had no interest in them. They simply regarded them as goals. We had to prove to them that an institution for the mentally ill was to-day just a specialized hospital, and we had to encourage them to come over to us and to take psychiatry as a subject. We achieved a great deal of success in this regard. I have explained how great our success was. In one year we recruited numbers of persons whose services we had never even hoped to obtain and we are training a large number of them as specialists to-day. Not only do we make bursaries available to students to take psychiatry as a subject but we also train post-graduate students as psychiatrists. We have had a great deal of success, but there is a very great backlog to make up, as the hon. member said. There are seven of our institutions which are still without psychiatrists, but we are trying our best to get people to take a greater interest in this subject.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the Income Tax Bill last year I told the House that the P.A.Y.E. system would be introduced in 1963. This radical tax reform has now become law and came into operation on 1 March of this year in terms of Act No. 6 of 1963. Early results indicate that the system functioned well beyond expectations during the first month after the changeover and that, notwithstanding statements to the contrary in certain circles, it has generally been very well received and enjoys the full support of the vast majority of taxpayers.

I am pleased to be able to say that new tax deduction tables for employees incorporating the 5 per cent rebate have recently been completed for all four provinces. These tables are presently being sent to employers who will have to make the reduced tax deductions with effect from 1 July.

Since my Budget speech there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction because the deductions have been made on the higher scale provided for in the original tables. It will however be appreciated that delay was unavoidable. We could not do this earlier although we really tried our best. But now the new tables are in the possession of employers. Most provisional taxpayers have already received the forms which they will have to complete in respect of the first Estimates for 1964. Tables to assist these taxpayers in estimating their tax together with rules and examples showing how this is to be done ought to be in their possession timeously to enable them to complete the new forms.

The administration of this extremely important taxation legislation has taken up all the time of the officials of my Department and it was originally not intended to place any further taxation measures before the House this Session. With the exception of the usual measures, it was not intended to introduce any new provisions in connection with the Income Tax Act as such. It has of course been necessary in this legislation to lay down the scales of taxation which were contained in the Budget proposals that have already been adopted. There are however unavoidable amendments that occur every year, no matter how determined one may be not to make unnecessary amendments, and the Bill that is now before the House also includes a number of these additional changes over and above those emanating from the Budget. The Bill was, however, published for general information as a Government Notice in a Government Gazette Extraordinary on 26 April. Comments were then asked for but very few were received. I was not very surprised at this because the Bill consisted mainly of concessions, most of which were envisaged in my Budget speech. Because the draft Bill has been available for more than a month and because the usual explanatory memorandum has been issued and is before hon. members, it is not my intention to deal with each clause separately and so I shall confine my remarks to a few of the more important provisions.

The Bill only differs from the published draft of 26 April in a few minor respects on which comment is unnecessary. There remains nothing for me to say about Clause 1 and the schedule to the Bill because they give effect to the taxation proposals that have already been considered and adopted by the House.

The provinces will receive their share of the normal tax paid by companies in the same way as they received it last year. In other words, the fact that we are allowing a 5 per cent rebate will have no effect on the amount that they will receive. Provincial income-tax payable by these last-mentioned companies will be based on the full amount of the normal tax before deduction of the 5 per cent rebate.

I just want to refer briefly to the advantages given to taxpayers by this Bill. Firstly, there are the concessions that were envisaged in my Budget speech. They consist of a large variety of items ranging from the increase from R17 to R25 in respect of the maximum rebate allowed for insurance premiums, to the concessions granted to all deep-level gold mines by means of which they are permitted to write off their capital expenditure in the year in which that capital expenditure was incurred, and also to certain new gold mines by allowing them to claim their capital expenditure, a concession that has up to the present only been enjoyed by deep-level gold mines. The concessions also include the following—

1. (1) The application of the exporters’ allowance also in respect of those taxpayers who were not able to increase their export turnover in the tax year.
2. (2) The extension from 30 June 1965 to 28 February 1966, and from 30 June 1966 to 28 February 1967, respectively, of the period in which the plant and building investment allowance will be allowed.
3. (3) Allowing companies a further period of five years during which they will be able to deduct from their incomes grants made by them to universities for technological training.

While I am on this subject, I want to direct the attention of hon. members to Clause 31 of the Bill which amends the definition of “technological training” in the Technological Training Advancement Act, 1960, by deleting the reference therein to post-graduate study. The effect of this amendment will be that grants will in future qualify for deduction if they are used for any technological training and it will no longer be a requirement that they should be used for the purpose of postgraduate study. Lastly, but certainly not the least important or popular, there is the increase in the maximum amount that can be deducted in respect of contributions by members to pension funds not established by statute and to retirement annuity funds. In The case of pension funds, the maximum is being increased from R400 to R600, and in the case of retirement annuity funds from R800 to R1,200.

The Treasury is at present issuing 4½ per cent seven-year debentures instead of 5 per cent seven-year debentures. Accordingly the exemption that held good in respect of the 5 per cent debentures is now being extended to the 4½ per cent debentures. The joint interest on both kinds of debenture will be exempted to a maximum of R1,000 in the case of any single taxpayer.

I come now to some of the concessions which were not referred to in my Budget speech. They include the following—

1. (a) The abolition of the limit of R600 per annum as far as employees’ contributions to a pension fund established by a local authority are concerned, and the extension by five years of the period during which employers will receive the allowance in respect of housing for their employees. These concessions are contained in Clause 8.
2. (b) Natural oil has been very actively sought after recently in the Republic and in view of that it has been deemed desirable to lay down provisions regarding the redemption of capital expenditure incurred in connection with the development of natural oil deposits. Developers of natural oil will receive the same concessions as those allowed to the diamond mines and new gold mines.
3. (c) Clauses 20 and 21 make two amendments by means of which concessions are granted in regard to the taxing of single payment benefits from pension and provident funds.

A further important amendment to which I referred in my Budget speech is that affecting the valuation of livestock for tax purposes. Although this matter has already been explained, I feel that the following brief summary is justified.

Representations for the abolishing of the mortality allowance have been received from the South African Agricultural Union. As far as non-pedigree stock is concerned, the allowance adversely affected the farmer in the year of his death or when he disposed of his livestock on the termination of his farming activities, although it did assist him to some extent in the initial years of his farming operations. That allowance is, therefore, being abolished. Provision is, however, being made for a depreciation allowance in respect of the better class of animal which is purchased for breeding purposes. This allowance replaces the mortality allowance and will, in the long run, be to the advantage of all stud breeders. At the same time use is being made of the opportunity to clarify the provisions of the law which requires certain animals to be valued at their purchase price. The existing English text refers to “livestock acquired for stud purpose”, while the expression “vir aanteeldoeleindes” is used in the Afrikaans text.

As from 1963 livestock will be valued at cost price if it has been purchased for stud purposes and the purchase price exceeds the applicable minimum amount laid down in the Bill. The various minimum amounts have been determined after consultation with the South African Agricultural Union and various stock breeders’ associations. In the case of other livestock the standard values will still be applied as in the past.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has pointed out that certain of its employees stationed abroad have not been liable for tax in the Republic and have also been exempted by the country in which they have been serving. It is felt that these employees should rightly be taxed in the Republic, and Clause 6 of the Bill makes provision for this. While Clause 7 (b) will again exempt them from these payments provided they are not normally resident in the Republic and their remuneration is taxed by the country in which they are serving.

The Transkeian Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963, establishes the Transkeian Revenue Fund and requires that the normal and Provincial income tax payable by the citizens of the Transkei who are normally resident in, the Transkei must be paid into that fund. The basis on which such payments have to be made is laid down in Clause 30.

The amendment to the Fourth Schedule containing the provisions regarding the P.A.Y.E. system are mainly of a textual nature or flow from the amendments made to the principal Act by this Bill. The proposed amendments are dealt with in detail in the explanatory memorandum, and the absence of comment on the published draft Bill appears to indicate—I hope that this fact will be confirmed this evening—that they are generally understood and accepted.

We do not propose to oppose this second reading of the Income Tax Bill, but we feel that there are certain matters which require further explanation by the Minister. The Minister has dealt at length with certain general matters, but during the Committee of Ways and Means we suggested to the Minister that he might give us some information as to the total amount of tax which had been collected. He indicated that he would do that at a later stage. I am sorry he has not done it at this stage, because it would have enabled us to discuss some of the proposals contained, particularly in the First Schedule of the Act, better than we can now without that information.

I would refer firstly to the formula dealing with revenue which has to be surrendered to the Transkeian Territorial Authority. This is a new provision in the Act based presumably on the legislation passed earlier this Session. I would ask the Minister to clarify the formula, which appears on the surface to attempt to give an accurate assessment of what revenue should be surrendered to the Transkei. The formula is Y equals D over B multiplied by 100 over 1, D being the total amount of tax collected from Transkeian residents and B being the total amount of tax collected from all persons in the Cape Province. Now it does not say in the Act whether the total amount collected in the Cape includes the Transkei. One presumes it does, but I wish the Minister would explain it in his reply. When we deal with the first portion of the formula, which is D, the total number of taxpayers in the Transkei, it provides that the residents of the Transkei are those persons who are taxpayers in the Transkei and who are ordinarily resident there. What we are concerned with is what are ordinary residents. Does the Minister’s Department describe the ordinary taxpayers who are ordinarily resident in the Transkei as those Transkeian Bantu who are working away from their homeland and who are income-tax payers? And that is not far-fetched, Sir, because there are many of these people who are school teachers and nurses, and a school teacher may be married to a nurse and their combined incomes will be such as to be taxable for income-tax purposes. They will be liable for Provincial tax, for Union income-tax, but not for provincial personal tax, and the Native tax will be deducted from their incomes. For the purpose of calculating the total amount of tax which has to be accounted for in this formula, to arrive at D for the purpose of calculating the percentage which has to be surrendered to the Transkei, will the Minister indicate to us whether that total includes only persons who reside in the Transkei for the whole of the year, or those persons who reside in the Transkei for only a portion of the year? It attempts to provide an arbitrary percentage based on the assumption that all persons living in the Transkei earn their income there, which is not so. There may be many White traders in the Transkei who earn the most substantial portion of their living there, but who may have investments elsewhere, so that a portion of their income comes from the Transkei and a portion of it is earned elsewhere, either in the form of dividends on gold shares or interest from building societies, etc. One can well understand the Minister, for the purpose of arriving at an arbitrary percentage, including the income of those persons who are resident there during the whole year, provided that their tax is regarded as Transkeian income-tax for the purpose of assessing the amount comprised by Item D of the formula, but what about the case of those persons who have a partial income in the Transkei? There may be certain traders in the Transkei who may have money invested in the Eastern Province in buildings and flats and who are assessed by the Receiver of Revenue in East London. Will they be included under D, or excluded? If the position is not clear, what is the whole purpose of the formula? There is an attempt made to arrive at an involved formula which will give the façade of arriving at a so-called equitable distribution of the revenue to be distributed between the Transkei and the Cape Province, when in fact it is subject to all sorts of interpretations, of which I have indicated one or two already. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he replies, because it is certainly not clear. I would like the Minister to indicate to us what he understands by “persons ordinarily resident”, particularly Bantu who are taxpayers. I may summarize it briefly by saying that there are Bantu taxpayers who earn the major part of their income outside the Transkei and yet are recognized by the State as belonging to the Transkei. Would they be excluded?

It refers only to citizens.

Yes. but will “Transkei citizens” exclude all the White people of the Transkei?

Are they citizens of the Transkei?

They all are.

That is what I want to know from the Minister. Are White persons resident in the Transkei citizens of the Transkei? Will they be excluded? It is all very well for the Minister to make interjections across the floor of the House, but he must clarify the position. He has already said that citizens of the Transkei were the ordinary residents of the Transkei, but we would like him to clarify it, because he has to apply this formula, and we should like to know what proportion of the total tax will be allocated to the Transkei.

I come now to the question of P.A.Y.E. The Minister has had some difficulty in the initial stages and I wonder whether he has taken the trouble to fill in the form I.R.P.6. I wonder whether the Minister is a provisional taxpayer. If the Minister makes inquiries he will find that a considerable amount of difficulty is being experienced by people in the country in completing this form as provisional taxpayers. In the first place, this form has been issued for nearly two months, and only this week has the form I.R.P.12 been issued. I.R.P.12 gives an explanation as to how to fill in I.R.P.6, which has been in circulation for nearly two months. Persons have been required for some time to complete I.R.P.6, and if we look at the form we find that Item A provides for the year of assessment ending … and there you have to indicate the year, and you have to indicate whether it is the first, second or third period of the provisional tax, and you have to fill in the province in which the person is registered and the total taxable income in the preceding year. That is not difficult when the taxpayer can refer to his previous tax assessment, but then he has to show the estimated taxable income for the current year of assessment and the estimated taxable portion of his dividends. That he can get from his own records if he has the patience to get so far. But then we come to Item C, which refers to the tax for the full year, and when this form was provided there were no tables provided for it. For the past two months taxpayers throughout the country have been unable to fill in this form unless they went to their accountants or financial advisers for assistance. So that in the main what taxpayers have done is to fill in the amount for the previous year and they have sent in the form on the basis of their taxable income for the current year being expected to be the same as for the previous year. A considerable amount of time has been wasted by taxpayers and midnight oil burnt in an endeavour to meet the Minister’s requirements to fill in I.R.P.6. I suggest that if the Minister makes inquiries he will find that a large number of these forms have been incorrectly filled in and that in many cases there has been delay in sending in the forms because the taxpayer lost patience and had to wait until his accountant could find time to do it for him. This difficulty could have been overcome had the form I.R.P.12 accompanied I.R.P.6. I understand the position is that in the initial stages in the big centres I.R.P.6 was sent out at once. In the smaller centres the Revenue Office delayed the sending out of I.R.P.6 until I.R.P.12 arrived. They understood from the Minister’s Department that I.R.P.12 would be sent some time later and therefore they held back I.R.P.6 until such time as they received the explanatory form which contains the detailed tables. I would suggest that the Minister should give some consideration to those taxpayers who have been in arrear in filing I.R.P.6, because just as the Minister is experiencing difficulty in his Department, so the taxpayers also have difficulty in filling in these forms which, on the face of it, are incomplete when not supported by the explanatory details in I.R.P.12.

I want to refer to another matter, and that is the undistributed profits tax. I referred to the matter last year and the Minister said the following in Col. 8721 of Hansard—

The undistributed profits tax causes anxiety, because it affects certain companies which are described as private companies by the Department, and yet in many cases are public companies quoted on the Stock Exchange. As one taxpayer said to me in a letter—

In view of the fact that the Minister last year said he would give the matter his attention, I would like to know why no reference has been made to it hitherto, and how long he proposes to delay going into this matter further. This is a matter which particularly concerns those industrialists who want to develop further. Furthermore, this is not a popular tax. However, most taxes are unpopular, but this is a particularly unpopular one. It does not weigh equitably on all companies, particularly those companies which have large personal shareholding interests. Consequently I trust that the hon. the Minister will give us some further explanation during his reply to this debate in this connection. I also hope that in the course of that reply the hon. the Minister will be able to give us further information regarding collections for the current year. I think there can be no doubt that a case can be made out for an alteration to the first schedule of the Act in so far as it affects rates. The first schedule provides that there should be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the table of page 20 of the Act—a sum equal to 5 per cent of the net amount arrived at. I submit that if the hon. the Minister goes carefully into his figures of collections estimated in his original Estimate and the subsequent collection and the revised Estimates after 31 March—an estimate of the total collections since his Budget speech—he will find that a case can be made out for an alteration of that figure of 5 to 10 per cent. In other words, there should be a further reduction of 5 per cent in order to give further relief to the taxpayers of this country. There is no case whatsoever of taxing the people of this country more than is necessary. I admit that it is necessary for the Minister to obtain the necessary funds to meet his Budget expenditure but at the same time I submit that the Minister should examine his figures. We do not have details of these figures before us, but I feel quite sure that when they are available, he will find that a case can be made out for changing the figure from 5 to 10 per cent, thereby passing further relief to the taxpayers of the country and providing an additional incentive to industry and commerce in this country. Thereby the economic growth of the country as a whole can be stimulated further.

The taxing machine is not a machine only for the purpose of collecting the necessary revenue to finance the activities of the State, but it has also a function to perform in providing the necessary incentives for the development of the economy to its fullest potential. I suggest that the Minister, instead of being only a tax gatherer, should use his tax machine also to encourage incentives so as to stimulate further development of the country—a development which is fully justified in the light of the developments we have seen so far.

I shall be very brief. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to pay any attention to the last plea of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). During the Budget debate I and other hon. members on this side of the House proved conclusively that the many concessions granted in the Budget created the danger of inflation. If further concessions are granted now, we will have inflation. It is not only we who think so, but this is also the opinion of the experts in the financial sphere. Hon. members can peruse all the financial periodicals of importance which do not reveal political prejudice and they will find that it is stated there that the Budget may perhaps already have gone too far in the direction of causing inflation which can perhaps not be prevented if further concessions are made to taxpayers. We must not reveal a bookkeeping mentality. That is the approach of the hon. member. On the contrary, we must come forward with a policy to establish a balanced economy, not a policy which will result in a boom period after which we can expect sudden setbacks. I see that in England they are predicting that the recent Budget there is leading to inflation. Let that be a lesson to us. They have tried this on a few successive occasions in England and on each occasion they have had inflation within two years. That is why I think that the hon. member for Pinetown must be more careful and should investigate the matter more thoroughly before he expresses ideas such as those which he expressed here this evening. He ought to know that he creates expectations on the part of the public that way, expectations which in the long run will be to the detriment of the country as a whole.

There is another matter in regard to which I want to say a few words and that is the P.A.Y.E. system of income-tax collection. The hon. member for Pinetown has already referred to the forms that have to be completed by provisional taxpayers. At the same time he referred to the explanatory form that accompanies the other form. As far as I am concerned I want this evening to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue to do away with these forms completely. This system has only been in operation for a few months and it is already clear to me from the experience that I myself have had and as the result of representations that I have received from various quarters, that it is not worth the trouble to make provisional estimates of people’s income after four months and even after seven months. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Department to change the formula in such a way that henceforward a person will be allowed to pay one-quarter of the tax that he paid in the previous year at the end of the first four months, and a further one-quarter at the end of the seventh month. He should then only make an estimate in the eleventh month. Only then will he be able to make a reasonable estimate, which these forms expect him to do. No person can, eight months before the end of the tax year, predict what his income is going to be for that year. The few rand that the Department may collect from the persons who may perhaps give a higher estimate of their income than was the case in the previous year, are not worth the trouble.

The hon. the Minister and the Department will of course ask what the position is of the person who has a smaller income than he had the previous year. That was also the attitude adopted by the Select Committee, which I think was wrong. I want to say two things in connection with this matter. The first is that if a person has a smaller income than his income in the previous year, it will, I am sure, not be so much smaller than if he pays one-quarter of his tax now, it will be too much for the whole year. It will not even be too much after he has paid a further one-quarter at the end of the next period of three months. Then when he reaches the eleventh month, he can rectify matters in his final estimate. Let us imagine that the person has suffered a heavy loss and that he will come nowhere near paying the amount of tax that he paid in the previous year. The Act already makes provision whereby if a person feels that he is going to be far worse off, he can approach the Receiver of Revenue, indicate to him that his financial position has changed completely and then make an arrangement with him whereby he does not have to pay that one-quarter of his tax.

I mention these things in order to try and assist in simplifying the administration of the new system; to eliminate the dissatisfaction that exists in the country in this regard and to save the Department a tremendous amount of trouble and money. Instead of the Department having sent these forms to provisional taxpayers, they could simply have sent an assessment to every taxpayer for a quarter of the tax he paid during the previous year. In cases where a taxpayer is dissatisfied, he can approach the Department and say that his financial position has changed to such an extent that he should pay less. He can then ask to be allowed to pay less. Let us also approach this matter from a psychological point of view. Imagine that a person’s income is double that of the previous year and that accordingly he has to pay twice as much tax as he paid in the previous year. But now the Act gives him the right to say that he is going to pay on the basis of the previous year. If he does so, he is completely safe and he commits no offence. Accordingly, that is what he will do and he will retain the rest of his money until he receives the final assessment.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether these forms that are now being sent out to provisional taxpayers and the instructions that they are being given to enable them to estimate their incomes are not a waste of time. The time that is spent in this regard and the paper that is used costs more than the few extra rand that the Department will collect from persons who may say that they are going to pay more than they paid in the previous year.

There are some points in the speech of the hon. member who just sat down (Mr. Van den Heever) with which I can agree. However, I cannot agree with that part of his speech where he said that we should not reduce our rates of tax because of the fear of inflation. That statement surprised me a bit, because I gathered that not only is he not in favour of reducing our rates of tax, but that he would prefer the tax being somewhat heavier. Inflation normally comes where there is too much money chasing too few goods and when there are too few people chasing too many jobs. In that way you get inflation. Now, we have import control and we have currency control and we have job reservation. So I think that that remark of the hon. member was plucked out of the blue sky and that it was made without himself really believing it, unless, of course, he wanted the tax to be heavier.

As far as P.A.Y.E. is concerned: I was a member of the Select Committee, I signed its Report and I stand by my signature. But let me say that we must expect difficulties and very great difficulties at that. These difficulties must be resolved reasonably and not at the expense of the taxpayer. I do think that the Department went off half-cock in regard to the I.R.P.6 and I think the Department will yet make many more mistakes. That will not, however, make me condemn P.A.Y.E. as a system. What will make me do that, is if the Administration of the system via the Department reacts to the disadvantage of the taxpayer. Ministers of Finance are not very sympathetic towards their taxpayers and it may very well be that on occasion here some cunning and clever individual gets away with something for which all the taxpayers will be made liable. I am only appealing for reasonable administration. I hope the hon. the Minister will not boycott me for having used these hard words.

When you said that Ministers of Finance were unsympathetic, did you refer only to Ministers of Finance in South Africa, or to Ministers of Finance all over the world?

I referred to Ministers of

Finance all over the world. They are the most unpopular people who dwell on this earth; but please do not boycott me for saying that!

There will then be so many people who have to boycott you!

I say in regard to the Administration of the P.A.Y.E. system that even if some clever person finds some loopholes, penalties should right throughout be substituted by warnings as far as the general taxpayer is concerned. We are going to have a lot of trouble this year and I have a lot of sympathy with the Department. It will take another year or two before we can settle down. However, reason must rule in this matter and I hope the Department will not look upon itself merely as an instrument to collect money within the letter of the law. But from my experience of contacts with Departments, I submit that that is just what they will have to do unless they get instructions from higher up.

There are two things in particular in regard to P.A.Y.E. which should be watched, i.e. the deductions from the earnings of married women and in particular the deduction from those women for whom I appealed also earlier on in the Session, i.e. the deserted wives. The problem here has been pooh-poohed up to now. But my information is that this is a very definite problem and, consequently, I hope the Minister will instruct his Department to keep a very close watch on any possible injustices which may arise. As a matter of fact, there is a very great possibility of injustices arising in this connection. There is nothing in this Bill so far as I can see which links up with P.A.Y.E. but the Minister mentioned it and that is why I myself have referred to it.

Now I should like to come back to this Bill itself. Obviously, I cannot complain about the benefits, although meagre, given to the taxpayer by way of allowances, but they are very miserable allowances considering the considerable surplus the Minister showed. Similarly, I cannot object to the contributions to pension funds, except to say I think these contributions should have been higher. Similarly, I cannot object to the allowances given to the so-called “new gold mines”, except to say that they are meagre and not thought out deeply enough to deal with the very great problem of bringing new mines into existence. Of course, one does not look a gift horse in the mouth when one is a taxpayer. Neither do I object to the increased allowance given to employees of local authorities, nor to the small allowance given to annuity funds, for technological training, etc. But each and every one of these allowances represents an extremely minor benefit as far as this country is concerned at the moment. All these benefits I have referred to, are minor benefits. The major benefits proposed in this Bill are, I think, based on wishful thinking. In the new proposed Section 11 bis the Minister makes an amendment which is intended to encourage exports and industrialization. Obviously, the provisions of previous years in this connection failed to work. We do not like to say “I told you so”, although a politician hardly allows an opportunity of saying that to pass by. I must, however, in passing, say why I think the previous provisions and inducements failed. That is because of the handling of our foreign affairs by the relevant Minister and as a result of the policies of this Government. The same remarks apply to the benefits extended in respect of machinery investment and building investment allowances. I repeat: All these are obviously intended, and are well-thought out intentions, to benefit our exports and our industrialization. But they have failed for the reasons I have given. In the same way these benefits now being extended will also fail.

Coming to Clause 12 of the Bill, I think I can say that if we can find oil, any benefits extended by the Government to those people who are trying to find it, will be supported by every member of this House. I must, however, join issue with the Minister in regard to the new provisions relating to gold mines. Particularly do I wish to join issue with him in regard to the question of allowances in respect of prospecting expenses. You see, Sir, if you make no profits, it is of no use being allowed additional expenses, because that would not affect your tax liability. It merely gives you a bigger loss. If you go on prospecting unsuccessfully and go on spending money without showing a profit, you have no income against which those expenses can be charged. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider the following suggestion of mine, namely that the real way in which to encourage the gold mines to go out prospecting is to tell them that if they go prospecting and find a proposition which they can turn to good account not only will they be allowed prospecting expenses, but as an additional inducement they will be allowed a further rebate on their tax. Under the present proposals you are only telling them that if they go out and prospect for something the expenditure incurred will be regarded as allowable expenditure, only if eventually they can find a proposition which they can turn to good account. Consequently, I ask for the provision in regard to prospecting expenses to be extended by an allowance on the rate of tax charged against successful ventures produced by prospectors. Many prospecting ventures result in failure—I would say most of them result in failure. I say this from personal experience, not having been in the prospecting business myself, but I know of people who were.

I submit that the only way in which to encourage development in this connection is to do it through a reduction on the rate of tax on profits arising from successful prospecting ventures. I do commend this matter to the Minister. Let me recapitulate: If a man goes prospecting and he is not successful, it is no use telling him that he can charge his expenses against his income if he has no income to charge it against. If, on the other hand, you tell him that if he goes prospecting he will be allowed his expenditure and in addition if he is successful he will receive a special rebate on the rate of taxation of the profits arising from a particular prospecting venture, there will be the incentive. Only in that way can we really encourage prospecting.

Although I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) in his reasoning, there are one or two matters he raised to which I do want to refer. Of course, the hon. member could not resist the temptation to belittle the concessions that are made in terms of this Bill. In this connection he referred specifically to the concessions granted to exporters and to those prospecting for oil. He said that these concessions would not help at all because the policy of the Government was such that people would derive no benefit from the concessions. The point is that the hon. member can see no good in any concession that is made. It is significant that he did not want to go further than the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) went. The hon. member for Pinetown suggested that the hon. the Minister should not make the concession of the 5 per cent rebate in taxation but that the concession should be 10 per cent. Why did the hon. member for Benoni not go further and say that it should be 15 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these are matters which we have already discussed during the budget debate, and so I see no reason why we should deal with these matters once again. We heard the same arguments during the budget debate as we have heard this evening. Circumstances have not changed in the meantime and accordingly it will do no good to deal with all these matters again.

Are you satisfied with the concessions? *

The hon. member has asked me a question but has immediately gone to sit next to one of his colleagues and converse with him. I assume therefore that he just wanted to annoy me and accordingly I will not reply to him. I actually rose to thank the hon. the Minister for the further explanation that he gave in regard to the concession in connection with the valuation of stock. In this connection I must say that when we listened to the hon. the Minister’s Budget Speech there was a certain amount of doubt as to what the abolition of the 10 per cent mortality allowance would actually mean. Let me explain it. Over the years it has been the practice for the total valuation of a farmer’s stock to be reduced by 10 per cent. The basis that was used in the next year to determine whether there had been an increase or a decrease in the value of a farmer’s stock was the valuation for the previous year less 10 per cent. For the tax year ended the 30th June, 1962, however, stock farmers had a valuation that was deducted from the valuation for 1961—a valuation on which a 10 per cent rebate had already been allowed. The fear has now arisen that this will be the basis used to determine the value of a farmer’s stock and that the valuation for this year will be the total valuation—his valuation plus 10 per cent—on which he will have to pay tax. For enquiries I have made it appears that the amount on which the tax will be based will be the amount before the 10 per cent is deducted. I think that the farmers are satisfied with that. In any case it does mean a small increase in the valuation of stock for this year. When a farmer’s stock has increased slightly in value, that farmer will have to pay a slightly larger amount in tax, but with a view to the eight month’s tax holiday, I do not think that this amount will be very large. And so it can be afforded and tolerated.

There is something else that I want to say in connection with what the hon. the Minister said in regard to stock that is purchased for stud purposes. The hon. the Minister must not resent the fact if the farmers say that they do not quite understand this particular provision. Farmers are not always trained accountants. Indeed, even trained accountants have difficulty in this regard. In his Budget Speech and also this evening, the hon. the Minister said—

I am particularly concerned about the words “must be accounted for”. In the past the practice was that where a farmer bought a bull for say, R4,000, his expenditure was R4,000 and he increased the value of his stock by R4,000. This was therefore taken into account although he derived no benefit from the fact that he had paid R4,000 for the bull because the value of his stock increased in turn by the same amount. It is clear now that the Minister is going to make a concession here but there is still confusion in this regard. I want to try to explain this matter to the hon. the Minister in farmer’s language, that is to say, as the farmer understands the position. We find that in terms of Clause 18 in this Bill the value of a bull is fixed at R400. But the farmer has paid R4,000 for that bull. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain this to us because there are farmers who understand this matter differently from the way in which I understand it. As I understand it, the farmer will still make a cash outlay of R4,000, although the value of his stock will increase by only R400 which is the valuation as indicated in Clause 18. He can then receive a deduction of 10 per cent on this increased amount as was the case in the past when he was given the 10 per cent mortality rebate. This deduction, however, is only made in regard to pedigree livestock. That is how I see the matter. I hope that my interpretation of it is correct but I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the matter further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again to be patient with the farmers. As I have already said, it is not only the farmers who are experiencing difficulty in this regard. I have noticed this evening that accountants have apparently just as much trouble in interpreting these provisions as the farmers themselves.

I want to say a few words in connection with the P.A.Y.E. system of income-tax collection, The hon. member for Benoni said that the system was working well but he asked that the Receiver of Revenue should not act too strictly. As far as my experience goes, I can say that although this system has only been in operation for a short while, the Department has already shown that it wants to co-operate and be of assistance. We also want to thank the Department for wanting to assist the taxpayer in connection with the implementation of this scheme which is new to everyone. It must be remembered that in the past we only received one form from the Receiver of Revenue annually which we then had to complete and return to him together with other necessary documents. After that we received one assessment from him which we paid by cheque and for which we received a receipt. In other words there were only four negotiations between the taxpayer and the Receiver of Revenue. What is the position now under the new system? I intended bringing all the literature with me this evening which I as a farmer and employer have received in connection with the new system since the 28th February, but my desk is not large enough to hold everything. I must say that it is sometimes very difficult for us to understand and to carry out all the instructions and regulations. The hon. member referred earlier this evening to difficulties experienced with form I.R.P.6. I want to refer to forms I.R.P.5 and I.R.P.5(a). I.R.P.5 is a fairly thick document which, according to the instructions, must be preserved carefully. On the front page of this document there are, I think, eight regulations each of which is subdivided into a further six or eight regulations. There are a very large number of instructions and regulations that we have to study and apply; there are receipts that we have to send; there are certain fixed dates that we have to adhere to and so forth.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister in this connection—and I hope that he will convey these remarks to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue—that we do not intend trying to avoid paying tax. On the contrary, we will pay our tax but his Department must be patient with us. We will become acquainted with the system gradually.

I want to say a few words in support of what was said earlier this evening by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) in regard to provisional estimates of income.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned.