May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, this is the first occasion on which the hon. the Minister appears in this role in this House, and we on this side of the House wish to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Justice and wish him success in this very important portfolio. I think the hon. the Minister is in charge of perhaps the most important portfolio in the country. He is charged with the maintenance of a system of justice of which I am sure every South African is very proud and has every cause to be proud, a system which I am sure the hon. the Minister will want to maintain; a system which he is qualified to maintain by his experience and his training, and we wish him well in the future. This is the first occasion too on which, when discussing the Vote of the Minister of Justice, we are not at the same time also discussing the Police Vote. This has come about in this instance through unfortunate circumstances, but, Sir, the division has been made and we on this side have for some time urged that this division should be made in the interests of the proper and better administration of justice. It is to be hoped that this division will continue and that with the times and the conditions as they are today—times have changed and conditions have changed—the hon. the Prime Minister, when he relinquishes the portfolio of Police will relinquish it to a person other than the person who holds the portfolio of Justice. Sir, we have known the hon. the Minister in the role of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees in this House, a role something like that of a Judge, and we have seen a person of impartial judgment who, having listened to both sides, gave his decision firmly and fairly. He is now cast again in the role of a Judge so far as his portfolio as Minister of Justice is concerned because he will have to decide upon very much more important matters, very often, than matters of procedure.

Sir, I hope to deal with three aspects of the hon. the Minister’s portfolio, the question of banning and restrictions, the question of the operation of the so-called 180-day clause and the question of the administration of justice so far as the courts are concerned.

So far as bannings and restrictions are concerned we have to face the fact that the law in this matter is quite clear and we cannot discuss the law here, but what we would like to know is what the attitude of this hon. Minister is going to be in relation to the powers he has to restrict a person and to ban him in various ways. The operation of this law depends entirely on the attitude of the hon. the Minister and we would like to know on what basis he proposes to act, and we hope that the lessons of the past will be borne in mind by the hon. the Minister when he deals with these matters. Sir, I do not think anyone is very happy about the Robertsop affair. I am not going to deal with the Robertson affair but I want to mention it as an example of the sort of mistake that can be made, as an example where information can come into the hands of the person charged with making a restriction order, information which is not altogether correct. The consequences, of course, are terribly serious, but I think that case was an example of the enormity of the sort of mistake that can be made. You see, Sir, in that case the matter was considered very carefully. This was no ordinary case, as the hon. the Minister’s predecessor indicated. This was a case which he considered very carefully. There are three thick files which he considered over a weekend, knowing the consequences that would follow and knowing the rumpus that would be created as the result of it. The last word that we had from the hon. the Prime Minister in relation to the Nusas people to whom he gave an interview was this; he said—

To say the very least of it this is not a very satisfactory basis upon which restrictions of this nature should be made, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to the basis on which he is going to act and whether he is going to make any new provisions or innovations so far as these powers are concerned. The hon. the Minister did say, in answer to a question, that the cases of all restricted persons were at present under review and that a statement for general information would in due course be published, giving the exact numbers still restricted and the numbers whose restrictions have been removed. Sir, it is very encouraging to note that they are all under review and one hopes that the hon. the Minister, having reviewed the whole situation, is now in a position to tell us what his findings are and whether in the future he is going to review the matters, as has been done now, more often or more regularly and whether he is going to make any other provision relating to the exercise of his powers in this regard so as to avoid in the future a possible repetition of what happened in the Robertson case.

The other matter, in the same vein, that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this. I should like to know what his attitude is with regard to the operation of the 180-day clause (Section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act). Sir, I particularly ask this question because this question was put to his predecessor and we have not had any satisfactory reply in this regard as yet. The 90-day clause was deproclaimed in the year in which the 180-day clause was passed. The 90-day clause provided that persons could be detained for interrogation. That was its object. The 180-day clause is ostensibly a clause for the detention of witnesses, because it is in their interest as witnesses to be detained for all the reasons which were mentioned, that their lives may be in danger, that it is in the public interest, or that they may abscond. When the Minister’s predecessor was asked whether this clause would be used for the same purposes as the 90-day clause was used, no reply was forthcoming. The evidence there is seems to indicate that this clause is being used for that purpose, for the purpose of interrogation. In regard to the 180-day detention, the Minister is himself in the end personally responsible because no one may be detained under that provision, Sec. 215 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless there is a certificate from the Attorney-General, who acts on the instructions of the Minister. So one hopes that the Minister will indicate to us what his attitude is going to be and what his instructions to the Attorney-General are going to be, and whether it will be used purely for the purpose of detaining witnesses in their own interest or in the interest of the administration of justice, or whether it will be used for other purposes as well. Sir, what is past is past. This is a new era in the administration of justice. We have a new Minister. I mention what is past merely to indicate the difficulties and the dangers and the fears one has about what can happen unless an ever-vigilant Minister is conducting the affairs of the Department and exercising the powers he has carefully.

As far as the administration of justice is concerned, the Minister, I am sure, with his background will follow the policy of his predecessor, so far as our courts are concerned. One of the difficulties with our courts to-day is the large number of delays that exist in the courts. I mention specifically the highest of the lower courts, the regional courts, where to-day if one’s case is sent down for one day and it is not finished on that day and has to be remanded, such is the nature of the fixed list that they have in the regional court that you may have to wait three or four months before your case is heard again. The remand date in most instances is as long as that because the roll is so full. I appreciate that there are difficulties in switching from a fixed roll to a moving roll. I know all these things have been tried, but something must be done by the Minister’s Department to prevent these delays occurring, particularly in the regional courts, because those courts to-day try the majority of the most serious offences which come before our courts.

As far as the ordinary magistrates’ courts are concerned, there again the delays that occur are due to a large extent to the absence of witnesses. I think we are at the stage where we may very well find that persons will not come forward to give evidence in cases which are normally tried in the lower courts if they have ever given evidence once before. A person is subpoenaed to appear at 9 a.m. in the magistrate’s court and it may be 3 p.m. before his evidence is heard, or it may not be heard on that day at all. Such is the nature of things that it seems to me that in regard to the lower courts and the regional courts the time has come for a complete new approach as to how these court will operate in future. This is something which I think affects everyone. It affects every public-spirited person who wishes to give evidence, because once a person has given evidence and has wasted so much time at the courts I doubt whether he will ever offer his name as a witness again.

Then there is another matter relating to the Supreme Court which gives cause for concern to everyone who practises in the Supreme Court. We have a great band of people in this country in whose hands probably the administration of justice in the criminal superior courts rests. It is this body of White interpreters. Their numbers are falling fast. There are a number of them who are able to come back and can be re-employed when they go off on pension, but one finds that they do not want to come back. The position seems to be that there are very few of the right type of person coming forward. This is a very sad state of affairs, and I think one of the reasons for this serious state of affairs, which must be arrested now, is that they are put on a basis which I do not not think is the correct basis for their employment. Very few of these persons to-day have the incentive to remain, or come forward, simply because they are on the same basis as any other member of the clerical staff. What I want to suggest to the Minister is that he consider making a special professional division for interpreters in the Supreme Court. There is no doubt whatever that the nuances of interpretation in the matters dealt with in the Supreme Court require the experienced White interpreter, and there is no doubt whatever that the experienced White interpreter will disappear from the scene unless a new deal is given to them. If that were to happen, I think a terrible blow will be dealt to the administration of justice in our superior courts. I hope the Minister will give his serious consideration to this and that the Department will be able to place them on a different basis so as to ensure not only the survival of those who are still there, but that they will be followed by similar good men.

One last matter that I think everyone in South Africa would like to know from the Minister is what he proposes to do about the alarming growth in crime, the alarming growth of offences involving violence, where non-Whites use firearms, and the alarming number of assaults on the streets, and the alarming number of housebreakings and crimes affecting person and property and involving violence. Something must be done about this. It seems to me that some new approach has to be made to it. In this regard as well one does not know what can be done, but perhaps the Minister can indicate to us just how far his Department is concerned with it. The position in the Bantu townships is a very serious one. One only has to go into the courts of this country to appreciate what is happening, to appreciate that murders and robberies are committed and that the persons in the house concerned do not dare to venture out to go to the police to report the crime for fear that they themselves may be murdered on their way. This, I think, is a situation which is related to the general increase in crime. It is a very serious situation which is not being dealt with adequately. How it has to be dealt with is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, but that it has to be dealt with, and that it has to be dealt with soon and harshly, is very clear to everyone.

What are your suggestions?

If the hon. member for Brits were to put me into that seat, I would tell him all the suggestions I can make. If the hon. member for Brits is suggesting that there is nothing that can be done, it seems to me that he is not doing his Minister a favour. The Minister’s task is to see that something is done. If I sat there I would have the power to do it. [Interjection.] I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered these matters and what he hopes to do about it, and especially relating to the Bantu townships whether he has considered this matter and whether he has any proposals to make in regard to the policing of those areas, by methods quite different and perhaps people quite different from those used in the past.

I want to express a measure of surprise at the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North). I thought that we would hear a very constructive and analytic speech to which we would be able to react but I must say that the hon. member for Durban (North) really told us nothing during the half hour requested by him, and, therefore. I must accept that there really is nothing much the matter with this Department. For for that reason we have had so little from the main Opposition speaker.

As far as the 180 days and the policy of the hon. the Minister are concerned. I leave that to the Minister. As regards his attitude, etc., these are exclusively matters to which he will have to reply personally. The hon. member spoke of the regional courts and said that the roll caused delays. My own experience in the regional courts has been that they are very well organized on the basis of a continuous roll. In the Transvaal, in any event, the experience has been that when a case is placed on the roll it is placed on the current roll and as soon as it is one’s turn the case is proceeded with automatically, so that there really are very few delays. Actually, the experience has been that cases in the regional courts are heard so quickly that counsel and attorneys are sometimes caught unawares and have to ask for cases to be postponed. I do not think that there can be any legitimate criticism in this respect. As far as interpreters in the Supreme Court are concerned, the hon. member said we were not attracting the right type of interpreter. In this regard, too, I have to differ from him.

I did not say that.

You said that too few of the right type was being appointed, and you advanced as a reason for that …

Order! The hon. member should not say “you”.

The hon. member advanced as a reason for his statement that these people were appointed to ordinary posts as public servants, and that they should be appointed on a professional basis. Once again I cannot agree with the hon. member. The experience has been that interpreters working in the Supreme Court are exceptionally well qualified for doing such work. My own experience in the Supreme Court has been that the interpreters do extremely good work. I cannot agree with the hon. member that they should be appointed on a different basis than the ordinary officials working there, because all officials in that Department are doing hard work. If one has to make an exception of one group of officials and appoint them on a professional basis one would eventually have to do the same in the case of typists and eventually in the case of every existing group of officials; one would have to effect a change and place them on a professional basis.

As regards the increase in crime, I do not have figures here relating to the increase in crime as such, but I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank our police for the excellent work they are doing in connection with combating crime and arresting criminals.

Order! The Police Vote is not under discussion now.

But it was mentioned here, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, but that was only in passing. I just want to remind hon. members once again that they may refer to it in passing. The Vote, however, has been disposed of.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, crime and the police are, after all, indissolubly connected.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may proceed.

I just want to point out that crime is in fact a social evil and that crime in the large cities and in Bantu townships is due to the fact that the Black people there are becoming detribalized in certain instances. Over the past number of years this Government has been engaged in combating this evil with no assistance from the Opposition. We are continually engaged in retaining the tribal background of these people in order to exercise control over them when they enter an urban area. We have received no assistance from the other side. I just want to point out to the hon. member that that is the real problem and that they should really assist us in checking such detribalization of the Bantu. Then crime will decrease. As regards police action as such, things are going very well.

I am really very surprised that the hon. member for Durban (North) did not mention the legal aid system here in this House. On 25th August he told the Cape Argus that he would raise the matter here—I am not saying to-day—and I think that in that interview with the newspaper the hon. member referred …

The matter will be raised.

The matter is going to be raised now. The hon. member may then reply to me. He referred to the Secretary’s Report, and in my humble opinion wrested that report from its context altogether. The hon. member said that according to the Report of the Secretary for Justice the Department was of the opinion that it was not necessary for the State to give legal aid to indigent accused persons. This was the statement made by the hon. member. I want to make the statement that that is to wrest the entire Report from its context and this, by the way, is what the United Party does regularly, namely, to raise half-truths to the status of truths and to raise impressions which the hon. member gains from his subjective interpretation of a report to the status of statements of fact. However, the statement does not have any connection whatsoever with what was really stated in that Report. Let us consider what that Report really stated. The hon. member said in the Cape Argus that the Department was of the opinion that it was unnecessary for the State to give legal aid to indigent accused persons. However, the only thing the Secretary stated in his Report —and I am now quoting his words—was “no obligation rests on the State to ensure that all indigent accused persons are defended by an advocate or attorney”. In other words, no obligation rests on the State to ensure that there must be a defence. Surely we can agree about this statement. There is nothing wrong with it. Or can the hon. member tell me whether or not he agrees with it? Is it the State’s duty to arrange for a defence? Or is there no obligation on the State to arrange for such defence? I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for the State to arrange for a defence. But listen to what the Secretary said. He said “no obligation rests on the State to ensure that all indigent accused persons are defended”, and he underlined the word “all”. In other words, he implies that there are, in fact, certain cases in respect of which the State does arrange for a defence. And this is precisely the opposite of what the hon. member told the Cape Argus. And I say that that was a distortion. According to the report in the Cape Argus he continued by saying the following. He said that as far as criminal cases were concerned the Department regarded it as paradoxical for the State to undo the work of the police by giving legal aid. In other words, he said that according to the impression created by this Report, that would be paradoxical. Shall I quote the newspaper report to the hon. member? I am quoting—

There is no “apparent agreement” at all in this Report. You may go through the Report. It does not correspond at all to the statement made to the newspaper by the hon. member. As a matter of fact, the Secretary very clearly stated the following. The Secretary did, in fact, state that it was incumbent on the State to ensure that the machinery which it employed in combating crime functioned in such a way that no-one was prejudiced in this field solely as a result of his poverty. Indeed, this is the exact opposite. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I have risen to plead for a matter which is not only in the interests of my voters and my constituency, but also in the public interests of Port Elizabeth (North) and Port Elizabeth, as a whole, and possibly also in the interests of our country. I am referring, Sir, to the competition which is taking place at present and which is so noticeable amongst people who pose as great Afrikaners but who break their necks to obtain trade concessions, particularly in the liquor trade. This farce not only reveals itself in one’s large cities but is also a symptom of disease which reveals itself in one’s rural lowns. We find to an increasing extent that there is an influx of non-Whites to our cities, not only to our large cities but also to our rural towns, as a result of the establishment of bottle-stores in season and out of season.

Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing these conditions in my constituency, in a single street which is half a mile long and which is in a White residential area. We have made every endeavour to keep that White residential area White, to clear it up and to bring about the resettlement of non-Whites. Over that distance of half a mile we find no less than six bottle-stores at present. In another street, also within a residential area, we have an additional five bottle-stores. In other words, within a small White area we have no less than 11 bottle-stores. We find, in spite of the fact that there are 11 bottle-stores in that small area of my constituency at present, that application has been made for an additional bottle-store. In other words, Sir, within the foreseeable future there will be up to 12 bottle-stores in that part of my constituency. Do you know how many White voters there are? Just over 4,000. This means that for every 300-plus voters there will be a bottle-store in that part of my constituency. That is in addition to the hotels and the bars which are there for non-Whites. Port Elizabeth (North) has no less than 15 bottle-stores at present.

But it is a thirsty place.

Yes, I am inclined to agree that one may gain that impression. I have often wondered whether those people who follow the devilish policy of establishing bottle-stores everywhere should not rather establish them in the land of Satan.

Now, the position is the following. What is happening in Port Elizabeth? We hear about murders and from one day to the other we hear about assaults—only the other day we had another case of assault there. The bottle-stores close at 5, 6, 7 o’clock at night. One finds non-Whites roaming about in the White residential areas under the influence of liquor until late in the night. If we, as a Christian nation, want to do something for our non-Whites, let us establish those bottle-stores for them in their areas and let us at least keep non-Whites out of the White areas. But let us not plead for a purely White residential area on the one hand while, on the other hand, for the sake of a little profit, we sacrifice our entire ideal and allow our White residential areas to be overrun by non-Whites.

Why is this state of affairs only to be found in the constituency of Port Elizabeth (North)? Why can bottle-stores not be spread on a pro rata basis over Port Elizabeth (City)? Because one’s non-White residential areas are adjacent to Port Elizabeth (North), those people who pose as great Afrikaners are crisscrossing the country in the Boeings—upon my word, one would swear that these aircraft belonged to them—to obtain liquor concessions. They do not care two hoots about the underprivileged Afrikaners, as long as they can enrich themselves. This is what I am objecting to to-day. My voters in Port Elizabeth (North) say that if those liquor concerns want to establish bottle-stores they must for Heaven’s sake not do so in Port Elizabeth (North) and Sidwell. The people there are respectable Afrikaners. They want peace and quiet for themselves and for their children during the night. Those people who establish the bottle-stores, who close them in the evening and drive away in their luxurious cars to their luxurious residential areas should establish their bottle-stores in such areas. Then they, too, can experience what my voters in Port Elizabeth (North) are experiencing.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the other half-hour, please? I hope the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) will forgive me if I do not intervene in his dispute with the hon. the Minister on the Liquor Act. I have a number of matters I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, and in so doing I want at the outset to wish him well in his new portfolio and say to him that I fully realize that many of the remarks that I am going to make this morning and the criticisms which I am going to direct at him in fact should be directed at his predecessor. But these are circumstances beyond my control.

I wish first of all before I start on the subject that I wish to raise with the Minister, to reply to the question put by way of interjection by the hon. member for Brits to the hon. member for Durban (North).

It was a friendly question.

It was a friendly question and he is going to get a very friendly reply. I think he wants to know what suggestions could be made …

I am a man for peace.

Yes, I too. I am a woman of peace, unless I am provoked. Unfortunately I get provoked very often in this House. But the question he put, if I remember, was what suggestions could the hon. member for Durban (North) make about the improvement in conditions in the African townships. Well, I want to say that one of the things that could be done to keep down the crime rate would be, of course, to ensure better family conditions and more stable life among the urban Africans, which means in the first place a change in Government policy, and in the second place—and more important as far as this portfolio is concerned—to see that the police do not devote so much of their time to pass-raids, and to harassing normally law-abiding citizens who are being arrested for statutory offences. Far too much time of the police is taken up in pass-raids and far too little time of the police is taken up in tracking down real criminals, and doing something about ensuring the safety of law-abiding citizens in those townships. I think we need more foot patrols in these townships but what we mostly need is concentration on major crime rather than the carrying out of mass raids for pass offenders. I have already referred to the recent mass raids which took place in Johannesburg where according to one report 900 and according to another report 1,600 people were arrested. Police spokesmen are reputed to have said …

Mr. Chairman, I should, on a point of order, like to ask whether the Police Vote is now under discussion.

Order! Is the hon. member now discussing the Police and their activities?

No, Sir. I have only been replying to a question put to me by the Chief Whip. But this is a matter which is also affected by the Vote now under discussion. Most of these people who were arrested were petty offenders and eventually landed in gaols which were already overcrowded, particularly as far as African gaols were concerned. The Police reported that through those raids they caught 5 or 6 criminals, housebreakers, in the net. But I will leave this matter and proceed to other questions I should like to raise.

First of all, I should like to develop the question touched upon by the hon. member for Durban (North), i.e. the banning of Ian Robertson. I am particularly sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present because I want to deal with some of the remarks he made under the Police Vote, remarks which I was unable to follow up because of a ruling from the Chair. I maintain that to this day we have had no reply whatsoever, no satisfactory reply, in regard to the banning of Ian Robertson. We have had two attempts at reply from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor earlier this Session. The first reply contained a lot of misinformation, some of which was subsequently corrected by the then Minister of Justice, while the second reply contained nothing but insinuations and vague statements as to why he had banned this young man. One does not know whether the then hon. Minister has certain built-in antennae which enabled him to estimate whether a moderate and well-behaved young man was going to turn into a saboteur of the Leftwich type, but the then hon. Minister of Justice said he thought the climate was such that it was charged with danger and that in order to obviate a recurrence of the Leftwich affair he had found it necessary to ban Ian Robertson. I say, Sir, that that is a lot of nonsense. The then hon. Minister did not produce one shred of evidence that that was in fact true. He reiterated this ridiculous statement that Robertson never had put his foot into a lecture room during the past year. But of course he had not. The Minister knew perfectly well that the fulltime president of Nusas never in fact attends lectures in the normal course of his duties. It is an accepted custom that the full-time president of Nusas registers with the university on the understanding that he is going to devote his time not to lectures, but to managing Nusas. But Ian Robertson had in any case proved himself to be a very able student when he was at the Natal University. I have an affidavit, which the hon. the then Minister of Justice has also seen, from Professor Malherbe who was then the principal of that university, giving Ian Robertson a clear bill of conduct during his years as a student there and commenting on the fact that he had never had a more trouble-free year from the student body than while Ian Robertson was on the SRC at the university. The hon. Minister also told us recently during the Police Vote that he had in fact given Nusas the reasons for the banning of Ian Robertson. Well, the report I have had from the Nusas delegation does not bear that out. He certainly gave them reasons which had not affected the banning. He said, for instance, that he did not ban Ian Robertson because he was a communist or because of his presidency of Nusas. He said neither of these two circumstances had anything to do with the banning and that, to his knowledge, Ian Robertson was, in fact, not a communist at all. All he did further was to lecture the students on the behaviour of Nusas but he gave them no further information why he banned Robertson. The hon. Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Justice, also said during the Police Vote that if anybody read the speeches being made overseas by Ian Robertson, they would realize how right it was to ban him. But I want to say that if Ian Robertson had been making unguarded, reckless and extravagant speeches overseas there is only one person, and one person only, who is to blame for that, namely the hon. the Minister who banned this boy unjustly. He left this country with a feeling of burning injustice having been done to him and it can hardly be expected that when he gets overseas he is going to be chanting praises to the Government or thanking the Minister who banned him. Quite obviously that cannot be expected. I regret it if he has in fact been making these speeches. I do not know whether he, in fact, has. But in any case that is certainly not the moderate young man who was at the University of Natal and certainly not the moderate student I knew.

Whatever he does is, therefore, the Government’s fault?

Certainly, as far as the banning was concerned. I have not yet seen reports of the speeches he made overseas but if this has happened it is because this young man left the country with a sense of burning injustice having been done to him.

You seem to expect it to happen.

The hon. the Prime Minister said I had only to read the speeches Ian Robertson was making overseas. I have not read the speeches as yet. But if that is so, I for one will know the reason therefor. I say the whole Robertson affair has been utterly stupid and childishly spiteful. There is nothing more I can say about it than that—childishly spiteful. In the absence of any evidence—because no evidence has been given either to this House or to Ian Robertson himself—I cannot assume that there were any other reasons for his banning than an attempt to get at Nusas or out of pure spite because Robertson had been the young man to invite Senator Robert Kennedy to this country.

The hon. the Minister told us that the furnishing of reasons for banning under the Suppression of Communism Act had to be done by the department. He said it became a departmental matter once the Minister had examined the file and decided whether a person should or should not be banned. I do not know where he gets that from. I have been looking at the Act again and I notice that Section 9 (g)bis says quite clearly—

Where the hon. the Prime Minister gets the information that this obligation has now become a departmental matter, I simply do not know. In terms of the Act it is clearly the Minister who has to give the information. This information has, in fact, been sought by Ian Robertson in writing from the 11th May onwards. He had been writing letters to the Department of Justice repeatedly requesting that reasons be given for his banning and for the information on which the Minister acted. This Ian Robertson was entitled to do in terms of the Act. Apart from letters of acknowledgement of receipt, the only reply received by Ian Robertson thus far was on the 30th May as follows—

There are no details whatsoever of what these activities were. Furthermore, this is couched in the same language as that of the banning order. Ian Robertson was also informed in that letter—

In other words, this letter says nothing at all. The hon. the Minister then told people and newspapers who were enquiring about this that he would answer to Parliament but as yet he has given no satisfactory reply to Parliament either. Under these circumstances, I request that the hon. the Minister who has now taken over this portfolio, closely reviews this case in view of the fact that further information has come to hand in the form of affidavits handed to his predecessor—character references, etc.— to see whether he cannot see fit now to lift this ban on Ian Robertson so that this young man can if he so desires, return to his country and his family when he has completed his study, not under the shadow of the ban. This is the point. I know he left the country with a valid passport but what worries me, Sir, is that if he returns to this country he will be coming back under the shadow of this ban and the restrictions which I for one and many other people feel was originally served on him most unjustly. This is my first plea to the new hon. the Minister of Justice.

While on the subject of banning, I should also like the hon. the Minister to deal with other bannings. I also want to ask him, as did the hon. member for Durban (North), to hasten with the review of all the banning orders which the previous Minister told me in reply to a question, was in fact occupying the attention of the department. I think he said there were 493 of these cases but I also understand that these numbers have gone up considerably since then. I should like the hon. Minister to review all these cases to see how many of them can be lifted. I know some of them have in fact been lifted—I think the previous Minister told me he had lifted the bans on 45 people, I shall be pleased however if the hon. the Minister can get on with this because I think in many of these cases the persons concerned must have by now earned some reprieve from the restrictions under which they have been placed. I say so particularly because a large number of these people, although banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, have never been proved, or listed or even dubbed by the Minister’s department, as communists. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor seems to have forgotten his own words and therefore I should like to remind the present hon. Minister that bannings, house arrests and restrictive order clauses introduced in our law since 1962 were to be aimed at communists. In fact, we have 4 or 5 specific undertakings from the Minister when he introduced those Bills in this House that they were aimed at communists and communists only. I should just like to repeat a few of these undertakings. On the 28th May, 1962, he said this Bill was dealing “with communists and the communists only”. During the Third Reading debate he said that he was “not launching an attack on the freedom of the citizen”. “What I am doing is to restrain the liberty of the communists to destroy the liberty of the citizen”. In the debate in the Senate he said: “Do not argue that in this Bill the provisions and the actions which are envisaged are aimed at anybody but the communist and the anarchist. That is the basis and that is the provision of the whole Bill. So, it is restricted to communists and communists only.”

And anarchists.

Generally an anarchist is worse than a communist because an anarchist is going in for revolution and violence in order to overthrow the State. Can the hon. the Chief Whip tell me that he really honestly thinks that Ian Robertson is a communist or an anarchist? Does he want to tell me that Mr. Mbata, the Research officer of the Institute of Race Relations, is a communist? Yet he has been banned and restricted, although some of the restrictions have been removed. His ability to earn a livelihood, however, is still so severely restricted by his banning order that he has now to leave the country with all his experience and education which could have been of such use to this country. Can the hon. Chief Whip honestly tell me that this man is a communist or an anarchist? Does he want to tell me that Miss Hayman is a communist or an anarchist, or Mr. Peter Brown, or Mr. David Craighead or Mr. and Mrs. Hill?

I did not say they were but the Minister must have had good reasons for doing what he did.

I can go on quoting name after name for the benefit of the hon. Chief Whip without his being able, under the widest possible interpretation of the word communist and anarchist, to label any one of them as communists or anarchists. Unfortunately I cannot just share this simple trust and confidence which the hon. Chief Whip has in his Ministers. I should like to be given reasons for their actions. I do not know them as well as the hon. Chief Whip does. I only know that I ought not simply to accept ministerial assurances. As none of these bannings is subject to review in the courts of law, I would like to have some evidence as to why these people are banned. Therefore, I think it is high time the matter was reviewed and that many of the banning orders and restrictions were removed. It would do South Africa a world of good if these things were reviewed and if banning orders were lifted and not made so severe, where they still are in fact retained. Sir, this brings me to my third point on the question of banning, and that is the whole question of the use of banning orders against people who have served prison sentences in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act or the Unlawful Organisations Act or any of the other offences which we generally lump together as offences against the State. There are something like 154 such people, that is to say, people who have been released from gaol after serving their sentences, after having paid the penalty for whatever crime they committed. I want to point out that these are not crimes of anarchy because such crimes carry long sentences They are crimes connected with the distribution of pamphlets, attending meetings and things of that nature, not revolutionary activities per se. These people have served sentences of two or three years’ imprisonment at Robben Island or elsewhere for offences against the State, and when they come out of the gaol, the first thing that happens to them, if they are urban Africans, is that they are endorsed out and sent back to the Transkei or to a native reserve which most of them have not inhabited at all because most of them were born in the urban areas, and there they are dumped, literally with no means of subsistence, unable to leave the areas to which they are banished. They are banned, in other words, under the Suppression of Communism Act and restricted to a certain magisterial district in the reserve, absolutely unable to resume any form of normal life. I know that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor gave the explanation that some of these people belong to Poqo and that he had to be able to keep an eye on them. Well, surely he should be able to keep an eye on people without having to prevent them from earning a livelihood. Yet this is what is happening. As I say, most of these people are not hardened criminals; they have not committed any act of violence or any revolutionary act and I think it is a very severe penalty to ban them and to put them in a position where they are unable to earn a living and to try to rehabilitate themselves. Surely the whole idea of a prison sentence is to enable the man who has committed a crime, once he has paid the penalty, to resume normal life and to rehabilitate himself in society. That is certainly how I understand the prison system. I do not know whether this is or is not the object of the prison system in South Africa, but that is what it is considered to be the aim in countries which go in for prison reform. Here too I would ask the hon. the Minister to review these 154 cases. Some of them are really quite pathetic. I have a letter here from a man who says—

Sir, it is beyond me how these people are expected to fulfil the terms of their banning order when they have no income and when they have to report to a police station 20 to 30 miles away in the reserves. There is no doubt that in no time at all this man will be back in prison for having broken the terms of his banning order because he has not reported to the police station. This is the sort of thing that is happening. Then there is another case that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is the case of a Coloured man who had to give up his teaching post under a banning order, a teaching post in which he was earning the good salary of R208 a month. He now earns R32 a month as a casual labourer with the City Council of Cape Town. This man was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. He was sentenced for having refused to give evidence against another man. The moment he came out of gaol, after serving his sentence, he was banned and his ability to earn a livelihood was so restricted that he certainly could not resume his work as a teacher and he has now had to descend to the level of a casual labourer. Sir, I do not know what one imagines is going to happen to all these people. They are educated people, and if anything is likely to drive them to desperation, I believe it is this sort of punitive action after the man has served his prison sentence. The name of this man is Ahmed Osman. He was the senior English teacher at the Belgravia High School for Coloureds. He has been served with a banning order; in fact it is a house arrest because the order confines him to his house between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. and prevents him from teaching. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will kindly give some attention to this case during the recess when I hope he will not be so busy and also to examine all these cases where people have been banned under the Suppression of Communism Act.

I come now to the third and last subject that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the conditions in prisons. This matter, as the hon. the Minister knows, has interested me for some time, and as he knows I took up the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation when he was Minister of Justice, to visit some gaols during the last year or so. Sir, I want to say at once that I have no doubt that conditions have improved. I want to say that at once and I am pleased that they have improved. They have improved particularly because regulations have been framed which are more in keeping with normal prison practice throughout the civilized world. In other words, the number of visits that prisoners are entitled to receive from friends and members of the family has been increased and the number of letters which they may write and receive has also been increased, so from that point of view conditions have been improved. The prison conditions of the so-called political prisoners or offenders against the State have also improved as far as White male political prisoners are concerned. Most of them are now leading what is a reasonably normal prison life in Pretoria gaol rather than being segregated from other prisoners, which means that in most cases—and that is the important thing—that they are able to do the normal work that is provided for prisoners in the workshops instead of having to sew mail bags or to clean cells, which is the only work available at the other prison in Pretoria, which is largely a non-White gaol but is used also for a few White political prisoners. I believe there are still three or four White political prisoners there, or possibly more; I am not quite sure. Those men are still labouring under great difficulties as far as their conditions of work are concerned. I understand from their relatives that they are not given anything to do except to sew mail bags all day long or to clean their cells. They are allowed exercise periods and they are allowed study facilities at night but I am talking about their activities during the day. I ask the hon. the Minister to visit these people. Some of them are serving very long sentences, and one in fact is there for life. I do think that some provision should be made for more productive work to be given to these people during their long period of incarceration. Sir, the women political prisoners do not fare as well. I understand that there are six of them left. They are all together in one cell in one gaol. Most of them will be there for another year or two. Knowing women, I should think that they must be getting on each other’s nerves by now. The work that they have been given is certainly not fitting work for educated women and who should be given some sort of constructive work to do. Sir, they are doing laundry or they were doing laundry until they were promoted quite recently to B grade, which I think most of them are now, but when they were in C grade they were doing laundry and they were washing the clothes of the other prisoners. This is a non-White prison. It does not matter to me whether they wash the clothes of non-White or White prisoners, but I would say that this is not fitting work for women political prisoners. This is certainly not constructive work that should be given to educated women who are serving sentences, which they may well have earned, for activities in which they were engaged. But the point is that the prison system should not be used to punish further, I would say: the punishment lies in the deprivation of liberty, and thereafter the conditions should be reasonable conditions. I do not expect them to be grade A hotel conditions, but I expect them to be reasonable conditions. I hope that the hon. the Minister will pay a visit to this prison at Barberton and see if something cannot be done to give more suitable work to the women political prisoners. I am afraid I cannot say that I think that conditions in the non-White gaols have improved. They were very crowded indeed when I visited them, and I think the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister would do well to pay a visit to the Fort, which is hopelessly overcrowded, and where for non-White prisoners, the facilities are really primitive. It is a gaol which should really be razed to the ground in terms of modern gaol conditions. They should also visit the other non-White prisons, both the Pretoria one, Modder-B, and the other African prisons, which are packed to capacity. They are packed to capacity because all these minor offenders are shoved in, the people who are picked up on these mass raids, where six or seven criminals are perhaps dragged into the net, but the majority of people arrested in these raids are pass-offenders who are then sent to these gaols. I think something ought to be done about these conditions.

I want to raise one final case, the case of a Coloured prisoner, Wilfred Brutus, whose wife has been in touch with me and is very distressed because I understand he is held at Groenpunt, which is a gaol for African prisoners in the Orange Free State.

Why do they all come to you?

They come to me because they know that if they go to that hon. member they are not likely to get any help at all. I want to tell that hon. member that this is a normal duty of Members of Parliament in every civilized country …

Why do you never plead for White people?

When they have grievances, people, including prisoners, and people who have been sentenced and relatives of prisoners, are perfectly entitled to appeal to Members of Parliament for assistance. [Time limit.]

Because I, too, am subject to the time limit I shall reply one by one to matters raised here by hon. members to which I should like to reply. In the first place, I want to reply to the representations made here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North). The hon. member spoke of liquor licences in his constituency. Right at the outset I want to tell the hon. member that in informing him of the Department’s approach in respect of liquor licences, I do not want him to make the deduction that no attention will be given to the representations made by him in this House in connection with his constituency. As a matter of fact, I am aware that he in all probability does have a problem there, just as we also have problems in other parts of the country with regard to liquor licences. The hon. member referred to people breaking their necks to obtain trade concessions. In the case of liquor licences, of course, the position is different. Liquor licences are granted under the Liquor Act, and I think if the hon. member looks at what has happened during the past number of years, he would find that only four bottle-store licences were granted the year before last and only two last year. Actually, very few bottle-store licences have been granted lately. As far as hotels are concerned, the position is, of course, different in the sense that it is now possible to classify hotels, and hotels which have obtained licences since 1928, which did not have off-sale licences, or rather facilities for off-sales, are also granted off-sale privileges after classification. As a result of this there is, of course, an increase in off-sale privileges. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea, which is still being adhered to, that the hotel rather than the bottle-store licensee should be helped as far as off-sales are concerned. As regards the hon. member’s constituency itself, he told us that there were no less than six licences over a distance of half a mile. All the same, I take it that the hon. member certainly wants there to be at least one or two licences in that vicinity so as to provide for the requirements of those people. The only thing I can say about the fact that there are so many licences over that short distance, is that it must be a very profitable area for licences, because as I know people in the liquor trade they will definitely not locate an off-sales licence in a place where there are no sales. There must obviously be a tremendous demand for the sale of liquor if licensees are locating businesses within such a restricted area.

Now, I want to state the other side of the problem to the hon. member. As I have just said, I suppose there should be at least one or two concerns to provide in the requirements of the public. If there is such a large demand as I presume there to be because there are so many licences, I think it would be much worse if everybody congregated at one place. It is better to spread them over six places. I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that it used to be the position that the Bantu could obtain no liquor at all and that the Coloured was restricted in the purchases he was allowed to make. The Liquor Act made provision for the Liquor Licensing Board to impose certain restrictions as a result of which it was laid down that a Coloured could purchase a limited quantity, perhaps two bottles, and that meant that if he wanted more he had to buy at one place first and then at another. To-day, however, that is no longer the case. To-day any Coloured or Bantu is free to buy as much as he wants at the same place. For that reason I think the hon. member should take it into consideration that if that area is such a profitable area for the liquor trade, perhaps not on account of the people living there but perhaps because there is a passing trade of people wanting to buy liquor in that area, one or two bottle-stores only would aggravate the problem because then one could find much larger congregations of people than one finds at six different places at present. However, provision has been made for liquor concerns to divide their activities, in other words, the owner of a liquor concern may apply to locate the non-White section of his business at a different place than the place where he has his White section. I think it has always been Parliament’s intention that this should be implemented because we are aware that there is an undesirable congregation of non-Whites m certain White areas as a result of the fact that that licence is located in that particular place. The Act provides that such a licensee may on application remove its non-White section. As a matter of fact, it goes further and provides that the Minister may compel such licensee to do so. I do not think I can take the matter much further. I just want to tell the hon. member that where there is any removal of licences, whether it is an ordinary removal to a place where the licensee can do better business or whether it is a new licence or off-sale privileges being granted to an hotel so that it may locate its off-sale section in a particular place, I want to reassure the hon. member that all circumstances relating to that neighbourhood are taken into consideration very carefully by the National Liquor Board, whereupon the circumstances are referred to the Minister who has the final say. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that special attention will be given to the circumstances in Port Elizabeth which he had brought to our notice.

It is a particular honour for me, as a member of Circle 6B, Western Transvaal, and as a member of this hon. House, to congratulate the hon. the Minister most sincerely on his appointment to the new office which he now holds. His appointment is a great honour for those of us from the Western Transvaal. On behalf of that circle, an irrespective of the fact that it has already been done, I also want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister, who was also a practising attorney, most sincerely on his appointment. I am sure that the Department of Justice is in as good hands as when the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Justice.

There are certain aspects of the report of the Secretary for Justice to which I should like to devote some attention. Before coming to that, I just want to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (North), and I want to refer particularly to the delay in the regional courts and the question of the calling of witnesses in our courts. I can endorse what the hon. member for Prinshof said—that in the Transvaal, in any case, the regional courts operate excellently. I have had the opportunity of appearing in various regional courts and I may fully endorse the hon. member’s remarks. As regards the calling of witnesses and the arrangement of cases in these courts, I just want to give the House the assurance that, particularly in the larger areas, one has to be virtually a superman to have a roll drawn up in the courts, as a result of the large number of cases which have to be disposed of with limited staff on the part of magistrates and prosecutors. I am constantly amazed at the capable way in which rolls are nevertheless arranged in the various courts. For the past 18 years I have had the opportunity of appearing in these courts as a prosecutor or as an attorney and I want to assure the hon. member that one must really take off one’s hat to these officials who arrange the rolls in these courts in such a capable way. In any event, I do not think that the hon. member made these remarks deprecatingly, but I am satisfied that if one knows a little more about the internal problems involved, one will be more appreciative of what is being done.

I should like to refer, too, to what was advocated by the hon. member for Prinshof in connection with legal aid. The two principles he mentioned were that the legal aid system should be extended in regard to criminal cases and should not simply apply to capital offences or, under certain circumstances, as is already being done by the Department in the Eastern Province. I do not think that he can be supported strongly enough in this regard. This holds good, particularly on the part of the Bench. The hon. member said that if a Judge, a regional magistrate or a magistrate certified that an accused person ought to be defended, it should be possible for an appointment to be made by the Attorney-General for the purpose of undertaking that defence. He also said that if the Attorney-General examined a dossier and was of opinion, in view of the information contained therein, that the person concerned ought to be defended, he should be able to appoint someone, either an attorney or an advocate, to defend that person. These matters are also raised in conversation as matters of urgency by magistrates who are saddled with these problems, because it is not simply assistance that has to be given to an accused person. This is assistance which will in the first place be given to the court itself. I also want to make a very urgent appeal to the Minister and the Department to give their earnest attention to these matters. It is true that the court does not always have an experienced and trained prosecutor. From the nature of the case, the accused cannot be of much assistance. Another serious problem is that, particularly in the inferior courts, the attention of the magistrate is distracted by so many other things and, in actual fact, this ought not to be the case. I want to quote an extract from the Report of the Secretary of the Department on page 5, who has, inter alia, this to say—

This would be correct if it worked that way in practice, but that is not always the position, particularly when we consider the position of magistrates and prosecutors, especially in the inferior courts. The magistrate, as the presiding officer, has a particular duty to perform. He must in all cases satisfy himself as far as the charge sheet is concerned and he has to satisfy himself as far as the evidence is concerned. But the most important of all is that he must arrive at a correct decision on the basis of the facts. The primary function of the magistrate is the administration of justice, and on pages 3 and 4 the report also refers to the extremely alarming position as far as the activities of the magistrates are concerned. The Secretary states here that the primary function of a magistrate is the administration of justice. The magistrate is properly trained to this end and he is expected to acquire certain minimum legal qualifications before he can advance to a substantive grade. But what is the position as far as these officials are concerned? They are absolutely overloaded with administrative duties. According to the statistics given here, it appears that in the Free State 62 per cent of the magistrates spend less than 500 hours per annum on judicial work; that is to say, about one-quarter of their available time is taken up by judicial work and the rest by administrative duties, often of a minor nature. It is true that these offices are under the supervision of competent staff, but this burdening of magistrates with administrative functions involving virtually all the other Departments, is a matter which, according to this report and also in my own opinion, must be given very serious attention, and very soon. The recommendation made in the report, that the administrative work in magistrates’ offices should be done by the administrative staff, and that judicial officers trained for the purpose should not be saddled with these duties, is an urgent matter. The Government and the Department are spending thousands of rand per annum on the training of prosecutors and magistrates primarily to enable these people to do their judicial work properly, but they are saddled mainly with administrative work which can be done by officials who have been trained more specifically for these duties and who also display the necessary interest in this direction. It is clear, too, that the position is rapidly getting out of hand. When we examine the further statistics, we find that it is stated that the number of resignations from the Department almost doubled over the past two years, from 341 to 636. The number of vacant posts also almost doubled, from 694 to 1,095. This figure of 1,095 represents almost one-quarter of the total number of posts in the Department of Justice. An extremely critical position is developing and it is also clear that if this situation continues in this way, it will eventually not be possible to fill these extremely important posts in our administration of justice satisfactorily. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, therefore, to implement the recommendations made by the Secretary as soon as possible. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made, and the congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment and the hon. the Deputy Minister who is sitting beside him. I would say as a member of the side-bar that I think that the precedent which has been followed of selecting a Minister from that section of the legal profession is an excellent one, and I trust that it will be followed in the future.

Sitting listening to this debate and to the fact that again the Robertson case has come up for discussion, as it has from time to time during this session, I feel that I may have a reaction which must be common to most of the members in this House, namely that it is a most unfortunate fact that this case should be dealt with by charge and counter-charge, by statement and amended statement, across the floor of the House, when we have a legal system which would have enabled us to have before us a record of a court of justice that had fully investigated the case and determined the rightness or the wrongness of the allegations against this man. I think if ever there was an instance where the short-circuiting of normal court process was to the disadvantage of our legal system, it was in this particular case which has been discussed again today.

But it was necessary for your safety.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have no fear of placing my safety in the hands of the courts of this country of ours. I believe that they are able to deal with it, that they have the processes available by which they can ensure the safety of witnesses without depriving an accused person of the benefit of being tried in a court of justice before he is condemned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with one or two matters regarding the Department of Justice and they arise from the alarming spate of resignations which are recorded in the report of the Department and to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom has referred. I wonder whether the Minister could give us any information on the steps which have been taken to improve recruitment in the Department and to improve the attractiveness of service in the Department. I refer particularly to permitting promising officers of the Department to undertake studies at universities for their law degrees while on full-time pay so far as the Department is concerned. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps tell us to what extent this offer is being made use of by junior law officers, and also if the hon. the Minister could tell us what conditions are attached. I take it that if there is a period of time off, from the normal office hours of service, that the particular officer concerned is required to contract himself to serve for so many years in the Department after obtaining his degree. I should like to know to what extent that is succeeding and whether any steps are being taken to recruit direct from the schools promising young matriculants who could be induced to come into the public service, and into the Department of Justice in particular, with this attraction of being assisted through their legal studies.

Sir, it seems to me that a very intense plan of recruitment will be necessary to avoid the almost unbearable burden which is placed on magistrates and on prosecutors in particular in the lower courts. I do not know whether the Minister has in recent times been into one of the lower courts in one of the large centres and spent the hour before the court commences in the office of one of the prosecutors. One finds this poor unfortunate official has a stack of police dockets which are placed in front of him, and in that hour he has to prepare charge sheets, he has to make himself conversant with the contents of these dockets, he has to attempt to accommodate members of the side-bar who are involved in these cases, to fix some time when they can come to court, and then he is expected to go into court and to handle these cases, some of them involving complicated issues of law, at a moment’s notice. It seems to me that where the department is considering the separation of the administrative and the judicial work of the magistrates, it may well see whether it is not possible to separate the court and the chamber work, if I may put it that way, of prosecutors who are obliged to appear in court. I think the burden is impossible for them to bear. And I must say this, Mr. Chairman. I think the Minister will realize that unless it is possible to accommodate the local attorney, who is appearing in any of these cases, and to give him some indication as to when a case of an hour’s duration was likely to be heard, one will find that one is indirectly increasing the costs of the legal defence for the unfortunate accused person. The attorney finds it necessary to stand around for hours on end waiting to deal with a matter which can be dealt with in a short time once it is called. One cannot blame the officials, one cannot blame the prosecutors, but it does seem that a re-division of duties is something which should be considered. When one looks at the functions of the magistrate it does not need much of an inspection of a magistrate’s duties to realize how necessary it is to do something again to separate the judicial from the administrative work. A magistrate is called upon frequently to deal with highly technical matters in his court, and at the same time he is called upon to perform the functions of a marriage officer, an electoral returning officer, to deal with Rents Act, to administer any number of other Acts, and to compile and furnish statistics, relating to all manner of matters that occur within his magisterial area. It seems that there again some urgent attention must be given to the matter which is being investigated, I know, by the Department.

There is one final matter that I wish to raise with the Minister, and that is an apparent reluctance to prosecute on the part of those vested with the discretion to institute proceedings in cases of contraventions of the Electoral Act. Now, Sir, I want to mention a case to the hon. the Minister which occurred during the last election concerning a vote in the name of a deceased person. One realizes that until such time as the Minister for the Interior makes it obligatory that an identity card should be produced at a polling station, it is well nigh impossible to stop impersonations at the polling station. Here is an instance of a person who voted on a postal vote as an absent voter in the place of a deceased person. Two people had the same initials and surnames. The one is the son of his deceased father. A form was completed in which the only similarity between the father and the son were, as I say, the initial and the surname. The dissimilarities would be the identity numbers, the voter’s number, the residential address and occupation. Now all those were incorrect in regard to the person who in fact signed this paper. In addition, as you will know, Sir, the form E.F.33 contains a certificate by a competent witness that he has satisfied himself as to the identity of the applicant. This matter was referred to the Attorney-General in Grahamstown who referred it to the Attorney-General in Bloemfontein who referred it to the police. Six months later—in this case of impersonation— the Attorney-General in Bloemfontein stated that he declined to prosecute as the alleged accused was not aware of the fact that he had voted on the name of his deceased father and the mistake was made by the electoral officer. I shall be pleased to give the Minister the details—I do not want to mention the names here in the House but it seems to me that this is a case of leaning over backwards not to bring a prosecution, when the declaration of this nature has been brought before the authorities. I mention this as an extreme case. There are many others in which prosecutions have not been willingly instituted for contraventions of the Electoral Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with particular interest to the last point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, who has just sat down, and I could hardly suppress a smile. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, it was so striking to hear the hon. member say that until such time as the Minister of the Interior made it compulsory to produce an identity card, we would have these ghost voices. Just think of it, today an eminent member of the Opposition has come along and sung the praises of the identity card, and then think of the bitter struggle we had to introduce them. How the wheel has turned!

While listening to the debate on the Justice Vote, one is struck by something else, and that is that problems are mentioned but that no solutions are suggested. I think of what the hon. member for Durban (North) said this morning. I listened to him with particular attention. The hon. member for Brits asked him what he suggested, and you yourself know what happened, Sir. He left it at that. He said, “It is not my job; it is the job of the hon. the Minister of Justice to find a solution.” Now, Sir, if one pretends to the public that one is the alternative government of this country, if one rises as the alternative Minister of Justice to speak on a matter relating to this Department, the general public expects one to say at least how the problem is to be solved. That is the least that can be expected. I want to acknowledge that the hon. member adopted a most level-headed and scientific approach to the matter, but on this pertinent point he owes the people and us a reply, and he has disappointed us.

We now come to the hon. member for Houghton, who has just returned, for which we are very grateful. If one reads the speeches made by this hon. member during the debates on Justice over the past years, one wonders why the hon. member still goes to the trouble of making speeches in this House, because she has actually become a mere tape-recording of herself. The same old theme song, year after year.

It is the same old Government.

Yes, Sir, and allow me to give her the assurance that it will be the same old Government for years and years to come. As long as we have the kind of opposition presented by the Progressive Party, the nation will deal with them. Let me remind her of this—the hon. member for Durban (North) used the following words this morning: “We must take note of the lessons of the past.” But it seems to me as though this hon. member refuses to take note of them; she will not learn. She told the hon. member for Brits that she did not share his “simple trust,” in Ministers. But what is so striking is her simple trust in those people whose interests she advocates here. Everything they tell her she swallows hook, line and sinker. And the lessons of the past should teach her that she did the same in the past and was disappointed. I ask the hon. member why she keeps raising a bunch of individual problems. Are they important policy matters; are they not matters she could have raised with the Minister by means of correspondence? What was the object of raising these individual matters pertinently in this House? Hon. members on the opposite side rightly asked her, “Why do these people always come to you?” She exerts a peculiar attraction for people of that nature, in matters that could have been dealt with through correspondence with the Ministers. Then they could have given her a reply. Listening to her one could almost imagine that one was sitting in the UN, and that one had to deal with one of the delegates from another part of the world. There was mention of political prisoners and how they were supposedly treated. I think it should be said that those people for whom the hon. member pleaded were not criminals of a special kind, but were simply criminals who had been convicted as such by the courts of this country because they had contravened the laws of this country with regard to State security. They are not a separate and distinct group of persons, they are actually criminals, and criminals of the worst kind, who not only posed a threat to the property of fellow-citizens but who also jeopardized the security of the State and thus the security of every citizen. I object to the constant insinuation that these people form a distinct class and should receive treatment of a different kind. They are in actual fact criminals and were convicted as such under the laws of the country. It is strange that the hon. member pleads only for this kind of people. What about all the other people? When will one have a word of acknowledgment towards the Department on the part of this hon. member, for the work that is done to secure the safety of her family and herself? I think it is time one should get to know one’s manners.

Knock-out!

The hon. member says “knock-out”. Her trouble is that her Party got the biggest knock-out of all time during the recent election. That is why one hears this type of remark, which testifies to loss of sense. We come back to the Department of Justice, and I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) who said that it was perhaps one of the most important portfolios in the Government of the country. A pre-requisite of our approach to the activities of this Department is realism and a sense of reality. Let us ask ourselves whether this Department is fulfilling its functions properly, and whether the Minister is handling this portfolio properly so that the functions entrusted to him are carried out successfully. This Department’s first and foremost function is to maintain law and order so that the administration of justice may proceed smoothly. This Department must create conditions in which the rule of law can be applied. But it is also a sine qua non for the application of the rule of law that there should be an orderly society in which the rule of law can be applied. There are frequent references, and we have heard that again this morning, to the freedom of the individual, which is supposedly restricted. But is the freedom of the individual a right held by only those people for whom the hon. member for Houghton pleads, or is it the prerogative of every citizen? Is it not the task of the Minister to see to it that the freedom of the individual is safe-guarded in such a way that those people who abuse their freedom do not jeopardize my freedom? The concept of the freedom of the individual is always approached negatively, as though the freedom of the individual and the rule of law are the prerogative only of the accused and the offenders. But in essence they are the prerogative of the law-abiding citizen. It is time this positive side was also taken into account. [Time limit.]

I should like to express my thanks towards the hon. member for Durban (North), towards the hon. member for Houghton and towards the hon. member for Potchefstroom for the friendly words of congratulation and the good wishes they addressed to me. However, I do feel that the hon. member for Houghton could at least have been somewhat more friendly. After all, while I was still in the Chair, I was always very friendly towards her. That is why I feel as though she presented her congratulations rather half-heartedly. However, I hope that I am wrong in my interpretation.

Yes, you are wrong.

I want to start with the hon. member for Durban (North). He asked me what my policy would be in respect of two matters in particular, namely, restrictions and the implementation of the 180-days provision of the Criminal Procedure Act, and secondly, the administration of the department in general. Before I reply directly to this, I think I owe it to the hon. members to say that they will realize that, in view of my having accepted this office only recently and that, moreover, in a very difficult time of pressing activities which has made it more difficult for me to reorientate myself in such a short while, I have not yet made up my mind about all these various matters. So far I cannot say that I have in fact already formulated a policy. I cannot say whether I am going to decide on deviations, but as regards restrictions, I shall, as I see matters at the moment, carry on with the policy of my hon. predecessor. The starting-point here is that one must not necessarily restrict a communist only, but also people who may possibly further the objects of Communism. To that I want to add that this does not mean that we are going to impose restrictions indiscriminately, nor that there will not from time to time be revisions to see whether certain restrictions cannot be lifted or transferred from one group to another. That will be my approach. The hon. member for Durban (North) touched briefly on the Robertson case, and it was also dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton, although she did so at greater length. As far as this matter is concerned, I think hon. members have missed their opportunity. The rules of the House permit hon. members to raise the Ian Robertson case under the Vote of the Prime Minister. However, they did not do that and subsequently tried to raise the matter under the Police Vote. However, it could not be permitted there and now it is a case of “barking up the wrong tree”. Although the hon. member for Houghton said that she realized that, she nevertheless proceeded to give us a very long dissertation on Robertson. As far as I could examine the documents relating to Robertson, it was clear that after the restriction had been served on Robertson, he was treated in all fairness. All fairness was shown to him after his restriction. When it became clear to him that he could not work in Cape Town and that he would like to go to the home of his parents in Durban, his request in that regard was readily granted. Subsequent to that, he applied for permission to go abroad in order to continue his studies, and that he was also granted without any obstacle being placed in his way. The hon. member for Houghton asked that, when Robertson completes his studies and returns, he should not return under the shadow of this restriction. At this stage I do not want to commit myself in this regard. All I want to say, is that all restrictions are subject to revision from time to time. More than that I cannot say at this stage. The hon. member for Durban (North) also asked what our policy was going to be in regard to the 180-days provision. He wants to know whether we intend to retain this provision for witnesses only, or whether, other things may also arise from it, which he believes has in fact been the case in the past. The fact of the matter is that this provision was in the first instance introduced for witnesses. On so many occasions it has already happened that a case was wrecked because the witness simply disappeared. It has also happened that a whole series of cases were wrecked because the witnesses were murdered. It happened here in Paarl. In other cases witnesses were forced to flee. That is why this provision was in the first place introduced mainly for witnesses. But it has also happened that, while a person was being detained, he decided to talk and that a charge subsequently arose from that. That could have created the impression that there had been questioning. There have already been quite a number of cases of persons originally detained as witnesses who subsequently became tired of that and were prepared to talk, whereby they incriminated themselves and gave rise to a charge. That has already happened. Now, I do not want to anticipate the Bill of which notice has already been given, but it should nevertheless be clear to hon. members that, if that measure is approved by Parliament, it will no longer be necessary to effect detentions in terms of Section 215 bis in the light in which they are being viewed by hon. members. It will then be used exclusively for the personal protection of witnesses and for preventing witnesses from leaving the country. If there must be further detentions, such people will be detained in terms of the new provisions of the Act. I am mentioning this merely in passing.

The hon. member asked me what my policy would be in regard to the administration of justice in general. He mentioned quite a number of aspects. For instance, he referred to magistrates’ courts and told us how quickly things were done there and how difficult it was to have witnesses there on all occasions. That is indeed the case. Things are done quickly in magistrates’ courts. From the nature of the case witnesses cannot be summoned to appear at an appointed time, because it is possible to dispose of a case faster than was originally anticipated, and consequently it is essential to see to it that witnesses are present. I would grant that it does cause inconvenience. I myself have already seen it. However, I cannot think of a better system and so far the Department has also been unable to think of a better system. Unfortunately the hon. member himself was also unable to suggest something.

As regards regional courts, the general experience is that there are no delays. As a matter of fact, it sometimes happens that the rate at which cases are dealt with is too fast for attorneys and advocates. However, there was one case of a delay in a particular region, viz. the Durban region. That is probably what the hon. member referred to. The Department readily grants that there were tremendous delays in this region. However, steps have already been taken and signs of an improvement are already visible. We hope that there will presently be no grounds for complaints. The hon. member also referred to the question of White interpreters in the Supreme Court. This has been a question for many a year. For many years there has been a search for people who can speak the required languages and who are prepared to offer their services in respect of this particular type of employment. The Department goes out of its way to obtain the services of these people. But at the same time we readily admit that a shortage still exists in this respect. After all, these people cannot be made to order. I cannot believe that it can be attributed to the fact that they do not receive an adequate salary, nor do I believe that it is because they do not have the proper status. Apparently there simply is a general shortage of interpreters. One simply cannot get away from that fact. Then the hon. member also referred to what he called “the alarming crime rate”. That is true. That is something which causes alarm. The crime rate is rising. However, that is not a phenomenon which appears in this country only. It is a phenomenon one encounters all over the entire civilized world, as we know it. In that regard I should like to refer to a speech made by Lord Shawcross. Lord Shawcross made a speech before the Chicago Crime Commission. I quote from a report dealing with this matter—

He says all sorts of peculiar things, such as the following—

This is really the point to which I want to come—

That sounds so much like the hon. member for Houghton—

That is the reason. The Secretary for Justice refers to that on page 5 of his report. On page 5 of both the Afrikaans and the English text of his report, he quotes Lord Shawcross—

—and this also holds good in the case of South Africa—

Now, so much as far as that aspect is concerned. Then there is still another aspect to “this alarming increase in crime”, as the hon. member said. I want to attribute that to the fact that we have a heterogeneous population in this country. We have a colour ratio of approximately one to four. I think that America has a ratio of approximately one to nine in the opposite direction. America has approximately 170,000,000 Whites and nearly 20,000,000 non-Whites. I shall now furnish you with a few figures in regard to the position in America. I shall only mention two of them. The first one deals with cases of “robbery”. As far as non-Whites were concerned, there were 1,863 convictions, that is, out of 20,000,000 there were 1,863. Out of the 170,000,000 Whites, there were 148. In other words, there was a ratio of 12.6 per cent in respect of the 20,000,000 non-Whites as against one per cent in respect of the 170,000,000 Whites.

It is 150,000,000.

That does not matter very much. I may be wrong. I did not look up the statistics very painstakingly. Now you can form an idea for yourselves. I am mentioning this for the information of the hon. member for Durban (North). What can we expect in South Africa if that is the case in America? With the population ratio in America, what can we in South Africa expect? We have 3,000,000 Whites here. I am not saying that everybody on the other side is a criminal. But, following the same pattern, what can we expect? And I think that this, coupled with the fact that “we have weighted the law in favour of the criminal”, is to a large extent the explanation for what is happening. I think these are the points which were made by the hon. member for Durban (North). After he had boasted so to the Pretoria News and in the Star, it was somewhat astonishing that he did not raise that matter here this morning.

I have not had the time as yet.

Oh, it is still to be done! He is very welcome.

Now I come to the hon. member for Houghton. As far as Ian Robertson is concerned, I have already given the hon. member for Houghton a reply, and I think she is satisfied. She also wants to know what my attitude is in respect of restrictions, and whether I should not take the matter into reconsideration, and so forth. I am giving the same reply. In the first instance, one does not only restrict a communist. One does not only restrict a communist. One also restricts people who may possibly further the objects of Communism and subversive activities of that nature, and when it is suspected that such deeds may be committed. That is the case, and I personally believe, and it is my honest conviction, that I should rather restrict the liberty of one person accidentally than jeopardize the safety of this country.

Hear, hear!

And I think that ought to be the attitude of all right-minded people. There is no getting away from the fact that it can really happen. I do not want to say that it has already happened, but it can happen that one can make a mistake. But I want to assure you that if such a mistake is made, it is made after a very thorough inquiry has been carried out. The hon. member mentioned the fact that people who had served their term of imprisonment, were still subject to restrictions. That is so. So far we have already signed a large number of these restrictions. They are mostly Poqo people who served their three years’ term of imprisonment. Virtually all of them were restricted for a further period of two years. That is the mildest form of restriction, namely the C form of restriction. Where there is the slightest chance of accommodating these people, they are in fact treated considerately. If it is a question of reporting and they find it troublesome to report at a certain place, representations can be made. This has already been allowed in many cases in order to accommodate these people in their difficulties. I shall be glad if the hon. member would let me have the Amed Osman case and furnish me with more particulars in that regard. I do not know the case. I have not yet had the opportunity of going into that. I promise her that if she would furnish me with the particulars, I shall gladly go into the matter. She also referred to the conditions of the prisoners, as she found them to be on her tours through the prisons of our country for as far as it was possible for her to do so. She immediately admitted “that conditions have improved”. I want to put it this way, namely that improvements are of course effected from time to time. That is routine. I am very glad that, when the hon. member arrived there, she found that conditions were better than she had suspected them to be. Hence her statement: “Conditions have improved.” Furthermore the hon. member takes; a great interest in the detention of the so-called political prisoners. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus replied to that. There is no such thing as a political prisoner. There may be prisoners who committed crimes with a political background—well and good. However there are no political prisoners, and they are not prisoners of a special kind, housed in a special section of the prison. They receive indentical treatment. The political prisoner usually falls into the D or C category, since we have learnt from experience that he is a person of whom one must beware. He is a person one cannot simply …

They all have exemplary prison records.

Yes, that may quite possibly be the case. I am not fully informed as yet, but I am talking in terms of broad principles. In terms of broad principles they are people who should be watched, since they will employ each and every means at their disposal to escape. Let me mention the case of Wolpe and Goldreich. There you have an absolute case. Those people must be under absolute supervision and they must remain under absolute supervision. I am glad to hear that it was the hon. member’s experience that ladies who were so-called political prisoners, were at present for the most part in group B, a group enjoying a large measure of freedom. The hon. member is complaining about the work they have to do. I do not know what she expects prisoners to do—whether she expects them to be taught dainty needlework or something of that nature. We have the hon. member’s word in this regard, but I should like to mention in this House the findings of a few judges. On 3rd March, 1966, Justice Boshoff visited Barberton and amongst other things his finding was the following [translation]—

It is a judge who says that, not I or one of the prison officials. Justice Ludorf visited Barberton on 6th July. 1966. The Department reports as follows on his findings [translation]—

A third judge. Justice Hiemstra, was there on 12th August, 1966. He reported on the female prisoners as follows [translation]—

Mr. Chairman, we must remember that these people are prisoners. On the part of the Department, the best is being done under the circumstances. I assure the hon. member that the promotion from one category to another and from one category in the prison to another category, also takes place from time to time. With good conduct and when the authorities deem it necessary, it is quite possible that these people who are in the B category at present, may be transferred to the A category. I am stating this as a possibility. The hon. member also referred to the Brutus case. I am unfamiliar with the Brutus case as well, and if the hon. member would furnish me with the particulars in this regard, I shall gladly go into the matter and see what we can do.

I want to refer now to the hon. members for Kroonstad and Potchefstroom, both of whom pleaded for better legal aid. The spirit in which they pleaded for better legal aid, was different from that of the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to say that the legal aid for which the hon. members pleaded, does in fact exist at the moment. As you will remember, we had, in the past, the old legal aid bureaux which were subsidized by the Department to a certain extent. These bodies simply did not operate effectively. It was simply found that the work always went to a particular group of people and that the members of this group were not always people who furthered the best interests of the legal profession as a whole, or rather the prisoners as a whole. I can mention you one case. It was found that a listed communist infiltrated into the very core of this legal bureau. I can also mention the name of this person. It was a certain Gertrude Cohn, née Salvadier. She infiltrated into the legal bureau and became the important person in it. She arranged matters there as she deemed fit. In view of that, and for other good reasons, the legal aid bureaux were subsequently abolished and in the meantime the Department made better attempts by introducing voluntary legal aid through legal committees. These legal committees were established in most magisterial areas and magistrates’ courts of our country. By means of the Prisoners’ Friend liaison is maintained with the circle in question, with the Side Bar and even with the Bar. According to a report issued by the prosecutor or the Attorney-General, legal aid is made available by means of these committees—an attorney in the Inferior Court, and an advocate in the Superior Court. Legal aid therefore exists to a large extent. However, the fact of the matter is that this question of legal aid is receiving the attention of the Department at the moment, and the matter has not been finalized as yet. In regard to legal aid, I may just mention the fact—I did not really want to mention it at this stage, but I nevertheless think that it is desirable to do so now—that after the banning of the Defence and Aid Fund, legal aid was also extended to so-called political accused persons. Circumstances were such that, since the Defence and Aid Fund had been banned and since certain funds were still available, and the Department and the Minister were not desirous of a discontinuation, the pro deo rules were also extended to political accused. There was a very good reason for that. The reason was that it was a transition period. The funds of the Defence and Aid Fund had not yet been exhausted. Furthermore, certain instructions had already been given and a sudden discontinuation had to be prevented. That is why my predecessor arranged that they would also be entitled to legal aid. But even at this stage I want to say that this should be regarded as a temporary measure. This arrangement cannot form a permanent part of our Act. viz. the arrangement that legal aid for which the State is paying should be granted to people who neither believe in that State nor in the administration of justice by that State, and for that reason, and as soon as I feel that the arrangement has served the purpose for which the temporary measure was introduced, I shall give instructions that it be lifted.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to resignations from the Department. That is alarming; I do not have the latest figures at my disposal, but in this respect, of course, the Department has to cope with the same difficulties as all other State Departments, and that is that private initiative is luring away their staff. The hon. member also referred to the question of bursaries. I should like to point out that the Department is doing everything in its power to encourage recruitment. The Department is going to so far as to ask magistrates to address matriculation classes and to invite pupils to come and observe court proceedings in order to see whether they are interested in this profession. The Department also goes so far as to grant bursaries to deserving cases. At the moment these have not yet been extended to matriculation pupils, but bursaries are being awarded to junior officials who intend graduating in law. I just want to explain how the system works: Such a person is employed as a public servant and he receives his full salary. For a period of three years he is sent to a university, where he can take the B. Juris degree. While studying, he receives his full salary, and all that is expected of him is that he should work in a magistrate’s court during the holidays. On the completion of his course, his only obligation is to serve the Department for a further period of five years. The Department goes so far as to enable him to obtain his LL.B. degree. The B. Juris degree is a three-year course. To enable him to obtain his LL.B., the Department goes so far as to undertake that as soon as he completes his B. Juris course, he will, if he wants to attend part-time classes, be placed at a centre where the necessary facilities are available. The Department goes out of its way to promote recruitment, and we are anticipating that within the next five years we shall have no fewer than 150 officials who will have obtained their B. Juris degree in this manner.

With these few remarks, I think that I have more or less replied to all the questions raised so far.

I want to join other hon. members in congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment. I must say that his address to us on this, his first appearance in this House as Minister in charge of this Vote, meets with our approval in that he was very courteous. We hope that he will always remain as courteous as he was on this first occasion. The hon. the Minister has been quite frank. He has admitted that he is still finding his feet; that he has not quite settled down; that he is not quite certain of his policy in certain matters yet. We will give him time to settle down and give him a chance. Although he is being given a very easy passage on this first occasion, he must not run away with the idea that he will always be let off as lightly as this. We want to see how he administers the very far-reaching powers which have been given to Ministers of Justice over the years.

The Minister quite rightly pointed out that the criminal of to-day is not the criminal of yesterday and he referred in this connection to the speech by Lord Shawcross. But I think when Lord Shawcross said that in England they were beginning to ask themselves whether the criminal law is not too heavily weighted in favour of the criminals and against the innocent he was suggesting that they should change the law of evidence and court procedure. That seems to be indicated by the next paragraph in the report. It may well be necessary for us in dealing with the criminal of today to change our laws of evidence and our court procedure and in fact we have done so at different times over the years. Our law has not remained static. We have, for instance, quite frequently changed the law as far as the onus of proof is concerned. All I want to ask the hon. the Minister is to consult both the Bar and the Side Bar and the Bench when he comes to consider the question of changing the law of evidence, with a view to seeing that we do our best to maintain the high reputation of impartiality enjoyed by our courts.

The Minister has dealt with the 180-day provision. We know that he experienced certain difficulties in getting evidence. We have at different times given the Minister and the police certain powers …

Order! “The hon. the Minister”.

I am sorry, Sir. We have not always given these powers willingly but we have felt that it has been necessary in the interests of the security of the State. The hon. the Minister has referred to legislation which is to be introduced later this Session, so I do not want to go into that question now because the matter will be fully discussed when the Bill comes before the House. I take it from what the hon. the Minister has said that once this legislation has been passed, he will not use the 180-day provision, except for the proper protection of witnesses and for no other reason. At any rate we will discuss that when we deal with the Bill.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned the question of legal aid. Sir, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Green Point in congratulating the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. They are both former attorneys who have now been appointed as Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister. I think this was a very good move, especially when one considers how essential it is to protect the attorney and his livelihood. Sir, very few people realize just how much attorneys do for the State without charge, with particular reference to legal assistance to the poor. The hon. the Minister in dealing with the question of legal aid, only dealt with the assistance which is given to the criminal. Of course, when a man is accused of murder or charged with some other capital offence he is given pro Deo assistance but there is also another form of assistance to criminals. The Legal Aid Bureau system, as the hon. the Minister has said, has been abolished, but if the magistrate, before whom an accused person is charged, and his committee decide that the accused should be given legal representation, then he is given legal assistance. He is defended by an attorney free of charge. It is quite unjust that an attorney or a barrister should be called upon to give his services free of charge, as he has to do. The Minister has dealt with the legal assistance given to persons accused of political offences in the Eastern Province, and I was rather sorry to hear him say that this system is going to be stopped as soon as …

As soon as it has served its purpose.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister means by saying that it is going to be stopped as soon as it has served its purpose, because he went on to say that the State could not go on paying out money for the defence of people who do not believe in the State or in our legal system. Sir, until a person is found guilty it cannot be said that he is a criminal. He has to be found guilty of the offence first, and who is to decide that he is not entitled to be defended because he does not believe in our legal system. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember the case of Sylvia Neame who was charged at Humans-dorp while he was Minister of Justice. This case lasted for more than a month. The costs of her defence were provided by the Defence and Aid. She was convicted and she appealed and she was acquitted—perhaps on a technicality but the fact is that there had been an irregularity and when the case came before the Judges, the Attorney-General, after the barrister for the defence had addressed the court, was asked if he wanted to say anything and his reply was that there was nothing he could say. The fact is that there had been an irregularity and this woman, because she was defended and because she had exercised her right to appeal, was acquitted. Under the present system of giving legal aid you will not get a barrister or an attorney who is prepared to spend months in defending a person charged with some political offence. It is not right to expect attorneys to do it; they cannot do it. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will continue to give assistance in cases of this nature until we have worked out some other form in which legal aid can be given to accused persons. [Time limit.]

I wish as a South West African representative in the first place to associate myself with other hon. members in congratulating the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their appointments. I wish to assure them of our full support in their difficult task of handling these portfolios. It is well known that justice in South West Africa is also administered by these hon. Ministers and I can assure them that there is nothing but praise in South West Africa for the way in which justice is being administered in that Territory.

Sir, I wish to deal with a matter raised by the hon. members for Houghton and Green Point. These two hon. members raised the question of the rule of law. We had the usual attack from that side and the usual allegation that we have passed measures in this House in abrogation of the rule of law. In this respect I wish to quote a statement made by the hon. Mr. Justice Broome, formerly Judge-President of Natal. This is what he said—

I repeat—

Mr. Chairman, every sensible person must agree that this reflects the accepted position in all civilized countries. The Opposition accepted this position and adopted this attitude during the last war when similar provisions in violation of the rule of law were in force. It only makes common sense that drastic measures are necessary in serious circumstances to protect the welfare of the State. Although we have the position to-day that certain church leaders and intellectuals have taken their stand against the Government for retaining these wide powers, we find that these same persons supported the then Government during the last war and they made no protest in those circumstances. The only question to decide actually is whether, in accordance with the statement made by Mr. Justice Broome, these drastic steps are warranted by the facts of the situation, and it is for us in this Parliament, when we decide whether these drastic steps should be taken, to decide what the facts of the situation are at the present time. Sir. what are the facts? In the first place we are fighting a cold war against Communism, and that fact is accepted by all Western civilized powers. Secondly, Bantu from South Africa are being trained in sabotage in neighbouring countries with the specific object of returning to undermine the safety of the State. This is in flagrant violation of international law. Furthermore we find that foreign governments are actively and openly assisting in these efforts. Thirdly, some of the newly independent African States are threatening active invasion; fourthly, it has been proved in recent court cases that communists and kindred associations are working underground in an effort to create a revolution in South Africa. Furthermore, in Rhodesia, a neighbouring country, these same drastic steps, even more drastic steps, have been taken to cope with their particular situation. We know also from the recent news that in South West Africa terrorists have infiltrated, with Chinese and Russian arms, and that they have been burning down houses, etc. Hon. members are well aware of what is happening in South West Africa so I need not go into details. Lastly, Sir, we had in this very Chamber a shocking assassination, which has shocked the whole world. Sir. if the Opposition had been ruling under these circumstances, if they had been aware of the facts which I have just mentioned—and these are facts which cannot be denied by any responsible person—if they were aware of the fact that saboteurs were infiltrating our borders with intent to commit acts of terrorism and murder, would they wait until these acts have been perpetrated or until persons have been murdered, before taking action? If not, then they too would have had to take these drastic measures in violation of the rule of law in order to govern the country properly. Sir, I remember the Paarl riots a few years ago, in which innocent people were murdered. I was in this House when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused the then Minister of Justice of not having taken proper steps timeously. The answer, of course, is that the then Minister of Justice did not have the necessary powers to act timeously, because at that time we did not have these measures under which he could have acted timeously.

You lost that debate and you will lose it again.

At that time there was no law under which you could arrest a person, when you knew that he was about to commit an offence, without adducing proof in a court of law.

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

When the debate was adjourned I was busy putting a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. leader had stated that at the time of the Paarl riots in his opinion the Minister of Justice had the necessary powers, without emergency measures, to have prevented those riots. I then asked him why, if that was the case, Judge Snyman, who was the commissioner, had found that powers were necessary to vest the Government with further authority in order to prevent further riots. It is as the result of that Commission that these drastic measures were then passed.

But I come back to the position I analysed here. I wish to quote only one further instance to show how serious the position in South Africa is to-day. There was a statement by a petitioner named Jakob Kahunga to the UN Committee on 3rd October, 1966, and this is what he said. He is the secretary-general of S.W.A.P.O., the Native organization in South West Africa—

I think I have shown quite sufficiently how serious the position is to-day and that we are not in quiet waters at all. What is the attitude of the general public to-day? The whole country realizes that this Government has no ulterior motives for undermining the demo cratic rights of the people or any of its institutions and that these measures are emergency measures, and that the Government will never allow this weapon to be used capriciously, unjustly or harshly. The people have put this Government into power by an overwhelming majority to cope with these troubled times and they expect the Government to secure the safety of the State. A mandate has been given to this Government and it is our duty as members of Parliament to vest the Government with the necessary powers to carry out this mandate.

Before the lunch adjournment I was addressing the hon. the Minister on the question of legal aid. I want to return to that and to answer the last speaker who asked why it was necessary for Judge Snyman to make certain recommendations if our existing law was suitable to deal with emergencies. The hon. member will remember that we on this side supported the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Snyman because a case was made out that it was necessary, and I have said that over the years we have altered the laws to meet the position, and no doubt we will be asked to make similar changes again. But what I said was that as far as Lord Shaw-cross’s remarks were concerned I think he was referring to changes in court procedure and rules of evidence. I said I thought it was quite possible for us to amend those rules, which will better meet the position.

But I was dealing with legal aid and I pointed out that under the present circumstances these political accused persons will have no representation unless they are rich people, and that is why Defence and Aid gave them assistance. The Minister has now given assistance to these people in the Eastern Province, and he said that this service would be abandoned, but I would appeal to him again not to abandon it and not to apply it only in the Eastern Province but everywhere until such time as he has a legal aid system which fits the circumstances.

Until such time as alternative arrangements have been made.

Yes, I asked the Minister to keep it in being until then. But why should only the political accused be defended at the expense of the State? What about all the other accused persons who cannot afford it? All the others need assistance too. The Minister says there is at present a system whereby they can go to the Legal Aid set-up and get free assistance from the attorneys, but in civil cases, except in in forma pauperis matters, the civil litigant gets no assistance. At present it means that only the very rich or the very poor are able to embark upon litigation. Earlier in the Session the hon. member for Prinshof gave instances of a bill of costs which was presented to one litigant who was compelled to go to court as the result of a motor-car accident in which an insurance company was involved. We all know how terrifically these costs can mount up. He gave the figures where eventually, when this party had lost, the costs amounted to over R2,000. Any practising attorney here will bear me out when I say that often when we have third-party claims, especially if the litigant lives in the country and has to proceed to one of the larger centres where the Supreme Court is, it becomes practically impossible for him to embark on a suit against an insurance company because he cannot afford it. Before he can embark on a case his attorney wants a deposit for his costs in case he loses the case, and so the insurance companies have the poor man at their mercy and he is practically compelled to accept a settlement for the simple reason that he cannot afford to go on with the case. At the meeting of the International Commission of Jurists, at a conference held at Delhi in 1959, the following resolution was taken—

That is what we appeal for, that we should be assisted in carrying out our responsibility, and it can be done in various ways. In the rest of the Western world different systems have been adopted. The Minister will know about a Bill which is now being discussed in Toronto. England and Wales have a system whereby the State pays for the costs and lawyers present their bills. They work at a reduced fee and the State gets part of the bill if the other part can meet it. I do not want to go into all the details. What I am asking is that the Minister should appoint a legal commission to act in concert with the Bar and the Side-Bar to work out a satisfactory scheme for giving legal aid not only in criminal matters but in civil matters as well in order to ensure that every person has free access to the courts and can approach the courts on an equal basis.

I now want to deal with something else. I want to ask the Minister to tell me what the position is with regard to the granting of liquor licences in the Transkei. When the Tourism Vote was discussed, the Minister of Tourism said that the hotels in the White areas—I think he was a bit confused as to what the White areas were—had a choice of going to the Liquor Board for the issue of a licence or to the Transkeian Authority, the Secretary for Justice, who grants licences under the Liquor Proclamation. The Hotel Board cannot grade and give financial assistance to an hotel unless it is first classified by the Liquor Board. In terms of the law as it stands at the moment the Liquor Board has no authority in the Transkei. Licences are not issued by the Liquor Board there. The Liquor Act does not apply to the Transkei. I submit that the Minister of Tourism was quite wrong and did not realize what the position was. So I want to ask the Minister of Justice to explain exactly what the position is in regard to hotels in the Transkei. Those hotels, not only in Port St. Johns, or Kokstad, or Matatiele, but all the hotels in the areas which have not been zoned for Black occupation—because, you see, Sir, they are all White areas until they are zoned. Port St. Johns, Kokstad and Matatiele are not to be zoned. They are kept White under the Transkei Constitution Act, but all the other places like Umtata, Butterworth, etc., remain White areas until they are zoned Black. The hotels in those towns cannot live in a sort of hiatus, not knowing whether they will be zoned White or Black, or whether they will get assistance from the Hotel Board or not. Therefore I want the Minister to tell us exactly what the position is in regard to the Liquor Board and licences in the Transkei.

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Transkei, because his questions were addressed directly to the hon. the Minister. There have been a number of routine congratulations extended to the new political heads of this Department. I do not want to be guilty of a routine congratulation, but I want to say that as a rural attorney I am delighted that both these gentlemen have experience of a rural attorney’s practice, because I consider that it is this type of legal practitioner who is going to need a great deal of assistance and sympathy in the future, and for this reason I consider it very fortunate indeed that these two gentlemen have that experience.

Because the subject of places of detention has been raised in this debate largely with a view to criticism and nothing more, I hope that you will bear with me, Sir, if I direct your attention to the fact that the Vooruitsig Rehabilitation Centre is in my constituency. In addition, the national training college for warders is in process of erection there. Allow me to pay the highest tribute to the Commissioner with his officials and specifically the two previous Ministers of Justice for the erection of this rehabilitation centre and the training college. I say this not only because of the wonderful buildings which are being erected there, but because of the wonderful spirit that is being engendered there, a spirit that is being engendered in the service as a whole. I am referring, for example, to the tradition that is arising that most of these officials obtain degrees. I want to say this to the persons concerned: Do not hide your light under a bushel. As soon as this training college is completed, please invite all the members of this House to your very first passing-out parade so that they may see the valuable work that is being done at this institution.

I want to pursue further a matter already mentioned by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, namely the question of the separation of judicial and administrative functions to which the Secretary refers on page 4 of his Report. The hon. the Minister has not yet replied specifically in this regard, and I want to ask him what his reply is to these recommendations made by the Secretary. This matter is particularly acute in my province. On page 4 of the Report the Secretary states that in the Free State, 62 per cent of magistrates devote less than 500 hours per annum to judicial work. That is to say, about one-quarter of their available time is taken up by judicial work and the rest of their time is devoted to administrative functions, often of a routine nature. I want to ask in this regard not only that administrative officials be made available for the administrative work but that senior administrative men should also be made available for semi-judicial work on the understanding, of course, that they can call in a magistrate if a decision has to be given in regard to a legal aspect of a matter. If magistrates are relieved of routine work, I want to ask particularly that their services be employed to bring about greater decentralization of regional courts so that more rural towns which qualify may also have regional courts.

Before resuming my seat I should just like to ask this question. Are we not perhaps experiencing a shortage of trained technical men because their posts do not carry the necessary status and prestige? I want to refer particularly to magistrates, and more particularly to the question of magistrates’ residences. I think that it is very unfair to treat the magistrate in the same way as any other public servant in a rural town as far as his position is concerned. He is the chief representative of the executive authority in a rural town and, as such, certain facilities and benefits must be given to him in order to lend him a certain amount of prestige over other senior officials. The arrangement at the moment is that if the number of White inhabitants in a rural town exceeds 10,000, the magistrate does not qualify for a new residence. I had the case in my own town that during the war years the Department built a magistrate’s residence in the best residential area, alongside the house of a rich attorney. We have had the humiliating position over the years that the magistrate’s residence has been referred to as the outbuildings of the attorney. I think that this is unfair. I think that these people, who often have to receive important guests in their official capacities, deserve reasonably elegant homes. This will be one of the things which will lend a certain amount of prestige to the post and cause people to be prepared to go in for this kind of work.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to introduce my few remarks by saying that on behalf of my group we offer our congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their appointment and we wish them luck in their new sphere of activity.

Before I deal with the Coloured people in the Department I should like to ask one or two questions on the report of the Department of Justice. On the bottom of page 18 I see that there have been language tests for officers, and I see that officers tested in both languages numbered 31 of which 26 passed. But then it says that 165 were tested in one language and of these 136 passed. Will the Minister please explain to us why these people were only tested in one language. Does it mean that they were unilingual? Because if that is so, then it does show that unfortunately there are officers in the Department of Justice who are unilingual. I should imagine that they should all be bilingual. But as the report does not indicate just why they were tested in one language and not in the other, I am going to wait for the Minister’s reply.

What about those who failed the one language test?

I was going to ask what happened to those people who failed the one language test, or failed both language tests. Are they retained in the Department or are they moved somewhere else? As I say, the report does not elaborate on that aspect so I am going to ask the Minister to tell us because to me it gives the impression that they are unilingual, and I think it is quite wrong in the Department of Justice that they should have unilingual officers, whether as regards Afrikaans or English.

Reference has been made to the number of resignations and the number of vacancies. I do not want to elaborate on that but I want to ask the hon. the Minister just what is being done to train the Coloured people for the jobs which they will have to occupy in terms of the Government’s policy. It is well known that the Government’s policy of separate development and group areas has resulted, as I have often said in this House, in very large areas being occupied by Coloureds here at Athlone, at Bonteheuwel and these places. I am going to ask the Minister in the first instance to accept the policy of decentralization of courts. I think the centralization of courts has done a lot of harm to the administration of justice. I know of many, many instances where people have been afraid to report a case of an accident or to give evidence because they have to go too far to the court to give evidence. They do not know what time the case is coming on. They get no witness fees. They do not want to go. But we have a very excellent example of how decentralization of courts works. For instance, we have in Langa a court dealing with the people occupying Langa, and I think that the time has arrived for the Minister to consider the establishment of courts in the Coloured areas and the training of Coloured personnel, Coloured prosecutors, Coloured clerks, who eventually will have to occupy those position. I am not asking the Minister to do it now, because I realize that he is new in his job.

I say, Sir, that there must be vacancies in the service which can be filled by Coloured people. It is disturbing to note that in a Department of Justice we find—I am not referring to resignations, I am not going to go into the reasons—that there are a thousand vacancies, including casual vacancies. I do feel that the Coloured people are entitled to know as soon as reasonably possible, just how they will be able to undertake the task which this Government said they will undertake in their own areas, in their own courts. I understood from the hon. the Prime Minister when he occupied this position of Minister of Justice that there was an attempt to train Coloureds. Unfortunately I can find no record in this report as to where they are being trained, how many of them are being trained, but I do say, Sir, that the Government has accepted the principle of training non-Whites because according to this report they have apparently trained certain Bantus for Bantu Administration, and I take it that these Bantu will be occupying certain positions in the Bantu areas. Now why does the Government not do the same for the Coloureds? I think that it is high time that this aspect as regards the Coloureds is clarified. Much is being done. The Minister of Coloured Affairs has given us a very fine picture of what the Government hopes to do for the Coloured people. But in regard to the question of courts and the occupation of positions by Coloured people in that line we have heard very little. I want to make a very, very strong appeal to the hon. the Minister to use as many Coloured people to fill these vacancies as possible. And I should like to suggest to the Minister that he use his good offices with the Minister of Coloured Affairs to start a course for law students at the university at Bellville. I think it is time that that course be initiated. We know—the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister are both legal men—that it could be quite easy for these men to learn the rudiments of law required for legal examinations at a university, and I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to see that such a course is initiated for the benefit of the Coloured people.

Having said that, I should like to hear from the Minister just what they have in mind for the Coloureds and I hope that I will not be disappointed in his reply.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Houghton has returned to the Chamber. The hon. member for Houghton once again raised the Ian Robertson affair here this morning. She has been raising this matter since I have been a member of this House and she again made the insinuation this morning, in my humble opinion, that the hon. the Prime Minister did not act correctly in that case.

It was not an insinuation; it was a positive statement.

The hon. member says that it was a positive statement. The hon. member ought to know that in the case of restrictions the hon. the Minister’s discretion plays an important part.

That is what I do not like.

The hon. the Prime Minister has a long record as far as the exercising of discretion is concerned, and the hon. member for Houghton knows very well that in every case in which the hon. the Prime Minister has exercised his discretion, he has been right and she has been wrong. The Prime Minister has told her clearly whenever she has discussed the Ian Robertson case that he acted in the interests of South Africa and that he also acted in the interests of that young man himself. The Prime Minister realized that that young man was moving along a path which would land him in a great deal of trouble and bad company. It was in his own interests that he was stopped in time. The hon. member for Houghton simply does not want to accept this fact. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me that she has something of a complex about this man Robertson. She continues to harp on the same string—she cannot get done with it. I want to express the hope that this will really be the last time that we shall hear about Ian Robertson.

I make no promises at all.

I have an international publication here in my hand, a publication entitled “The Student”. It is published by the International Student Conference and it is a mouthpiece of the local Nusas movement abroad. The hon. member knows that this is so.

I do not know anything of the kind.

She knows what the connection was between Ian Robertson and Nusas. I want to quote from this publication to the House. This particular issue is devoted exclusively to the South African situation. The article from which I want to quote was written by one Ronald Story, and begins in this way—

Not far wrong.

I am very pleased that the hon. member has made that remark because I should like to know what she thinks of the next few paragraphs. Further on in the article the writer has this to say—

Then follow these sinister words. I want the hon. member for Houghton to listen and to tell me what she thinks of this—

Can the hon. member for Houghton see now that there is apparently a sinister movement connected with this international body and, in my humble opinion, therefore also with the student body here in South Africa, a movement which envisages a bloodbath in South Africa and which wants to involve the entire world in it? Can the hon. member now see that it is necessary to prevent certain young people who are misled by liberalists in South Africa, from falling in with this bad company?

What did you say was the relationship between this publication and Nusas?

This is an international student journal. It is the mouthpiece of Nusas abroad and always acts for them. This student journal states that there is a bloodbath in store for South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she still feels that we should not restrict these young people, in their own interests, and prevent their becoming involved in this sort of thing? There is more than sufficient proof that Nusas was involved in this sort of movement which is mentioned here.

Why then do you not call for an enquiry into Nusas?

That is no longer necessary. Indeed, Nusas has already revealed itself in its true colours to such an extent that an enquiry is no longer necessary. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she agrees with this paragraph and whether she agrees that it was necessary for us to prevent students from going to the lengths envisaged by this student journal and this country from being plunged into a bloodbath at some future time? Can the hon. member now see that it was necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister, when still Minister of Justice, to restrict this young man before he went too far?

In the short time I still have at my disposal I want to come back to a matter which I raised this morning. Suffice it to say that the Report of the Secretary for Justice is such that nowhere at all can we interpret it as stating that the Secretary as such is opposed to legal aid. I want to try to formulate this. I interpret the Report as stating—and this is what it actually contains and not what the hon. member for Durban (North) told the English-language press—that it is the duty of the State to combat crime, as it is the duty of all of us to do, and to ensure that accused persons are given a fair trial. The emphasis here is placed on the word “fair”. If it is necessary, in order to have a fair trial, that a pro Deo advocate or attorney should be appointed, the Department will attend to the matter. That is how I interpret the Report and I think that anybody who reads either more or less than this into the report, is wresting it from its context. As far as I am concerned, there is a very great difference between legal aid in civil cases and legal aid in criminal cases. As far as legal aid in criminal cases is concerned, I have indicated in my maiden speech how legal aid can be extended slightly by the Department itself.

As far as civil cases are concerned, it is my opinion that legal aid is also the responsibility of the State. Just as the State pays for all kinds of social services, such as for partially free hospitalization and assistance to people to obtain a home of their own, so it is, in my humble opinion, the duty of the State to ensure that a person can have his civil right tested in a court if he has such a right. [Time limit.]

I sincerely hope that South African justice will not be judged by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. member attempted to imply that he was quoting from a Nusas publication while in fact he knew very well that he was quoting from an international publication which had nothing whatsoever to do with Nusas. [Interjections.] I suggest that the hon. member was misleading this House and that he intended creating an impression which was not a fact.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made the allegation that another hon. member misled this House. Is that parliamentary?

Order! The hon. member did not say that another hon. member had “deliberately” misled the House. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Durban (Point), however, that I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Prinshof and he clearly stated that it was an international publication.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman I want to abide by your ruling, but may I be allowed to point out that if somebody misleads it can only be deliberate. I submit, therefore, that the hon. member should withdraw that allegation. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! There is a Speaker’s ruling to the effect that only if it is stated that a person has “deliberately” misled the House is it unparliamentary. I shall give the hon. member for Prinshof the opportunity of making a personal explanation in this connection if he so desires immediately after the hon. member for Durban (Point) has completed his speech.

I should like to do that, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to waste my time any further on the hon. member. I am no admirer of Nusas, nor of Ian Robertson with whom I have disagreed often, but I am an admirer of truth and of justice and in what I believe to be fairness in dealing with matters of this nature. I believe that everyone, whether I agree with him or not, is entitled to fair trial and to just treatment. That is the attitude which we take up in regard to this matter from this side of the House.

I would now like to deal with another aspect of the responsibilities of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy. This is an important aspect. I would like to suggest that the time has come, with the appointment of a new Minister and with the creation of a new Deputy Minister-ship, that consideration should be given to removing from the control of the Department of Justice the control and administration of liquor affairs. This is a matter which has grown up traditionally from the days when liquor was something which was forbidden to the vast bulk of the people and when the vast mass of people, when they did obtain liquor, did so illegally. But South Africa is to-day an adult country. We have grown up and therefore I suggest that it is no longer necessary to treat the handling of liquor as though it was a criminal offence and to treat those who deal in liquor as though they were potential criminals. We have the strange situation to-day of having a dual control—a duality of control in a growing number of fields. Before we have created a new liquor empire under Justice and a parallel hotels empire under Tourism I think we should consider this problem and now is the time to do that. At this stage there seems to be no purpose in building up a vast structure to deal with hotel liquor licences and parallel to it, under another Minister, creating another structure to perform identical functions although with a different objective. We have to-day a National Liquor Board responsible for inspecting, examining and classifying hotels. Then we have an Hotel Board responsible for examining, inspecting and grading hotels. I believe that both these tasks, being identical in their objectives, could be combined into one operation and that we could remove the duality of control which at the present moment leads to petty and unnecessary restrictions upon licencees. It leads to an attitude of mind and this is perhaps the worst of all. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware that in the administration of the Liquor Act and in the inspections carried out many things are done which, I believe, are quite unnecessary. Let me give him an example of something which has, to my knowledge, happened twice just recently. This was that for a purely technical offence, i.e. the fact that a person had omitted to enter a name in a stock book although he entered the sale, he was taken to a police station, fingerprinted, recorded for a criminal description—marks, features and everything else—as though he was a criminal. And that for a purely technical offence. This to my knowledge has happened twice. Complaints like these keep on multiplying. Every year one hears more and more of them, i.e. that for purely technical and other unimportant reasons people are treated as though they had committed a criminal offence. Merely for not having the requisite number of brands of liquor on his shelves a person can be fined R500 or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. Although it is only a petty offence this creates an atmosphere causing that person to be looked upon as a criminal. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister and his Deputy should consult on this matter. One cannot expect a decision on the spur of the moment. They should, however, consider this matter before it is too late, before we have created two empires. One of these empires is already building up very fast. The National Liquor Board is becoming an empire. It is being built up with staff, with inspectors and with power. Before it becomes an entrenched and unbreakable part of our administration the question of transferring the control of liquor in respect of hotels and restaurants to the Department of Tourism and in respect of off-consumption licences to the Department of Agriculture should be considered. Liquor,— wine and brandy—are in fact agricultural products and there seems to be no reason why they should not be dealt with as such. Where liquor is served to people who are largely tourists in hotels and restaurants when the Department of Tourism is the right body to deal with it.

I do not have time to deal with all the minor points with which I should like to deal, —complaints which the Department of Justice cannot understand because of its correct preoccupation with crime. By suspecting that everything that is done is connected with crime, unnecessary and annoying hindrances are created to those concerned. Take, for instance, the labelling of bottles. There is no restriction on the sale of liquor and anybody can, unless he is on the black list, buy it. Yet every consignment that comes into an hotel or bottle store has to be laboriously labelled to show who is going to sell it. It is this sort of thing which creates unnecessary friction. A department like the Department of Justice cannot understand or sympathize with the problems which the industry as a whole faces. [Time limit.]

Order! I shall now permit the hon. member for Prinshof to give a personal explanation.

I just want to explain that I made two statements in regard to this journal. In the first place I said that it was an international student journal and in the second place, that it was the mouthpiece of Nusas.

What proof do you have for saying that?

Order! The hon. member must only explain what he said in regard to this aspect.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to hon. members why I said that this journal was a mouthpiece of Nusas. This journal also contains an article about South Africa from which I want to quote here and there so that hon. members may understand why I made that statement. It is stated in this article—

The article goes on to tell of Mr. Jonty Driver and deals in full with the case of Mr. Ian Robertson. Referring to Nusas as an organization, the writer states—

It was for this reason that I said that this journal was a mouthpiece of Nusas.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to resume my reply to the questions put here by the hon. member for Transkei in regard to liquor control in the Transkei. I want to say right at the outset that the hon. member is a colleague of mine as far as our profession is concerned. We are both members of the Side Bar and if I had still been practising now and he had come to me I would have furnished him with this piece of information on payment of a small fee. Under the circumstances, however, I will do it for him pro amico. The information is available if one would only take the trouble of finding out. If the hon. member were to look at the Liquor Act he would see in Section 2 of that Act that the Transkei is expressly excluded from the application of the liquor Act of 1928. Then there is also Proclamation No. 333 of 1949 which makes provision for liquor control in the Transkei. In that proclamation it is also expressly stated and defined what the area is where the liquor control will be applied. I do not want to enter the limits of that area now.

The information is available and the hon. member knows the limits better than I do. He should study the matter a little. Actually the position to-day is that there are three controls as far as liquor is concerned. In the first place there is Proclamation No. 333 of 1949 which applies to the White spots in the Transkei. It includes the areas in the White spot towns which have been zoned for Bantu ownership and occupation. There the Proclamation of 1949 is applicable. But in the areas which are under the control of the Transkeian Government, they have their own control. Apparently the hon. member is not interested in this but the control is modelled on this Proclamation. In other words, they have taken over the Proclamation of 1949, with the addition of certain amendments.

The Committee will realize that there is a difference between classification and grading. The Liquor Act makes provision for the classification of hotels. I am referring now to Section 71 bis of the Liquor Act. According to the classification, from one to five stars could be accorded to an hotel. That is classification in terms of the Liquor Act. But then as far as the Hotels Act, Act 70 of 1965, is concerned, provision is made for grading, in the first place for registration and in the second Diace for the grading of hotels. According to the Hotels Act, the position is that an hotel can only be registered and graded when it has a liquor licence. Since the Hotels Act refers to the Act of 1928, in other words our Liquor Act, in so far as it relates to liquor licences, it would appear that the Hotels Act, as far as the registration and grading of hotels is concerned, cannot be applied in cases where the liquor licences are held in terms of the Proclamation of 1949. That is the position. I hope the hon. member understands it now. Or does he not understand it yet?

That is what I said.

I just want to make it clear again. Classification in terms of the Liquor Act means where a hotel is classified. If it is classified as such it acquires certain additional rights in terms of the Liquor Act, namely off consumption. It is also entitled to transfer the off consumption to another place. Grading is solely, as the word indicates, the grading of hotels according to the standard which is maintained and according to the regulations which are drawn up in terms of the Hotels Act. I understand that in the Transkei there was a victuallers association, i.e. The Transkeian Territory’s Licenced Victuallers Association, to which, according to my information, the hon. member was secretary. Now I only want to tell the hon. member that if he still holds that position he ought to be in a strong position to make the necessary representations, if representations are needed. In the light of the present circumstances it does in fact seem to me that there is a measure of incongruity in so far that the grading of hotels in terms of the Hotels Act cannot be made applicable to hotels which hold licences in that territory in terms of the Proclamation. I think the position is quite clear now.

I now want to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member stated, quite rightly, that it is not a matter to which he wants a reply across the floor of the House here. It is really a matter which could result in a good deal of debating, namely the question of which department ought really to control the Liquor Act.

You have got to start somewhere.

Yes, I understand that. Of course I can in no way blame the hon. member for having raised it. With us it has naturally become tradition that the Liquor Act is controlled by the Department of Justice. That has always been the case. I think there are certain reasons for that, particularly as far as the past is concerned. I am inclined to grant the hon. member’s point that since the Liquor Act has been changed so radically during the past few years there may not at present be the same important reasons there were previously. Previously there were many more restrictions in regard to the application of the Liquor Act than we have to-day. To mention one example. Liquor to-day is available to all people in South Africa irrespective of race or colour, except in the case where a person is specifically forbidden to obtain liquor. Previously that was not the case. Previously a part of our community was totally excluded from the privilege of being able to purchase liquor. In respect of other parts of our community we could impose conditions. With the application of that section there were inevitably a tremendous amount of problems. Shebeens were the order of the day and people bought and sold liquor without licences to people who could not obtain liquor from a licence holder. Such occurrences are a thing of the past to-day. It is inevitably so and we must accept it. Nevertheless I want to say the following while this matter is being discussed as well as for the consideration of the hon. member. Since the hon. member takes a particularly great interest in the liquor trade, more specifically as far as hotels are concerned, as well as the other liquor licence holders—I think I am correct when I put it this way—I think that the hon. member should, to a certain extent, be careful in the interests of the people for whom he so readily pleads in regard to these matters.

I see the matter thus. Previously the strict control in respect of liquor licences was essentail precisely because of the restrictive sections as contained in the Liquor Act. But on the grounds of the representations which were made by the licence holders, the hotel owners, the bottle store owners and whomsoever else, we have had this relaxation. We have had this relaxation and there is to-day a totally free distribution of liquor. Anybody can go and buy just as much as he wishes. It does not matter who he is. No one is inclined to wonder why there is still that large measure of protection for the existing holder. As long as the hon. member continues to try and get these “pretty things”, as he called them, removed from the Liquor Act, he is going to make more and more use of the argument that there is no real reason any more for placing a wall of protection around the licence holder as it exists to-day. I cannot agree with the hon. member that the Liquor Act creates the impression outside that it inevitably has to do with criminal offences. I do not think that that is so. In fact I think that the Liquor Act to-day is there for the liquor trade to use for wider distribution in the first instance and in the second instance to the greater benefit of our hotel industry in particular. And I should like that greater benefit for our hotel industry in particular to remain. We see great advantages therein. During the past few years we have granted the hotels great privileges. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, as an occasional visitor to the Stanley Bar to a member of the Side Bar, may I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that had he come to me for some advice before he spoke I could have given it to him pro amico. Then he would not have made the mistake which he did when he referred to classification. Perhaps I should put the hon. the Deputy Minister right and assure him that classification although originally intended to give stars, is now starless. You merely classify and you do not receive one, two, three, four or five stars. The very reason why that happened was the reason which led to my raising the matter. You had two bodies, one grading from one star to five stars and another classifying from one star to five stars. To use the words of the Chairman of the Hotel Board as reported, he “blew his top” when he heard that the classification body was giving stars, because obviously you cannot have an hotel which is classified as two star but graded as three star, plus two glasses and something else. You would not know where you were so the National Board has dropped classification into stars. It is exactly that sort of duplication which led to the Minister’s own Department having to change an instruction already gazetted and distributed to the whole trade and is a perfect example of why it was necessary to remove dual control. That is why I say that I am very glad to give the hon. the Deputy Minister this professional advice for nothing.

As far as the Transkei is concerned it was not the member for Transkei who was confused. He put exactly the position as put by the Deputy Minister, but he was refuted by the hon. the Minister of Tourism who said: “No, you do not know what you are talking about. They have got a choice”. Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give some pro amico advice to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Tourism. The hon. member for Transkei is trying to eliminate what is a weakness as the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly said. As far as the hon. Minister’s reference to petty restrictions are concerned there is a big difference between a petty restriction and protection. I believe that it would be fatal if one were to remove the direction and control which exists over vested interests which run into many millions of rands. To suddenly destroy an industry which has been built up over the whole of our history would be impossible. I believe there should be protection given to the vested rights of those who pay very large sums to the Government. Their premium of some R10,000 for a bottle store, etc., makes it an industry which has earned, because of legislative restrictions, the right to protection. But protection does not mean that you have got to have all these petty restrictions. I want to refer to one particular issue and that is one in which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister have been extremely helpful. I raise the matter now to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to make a statement.

The facts are that under the Liquor Act this House in 1963 decided that by the end of this year all wine and malt bars had to provide food in their bars. This year when the time for licensing came up it was suddenly found, a matter of weeks ago, that in terms of the Group Areas Act the serving of food to Coloureds in a White area constituted “occupation”. The Department of Community Development said: Oh no, you cannot run restaurants here. The Minister of Justice said that unless you serve food you lose your licence. But the Minister of Community Development said: If you serve food I will run you in. Then of course in order to serve the food they had to get a restaurant licence, which meant they had to abide by municipal regulations. These regulations provide that the restaurants had to have a kitchen and that the kitchen had to have a stainless steel sink, etc. Then the Minister of Community Development came along and said: You cannot have one kitchen for Whites and Coloureds. You have got to have one for each. Then they compromised and said you could have one stove and two wash-ups. And so the thing has grown. I don’t know whether you must cook curry and rice for the Whites on one plate of the stove and for the Coloureds on another plate. That problem has been solved. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wolmaransstad gets cross, but this is a matter of tremendous concern to some hundred licensees who will within three weeks from now, stand to lose their livelihood. They stand to lose their livelihood, and it is not a matter which one can treat as though it is of no concern. These are problems which face the industry. The Minister and the Deputy Minister have been extremely helpful. I am grateful and thank them for it but I mention this because it is another perfect example of the sort of confusion that happens when different departments deal with the same thing. The matter is not yet sorted out. The Minister is going to have to deal with dozens and dozens of applications for extension. This is another aspect where I believe that duplication of control is the cause of the headache.

Then there is the other field, and here I want to tie up with what the hon. the Minister said about more outlets for the distribution of liquor, namely grocers’ wine licences. The hon. the Deputy Minister correctly stated that the intention of the amendment to the Liquor Act and the grading of hotels was to enable hotels to obtain financial assistance and benefits including off-sales consumption so that they could improve the standard of their hotels. However, before they have had a chance to classify, two years before the closing date, the Minister has started to issue grocers’ wine licences which will be in direct competition with them and negate the effect of the benefit of an off-sales licence. One licence which he has granted already, is selling wine at one cent below cost—in other words using it as a bait to sell groceries. No business can run by selling products below cost. The Minister must now make up his mind as to whether he is going to allow wine to become a bait for selling food in a grocery shop, or whether he will continue the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister who, when he introduced this provision, said that as long as the trade continued to foster the sale of wine, they would not find themselves in competition with grocers’ wine licences. The industry has tried to do that. I have not time to deal with it. I have numerous data here. They have tried; they have struck difficulties; they have struck snags. I am not saying that it should never happen, but I am saying that in a period of flux while the very thing the hon. the Minister has envisaged, namely off sales being granted to hotels, is about to take place, it is not the time to upset the apple cart by starting what essentially will become a price war which can only do harm both to the progress of hotels, which was the unanimous object of this House when it passed the legislation, and the orderly control and direction of liquor sales. I think classification has only dealt with a tiny fraction of hotels so far. Out of 1,500 just a handful have so far been classified. Until we get certain other problems connected with the Department of Tourism cleared up, it is going to be a long time before that position will be straight. And in this period when people are trying to obtain classification and are spending tens of thousands of rands to meet the minimum demands of the Minister’s Department, they now suddenly find this additional barrier placed in their way. A number of them are already saying: “Why should I bother to improve my hotel if I am going to find the bazaars and all the grocers around me selling in competition?” If so, then the hon. the Minister must consider refunding licence premiums and allowing bottle stores to sell toothpaste and groceries and anything else they want to sell.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has brought forward this important matter right in the end, in the dying phases of the debate. There was so much time in which we could have discussed it properly. I just want to tell him that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that licences to grocers will be freely granted. I reserve the right to determine my policy in this regard and we will learn from experience what we must do in this regard. I may just mention to the hon. member that I saw in the newspaper the day before last that even butchers were now asking for wine licences. I am aware of all the facts which he mentioned and I would have preferred him to have entered the debate earlier.

Apart from that there is very little I have to reply to. I just want to refer once more to the hon. member for Transkei. Apparently the hon. member is under the impression that the State must under all circumstances furnish legal aid. As far as this is concerned, I also reserve the right to decide about it at a later stage. My own impression at this moment is that it cannot happen. The State cannot grant legal aid under all circumstances to all accused persons. I want to concentrate on the question of legal aid to accused persons with a political background. I have said that as soon as the arrangements which have been made in this connection have served their purpose I will give instructions for them to be withdrawn. To that I want to add—as I have already done by way of interjection—that that will be done as soon, and not before, as alternative arrangements are made in this connection.

What about civil cases?

As far as civil cases are concerned, I simply cannot at this stage see my way clear to compromising the State at this stage already.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? Is he prepared to appoint a commission to consider the entire matter and to consult with the Bar and the Side-Bar?

Earlier in the debate I have already indicated to the hon. member that this matter is receiving the attention of the Department. The Department will in fact consult thoroughly with the Bar, the Side-Bar and all interested parties. However, I cannot at this stage give the undertaking that a commission will in fact be appointed in this connection. I am referring now to the hon. member for Kroonstad who pleaded for the magistrates in the rural areas and said that these officials hold exceptional positions. I agree with him. I also agree with him that they should be held in esteem. However, it is a sign of the times that people in certain offices no longer receive the respect to which they are entitled from the public. I can still remember the time when children took off their hats to a Member of Parliament. That does not always happen to-day. I am afraid that a measure of commercialism has entered our way of life.

The magistrate in the rural areas is entitled, as an executive officer of the Central Government, to the utmost respect and the highest regard. I agree with him whole-heartedly. As far as the magistrate’s residences (drosdye) are concerned, the policy is the same as it has been in the past 50 years, i.e. that only in a place with a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants is a magistrate’s residence (drosdy) granted. The idea is that the magistrates of such places are usually young officials and still have children in the house, and that provision must therefore be made for them. In larger places the magistrates are usually more senior officials. More accommodation is available and that is why no provision is made for accommodation. The present residence (drosdyskap) of Kroonstad dates back to the past. The hon. member must therefore be glad of what he has, because the moment it lapses he will no longer be entitled to a new residence because his town already has more than 10,000 inhabitants.

In all haste I want to tell the hon. member for Boland that I have every sympathy with his argument. It is already being done. The first court in a Coloured area will shortly be introduced in Athlone. Initially two White magistrates will be in charge of this court. Use will be made of Coloured clerks who will in due course be trained. This is in accordance with the policy of this side of the House.

What about these language tests?

In the past it has been the case that officials have been tested in both languages. Now it can happen that he only passes in one language and must only be tested the next year in the other language. Consequently one finds that in the last few years 31 were tested in both languages, but that there remained quite a number who still had to be tested in either the one or the other language. Consequently this number is so much greater.

I want to return to the hon. member for Durban (North). We cannot let this matter pass. The hon. member for Durban (North) has been rather boastful. I am referring in the first place to the Pretoria News of 25th August, 1966. In that newspaper the following, inter alia, was said—

That is not true, but it is now being used as a base. The article continues—

Where is the hon. member now? The same report also appeared in the Star under a headline this size, namely “Queries about legal aid—Mr. Michael Mitchell”—

We have been urging him on the whole morning to say something, but not a single word in this connection has been said by the hon. member for Durban (North). In fact, he is not even in the House at the moment. I see the hon. member for Durban (North) entering the House at this moment. I wonder whether I should repeat what I have said. I think the hon. member knows exactly what I said. I refer him to my Hansard in this connection. I must express my disappointment for his having been so boastful in the Pretoria News and his having been so boastful in the Star, and for, after having cast all kinds of reflections on the Secretary of Justice, remaining seated here to-day and not saying a single word about the things which he promised he would reveal under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) also referred here—and I think he expected us to say something about that—to the question of the wine and malt licences. Apparently the hon. member is not interested in that, but I nevertheless want to tell this House that the problem in regard to the wine and malt licences was brought to the attention of the Department quite some time ago. The hon. the Minister and I considered them, and we are granting all possible concessions to the wine and malt licences. Yet I want to issue a warning to the hon. member and the people for whom he is pleading here and that is that they have had time, since 1963, to comply with the requirements of the Act. The new requirements are made applicable as from 1st January of next year. During this entire period there were many of them who have honestly done nothing, or very little, to comply with the requirements of the Act. Nevertheless we have made the necessary arrangements for those for whom it is impossible to comply with the requirements before 1st January to make application to the hon. the Minister for an extension of time in order to comply with the requirements of the Act as far as the provision of a restaurant, etc., is concerned.

In this late hour of the debate I should like to touch upon another little matter which I think is quite important. I think that an alarming picture is being painted here of the extent of crime in South Africa. We who deal with the administration of justice are concerned about the crime rate, but the position in fact is not so bad in South Africa. During the past five years the crime rate in the U.S.A. has increased by 46 per cent and here in South Africa it has only increased by 1.4 per cent. During the past ten years the crime rate has increased by only 9 per cent in South Africa. In comparison with the rest of the world I think that the position in South Africa is exceptionally favourable as far as the increase in crime is concerned. Shortly after the war there was of course a tremendous increase as a result of the post-war circumstances, but the position has changed completely now. Perhaps the favourable economic circumstances during the past few years have contributed to the diminishing crime rate in South Africa. Sir, I wanted to express these few thoughts here so that the hon. gentlemen do not leave this place under the impression that the crime rate in South Africa is alarming.

The hon. the Minister has taken me to task because during the course of the speech which I made this morning I did not deal with the question of legal aid. The matter was raised by the Chairman of the justice group on this side of the House, and what I indicated was that the matter would be raised. Well, it has been raised; the matter has been talked about. I do not think it is possible to say that the matter has been thrashed out. The matter that I certainly would like to raise is the statement made by Mr. Oberholzer. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees or does not agree with it. If that is a correct statement of what that official said.

I agree with what Mr. Oberholzer said, but not with what the hon. member says. The hon. member never gave me an opportunity to reply to him.

Well, the hon. the Minister has the opportunity now. If the hon. the Minister would tell this Committee how it comes about that it is “paradoxical for the State to undo the work of the police by giving legal aid”, we would be very much obliged to him. This is one of the reasons why it is a very good thing that the situation which now obtains should continue and that a Government Department should not be dealing both with the police and with the administration of justice, because this state of mind can only arise in a person who is charged with the duties of conducting both the affairs of the Department of Justice and the administration of justice and at the same time the affairs of the police. Will the hon. the Minister tell us how it is paradoxical for the State to undo the work of the police by giving legal aid? Does he really think that that is the position? I am told that our time has expired and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give me a reply.

Order! The time for the debate has expired and no Minister is allowed to reply either.

On a point of order, the 100 hours prescribed in terms of the Rules, does not in my submission include the time taken up by the Minister’s answer.

The Rules provide that when the 100 hours have expired no Minister or hon. member may make a speech. I refer the hon. member to Rule 96.

The Minister is saved by the gong.

On the conclusion of the period of 100 hours allotted for Committee of Supply in terms of Standing Order No. 91, business interrupted by the Chairman in terms of Standing Order No. 96.

Revenue Votes Nos. 38, 40 and 41, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

This Bill needs no introduction, to the extent that it gives effect to the taxation proposals which were Tabled by me on the 17th August and afterwards accepted by this House, as well as the concessions announced by me in my Budget statement. Even those amendments for which provision is made and which I have not previously mentioned, call for very little comment at this stage. They are non-contentious and involve no new principles. In fact, they consist for the greater part of further concessions, such as the increase from R4,000 to R6,000 in the maximum of the exemption granted in respect of lump sum retirement benefits; the exemption in respect of bursaries in the hands of students; the reserve in respect of claims which have not been intimated or paid by short-term insurers; and the extension of the special allowances enjoyed by the owners of foreign-going ships to the owners of ships used for prospecting for minerals or for mining operations.

For the rest the amendments to which reference has not previously been made, are principally aimed at removing anomalies, obtaining greater clarity and, in the case of the amendment introduced by paragraph (a) of Clause 11, to provide specific exemption in favour of certain public institutions which have hitherto been exempted from tax, not because of any statutory provision but because it has been accepted that the revenues received by them in carrying out their functions do not constitute income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. An exemption on these lines was recommended by the Steyn Committee of Inquiry into the Income Tax Act and accepted by the Income Tax Commission of 1953. The exemption is now being inserted at the request of certain of the institutions concerned to put the matter beyond any doubt.

Clause 9 introduces an amendment designed to stop a possible loophole in Section 7 (5) of the principal Act which, in turn, was introduced in 1941 with the object of curbing tax avoidance.

The next amendment affects farmers in general. In terms of the existing provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act, farmers are allowed to deduct the cost of establishing orchards and vineyards as well as the cost of establishing or acquiring plantations, but the Schedule contains no provision in regard to the cost of establishing trees, shrubs, or perennial plants which do not qualify as orchards, vineyards or plantations. Hitherto this hiatus in the law has not given rise to problems which could not be solved administratively. With the advent of tea planting on a large scale, however, problems have arisen which are not capable of solution otherwise than by way of legislation. The amendment introduced by Clause 27 provides for the deduction of the cost of establishing not only orchards, vineyards and tea plantations, but also trees, shrubs or perennial plants for the production of nuts, coffee, hops, sugar, vegetable oils or fibres.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to an amendment which has the effect of changing the basis of taxing amounts recovered or recouped in respect of allowances previously granted in relation to ships to a basis which is more realistic and at the same time in keeping with similar concessions granted in respect of industrial machinery and aircraft. I refer to the provision in terms of which the taxation of amounts recovered or recouped by ship owners in respect of foreign-going ships are, subject to certain conditions, deferred until the death, insolvency or, in the case of companies, liquidation of the owners. In terms of the amendment introduced by paragraph (b) of Clause 10, amounts recovered or recouped on or after the 17th August, 1966, in respect of ships’ allowances will be allowed to be set off against the cost of any further ships acquired by the owners in replacement of the ships in relation to which the recoveries or recoupments have been made, and only the balance, if any, of the amounts so recovered or recouped as cannot be set off against the cost of any further ships will be taxable for the year in which the recovery takes place.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will agree that I have said all that is necessary for me to say at this stage. Although time has not permitted me of following my usual practice of publishing Income Tax Bills before they are introduced I have again provided an explanatory memorandum in which all the provisions of the Bill are fully explained.

We support the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said he gave us an explanatory memorandum but I must say that we have had very little time to consider this Bill, principally due to the shortness of the Session. Although the Minister was good enough to give us an advance copy of the Bill there was inadequate time to give it all the consideration that we would have liked to have given it.

I think it is advisable at this stage to say that I think the time has now arrived when the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to the introduction of a new income tax law. The last time that we had a new income tax law was in 1941 and then we had a consolidation of the Act 21 years later in 1962. Some considerable time has elapsed therefore since we had a complete overhaul of our income tax law. I think this is a matter which should receive the consideration of the Minister. I would remind him that one of his predecessors, the late Mr. N. C. Havenga, appointed the Steyn Committee and that committee was charged with the duty of considering amendments to the income tax law but exclusive of gold mines. I suggest that the time has come when we should consider the question of overhauling the whole of the income tax law, including mining taxation. This is a formidable task. We know that the Minister has introduced a consolidating measure but I think it is high time the whole taxation law was revised. The Bill before the House at the moment is an amending measure. It gives effect to the hon. the Minister’s new taxation proposals; it grants certain concessions and it also makes provision for certain administrative steps to close loopholes in the Act. I would like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the question of donations by individuals when he comes to consider the introduction of a new income tax law. The Minister has in the past allowed deductions in the case of donations made by companies to universities and similar organizations, but there is no such allowance given to individuals. Approaches are frequently made by these large institutions such as universities and similar educational bodies, to individuals, and in effect when they ask an individual for a donation of R1,000 towards an institution, they are asking for a donation of R3,000 if that individual is in the higher tax bracket. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should give this matter consideration because the principle has already been accepted in so far as it affects companies. While it is true that in many cases individuals bring such donation to the notice of their companies, I think that the hon. the Minister, if he wishes to help the universities, may be losing the opportunity of getting that help.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far.

Sir, I am dealing with the amendments to the Act.

The hon. member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

I am making suggestions to the hon. the Minister with a view to bringing about improvements, since we are dealing here with the Income Tax Act, and I hope that the Minister will introduce those improvements when he considers the introduction of a new income tax law.

Sir, I would like to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Pinetown that the hon. the Minister should give some consideration to the question of re-investigating the Income Tax Act itself. There are numbers of anomalies in the Act, as the hon. the Minister knows. I had a notice of a private member’s motion on the Order Paper last session, a motion which never saw the light of day, suggesting that a commission should be appointed. Those of us who have to deal with the Income Tax Act find anomalies of which I am sure the Minister and the Secretary are aware, just as we are aware of them. I think the time has arrived when people should sit down together and try to solve some of these problems, and I hope the Minister will give this matter his consideration.

This Income Tax Bill, like most Income Tax Bills, is sweet and bitter.

Very bitter.

It is bitter in that it provides for new taxes, which we of course dealt with in the Budget debate. But the hon. the Minister has dropped a little sugar in the tea, as he has said, and he has made one or two concessions which are most acceptable and for which we are grateful. He particularly mentioned the question of study bursaries now being exempt from tax, and he also referred to the increase from R4,000 to R6,000 in lumpsum payments in regard to annuities. I am also glad to see the implementation of the hon. the Minister’s suggestion in his Budget speech regarding certain patents and inventions —a very useful thing.

Sir, there is one matter I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister in regard to Section 10 of the principal Act, and that is the question of annuities which are purchased. There are certain provisions in this Bill with regard to payments towards annuities, but when an annuity is received, particularly an annuity which has been purchased and where the purchase price is not deductible for income tax purposes, the total amount of that annuity is taxable in the hands of the recipient although in effect part of what he receives is a return of his own capital. I know there have been a certain number of legal decisions on this matter. That is because the Income Tax Act is as it is and therefore it was held that no relief can be given. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the U.K., in Section 27 of the Finance Act of 1956, there is special provision that in the case of purchased annuities the capital portion is exempt from tax. In Section 8 (a) of the Rhodesian Federation Act of 1954 there is provision for the taxation of annuities excluding such portion as in the opinion of the Commission represents the purchase price. And in Australia, Section 26 (a) of their Act provides for the inclusion in income of an annuity, but excluding in the case of a purchased annuity that part of the amount which represents the undeducted purchase price, i.e. so much of the purchase price as has not been allowed to be deducted for tax purposes, and they give the way in which it is calculated. These countries whose income tax laws are very much on a par with ours have thought fit, and I believe correctly, to allow as a deduction from tax of what is in fact the repayment to an individual of the capital payment he has made to purchase that annuity. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this particular aspect.

Another section of this Bill which we are glad to see is the increase from R300 to R600 in regard to people who on account of their physical disability, or that of their wives, have to make expenditure for the purpose of carrying on their trade. That is in Clause 12. This is a very right and proper thing. As a parallel I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give consideration to the question of the medical allowance we now have of R200 per annum. Very often a taxpayer does not use this amount in a particular year, but he finds in the following year that the impact of medical expenditure becomes very high. I wonder whether the Minister would not give consideration to allowing the allowance to be treated on a two-yearly basis, so that if very little is spent in one year it may be carried forward to the next year, so that the maximum will be R400. That is the parallel, to some extent, of the case dealt with in Clause 12.

There is one other matter. In 1942 we changed the law in regard to divorced persons. This has resulted in some strange anomalies, as the hon. the Minister probably knows. Let me give him an example. A man who was divorced before 1962 is entitled to have any alimony he pays deducted from his income. If divorced after 1962 it is still income in his hands. So you get the situation that where Mr. A. was divorced after March, 1962, the total income he earns is taxable in his hands, irrespective of the fact that he makes an allowance to his ex-wife. Then he marries another divorcee who was divorced before 1962. Her income which she receives from her ex-husband is taxable in her hands. So the new husband pays tax on his entire income without deduction of any alimony he pays to his previous wife …

That just shows how careful one must be when getting married.

Yes. Then he has to pay tax on his new wife’s income. I know the reason the Minister gave at the time for the change in the law. He said the State was paying a large portion of the alimony, but I do not think he has really stopped that loophole because the rich man can go to our legal friends and get the correct advice. They will tell him to set up a trust before his divorce takes place, or he can make a donation, or he can do all sorts of things to see that the allowance he makes to his wife on divorce is very small indeed because the matter has been taken care of in advance. But it is the small man who is affected by this sort of thing You will remember, Sir, that when we dealt with this clause the hon. the Minister was good enough to accept an amendment so that people who were separated and then became divorced were regarded as having been divorced as at the date of separation, but this has also given rise to problems because people are separated and then want to get divorced, and there is usually a certain amount of pressure put upon one or other of the spouses. For example, if the man wants to get remarried, his wife from whom he is separated says she wants a large alimony otherwise she will not agree to the divorce. So you have problems where there has been the slightest change in the amount of the alimony. The husband no longer has the protection he had before 1962. Perhaps the Minister might consider changing that section so that it will apply as long as the alimony will be no higher than it was previously. In fact, I think the Minister will find that if he goes into this question, that there are so many anomalies and as he is not getting much more income as the result of the introduction of this section in 1962, he might care to scrap the change altogether.

I want to say that I am quite prepared to consider—I do not give any definite promises as to what will be the result of my consideration—the question of a new Income Tax Act. There has been a consolidation, of course, not very long ago, about four years ago.

It was in 1962.

Well, that is not so long ago. In the past four years we have made a large number of amendments and it may be that when I consider the matter more at my leisure I shall find that it will be useful and that we could spare the time needed for a consolidation. But that naturally will take some time. I am not prepared to think of appointing another commission to inquire into it. That is not necessary. We have acquired quite a lot of knowledge in the course of the years that this Department has administered the Act.

Of the points raised by hon. members, one is in regard to the donations by individuals and that we should also allow that to be deducted from their taxable income as in the case of companies. In the case of companies, hon. members will remember that it is confined to donations for a very limited class of subjects. There is a 1 per cent maximum deduction in the case of technological education and research. That was introduced, as I said at the time, for a very special reason. We were then entering the technological age and I did not want South Africa to lag behind, but I was never prepared to extend it beyond that particular subject. Two years ago I also allowed a deduction of 1 per cent in the case of companies for a contribution to the National Bursary Fund. The Government provides so much towards higher education in South Africa. It has been calculated that we pay about 71 per cent of the expenses of a student for higher education. I think the main deficiency to-day is not in regard to the very able and brilliant student who can get a bursary, but to give the more average student an opportunity to go to the university. I have always thought that would be a better contribution than any further direct contribution towards the universities. This will help all universities. I was prepared to allow a deduction, and as the result of that hon. members will realize that we are paying 30 per cent and the donor only pays 70 per cent. But the response to it has been most disappointing. I think in the first year it was about R20.000, and in the second year it was even less. I am very disappointed because I think this goes to the very heart of the question. But I am not prepared to allow this for individuals, for the simple reason that the State, by its contributions to universities and by the fact that it is actually providing 71 per cent of the costs of university students has done its best; we have done enough. I do not think we should be called upon to sacrifice more revenue than we are doing now.

I think the remark of the hon. member for Parktown was that the Income Tax Act, like all of them, was bitter.

And sweet, I said.

I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. member. I was going to say that it was bittersweet. After all, the Bible says it is better to give than to receive, and I always think of the mass of taxpayers rather than of my own position! The hon. member referred to annuities and asked that the capital portion contributed by the annuitant during his lifetime should not be taxed at all, and he has given the examples of other countries. I think we have followed a much more realistic policy here, of exempting from taxation a maximum amount of R4,000 even if he has not contributed the full amount, and now we are raising that amount to R6,000. I think we are doing very well by the annuitants. We have increased the tax-free amount by 50 per cent. The hon. member has asked for a new basis for this. We can consider that when we consider the question of consolidating the Act again.

Then there is the question of the self-employed, who are now allowed to deduct up to R2,000. It is really part of the other provision where the employee is allowed to deduct a certain amount from his taxable income and the same for the employer. So there are two contributions. We have always said, when we introduce this for the self-employed person, that where there is only one person who makes a contribution towards his pension, his contribution, free of taxation, should be doubled. So it is related. We are putting both up, in the case of the employee from R600 to R1,000, and in the case of the self-employed person, the professional man, we are putting it up from R1,200 to R2,000. But there must be a fixed ratio. That is the whole idea of this clause.

Then the hon. member mentioned divorced persons and he pointed out an anomaly. We are aware of that anomaly, but I must point out to the hon. member that that anomaly was introduced in 1962 when I came to the assistance of these people! So I do not think that should be held against me. I could return to the previous position and take away the anomaly again, but I think the number of cases that fall into this class is very limited. In our experience I think there was only one case where a divorced person, divorced after 1962, married another divorced person who was divorced before 1962. But you cannot make a law for individuals. Hard cases make bad law. I think we will have to leave it at that for the moment. The whole position will of course also be considered when we look at the Income Tax Act again.

Bill read a Second Time.

I should like the Minister to give me some more information in regard to Clause 12 (g), dealing with the allowance made for the physical disability of persons.

This is an amendment to Section 11 (v). It means that the total maximum amount which can be deducted from the income under Section 11 in respect of the expenditure incurred in any year of assessment by any person in consequence of his physical disability, or by his wife in consequence of her physical disability and for the purposes of carrying on his or her trade, is increased from R300 to R600, provided such persons’ taxable income does not exceed R4,000. Previously it was R3.000 and the maximum was R300. Now the maximum is raised to R600 and the maximum income is raised to R5,000 if both spouses are incapacitated and derive income from trade. So now any person earning under R5,000 can make use of this to a maximum of R600. where, of course, the Secretary is satisfied that there is the necessary disability to entitle him to this concession.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, Clause 14 gives the Minister power having regard to the circumstances of the case, to determine the allowance for so-called border industries. The marginal note reads—“Allowance to manufacturers in economic development areas in respect of the cost of power, water and transport”. Now, Sir, I think that it is wrong in fiscal matters to give the power to the Minister. I think in fiscal matters it should be left to the Department with an appeal to the special court. But the objection I have to this is that the industry concerned goes to this border area and does not know what its position is until it has been established for some time. Until such time as it has a taxable income, it does not know what its determination is. The industry can go to the border area, they build their factory, they establish their industry, they install their plant, and it is not until they render a tax return and submit accounts that they know what the Minister considers to be a reasonable amount. Now, I want to know whether it is the intention of the Minister to give the industry concerned notice in advance of what his decision is going to be, or is it going to be the practice of the Department to wait until the industry is established? When industries are proposed to be established in these areas, they have to take into account the economic factors and the amount of the allowance in this case can be a substantial amount. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in a case like this it is wrong, first of all, to put it in the hands of the Minister. I think in fiscal matters it is well that the Minister should be kept out of these matters. Further I think, it is not wise that the industry should be put in a position of having to wait until it is earning an income, until it is submitting an account, before it knows what its allowance is. I should like to know whether it is the inten tion of the Minister to indicate the allowance in advance, or whether he intends not to disclose his hand until the industry concerned submits its accounts.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the hon. member’s contention that a Minister should not be allowed to have this discretion, I cannot agree with him. The whole case is laid before me, it is prepared, and very fully prepared, by my Department, and I have to give the decision. I cannot allow my Department to give that decision. They advise me, but I am the person who is ultimately responsible for it. As I say, I act to a large extent on their advice. Sometimes I have a discussion and we usually reduce the amount. That I can also say. But this particular clause really makes no change. Previously my only discretion was that I had to give 10 per cent or nothing. All that this clause does is to change my discretion so that I can give anything up to 10 per cent. In other words, I can say that in this case I will give 5 per cent, but under the previous Act I could give either the full 10 per cent or refuse to give anything at all. This clause is intended to give a little more flexibility in the application of my discretion. I am naturally to a very large extent guided by what the Department puts before me after consultation with the Department of Economic Affairs.

As far as the second point is concerned, as far as I know—and I have had a number of experiences—it is not a question of waiting up to the time that an assessment has been made. A person can, if he wishes to establish a factory, inquire beforehand whether the particular factory which he intends establishing will be in an economic development area as well as to what, if any, allowances will be granted to him. In most of the cases, as far as I remember—I do not know whether there had been an assessment at that time—there is no indication on the papers before me that there has been a prior assessment and that he is now coming to me for assistance under this clause. I deal with it, apart from any question of assessment. If there has been an assessment, I do not know about it at all on the papers before me. I treat the matter entirely on certain fixed principles, and I have regard to the number of people who will be employed, the non-Whites who will be employed there, the capital costs in the case of a new plant or, if it is an extension of an old plant, the capital costs involved in this extension or in the building of the new plant, and the amount of tax that will have to be sacrificed by me.

I consider this matter in regard to the benefit that it will confer on the object which we have in mind, namely employment of non-Whites in those areas.

That is the basis that I have followed so far, but whether they, when they come to me, have already had an assessment or not, I cannot say.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the Minister’s reply, he is prepared to give in advance to an industry, an indication of the amount that he is prepared to allow under the section. Do I understand that it is possible that the Minister can give a decision to give one particular firm an allowance of 10 per cent—which is the maximum—and another firm 8 per cent? Can he discriminate so that one firm will have one allowance whilst another firm will have another allowance? Now, can I take the Minister a stage further, Sir? Does the Minister contemplate altering the percentage between one year and another? I have in mind, Sir, that the Minister can come to a decision that he will give 10 per cent in one year based upon, as the Minister says, the proportion of non-European employees to White employees. Suppose that firm mechanizes during the year, and as a result of mechanization alters the ratio of non-White to White, and reduces the number of non-Whites, is it possible that the allowance will be altered in the light of the changed circumstances?

Mr. Chairman, I think that once this has been granted, as far as I know—I cannot be dogmatic about it—that is then an allowance which he is allowed annually. As far as the question of whether I can discriminate is concerned, under the old law I could say that I will not give anything at all. I had no further discretion. But I might think that there is a case which I do not think is deserving. The way in which it answers the requirements for aid is not sufficient to warrant a full 10 per cent. On the other hand I might think they must still have some assistance, and then I can give them the amount of assistance which I think is more or less commensurate with the merits of their particular case. Once it has been given, it can be taken away. The position is that the Minister may make a determination in respect of each year of assessment. The amount is not necessarily fixed. That is the position, and the hon. member is quite right. I can alter it. But as far as I remember no case of that kind has come up. It may be that the information on which the original amount was decided upon is afterwards found not to be correct at all. Because one of the main points I said is the number of non-Whites who are given employment, and what in terms of tax relief it will cost per non-White. This is one of the factors I lay great store by. If they give the wrong information and I found out, then naturally the following year I shall not do it again.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Minister has clarified that because this could be a penal clause. When the Minister says that the firm concerned may have given wrong information, they penalize themselves altogether, so far as allowances are concerned. I am not concerned so much with a firm giving wrong information, because a firm giving wrong information is subject to the extreme penalties of the Act. What I am concerned about is where the circumstances within a firm change as a result of change in policy or modernization of the plant. One can imagine a case of an industry applying to the Government to establish an industry in one of these border areas, a textile industry for instance, and having such a ratio of non-European to European employees that it would attract the highest allowance the Minister is prepared to give, namely 10 per cent. The ratio of non-European to European may be such that the Minister may regard it as an industry which should be encouraged by giving that allowance which is recommended to him by his colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs. Now that firm, after having established itself in that area, in a subsequent year, introduces the most modern automatic machinery. The factory is then in a position of not giving wrong information but of so altering its ratio of non-European to European that it cuts down substantially the ratio between its non-European and European employees. Now, as I understand the Minister’s reply, that firm could have that allowance withdrawn altogether or substantially reduced, and I think it is well that it should be made perfectly clear so that industrialists could know where they stand. They will know that if they modernize their plant, if they disturb the ratio, they put themselves in a position possibly of earning the Minister’s displeasure and having this allowance cut or withdrawn altogether.

Mr. Chairman, it is not correct to say there must be a ratio between White and non-White.

I understood the Minister to say that there was such a ratio.

No, I must know how how many non-Whites are being given employment and what is the amount of tax which I have to sacrifice per non-White. That is one of the factors which I have to take into consideration. I shall now give an example to the hon. member. If there are 100 non-Whites employed on a particular project and there is a tax sacrifice of R10,000 per year, and if that employment figure falls to one, then the justification for the R10,000 sacrifice in taxation simply disappears. That is an extreme case, and that is the basis on which I work.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill effect the necessary amendments to the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, and the Diamond Export Duty Act, 1957, respectively, to put into effect the relevant taxation proposals that have already been approved by the House.

Clause 2 amends the Estate Duty Act, 1955, with the object of granting relief in a case where the taxable assets in the estate of a deceased person include an annuity payable by a pension or other fund in terms of an insurance policy, and where the annuitant dies within five years of the death of the deceased person, or where the annuity ceases to be payable within the abovementioned period because the annuitant is the widow of the deceased person and has re-married within the abovementioned period. The amendment is self-explanatory. I need not amplify it any further.

The amendment to Section 3 of the Estate Duty Act meets a deficiency by providing that if the taxable value of an estate includes an amount due or payable by a fund upon or as a result of the death of the deceased, the person to whom the amount accrues shall be liable for the duty payable on that amount. I move.

This side of the House supports the second reading of this Bill and does not intend conducting any discussion at this stage.

Bill read a Second Time.

We welcome this clause. As the hon. the Minister has said, he is changing the position regarding estate duty in so far as annuities are concerned. This amendment is designed to alleviate the position by limiting the duty payable if there is marriage within five years or the annuitant should die. What I should, however, like to know is what the practical implications of this clause are. As I have said, we welcome this clause but there may be certain problems. If the annuitant dies after three or four years, estate duty would already have been paid and the estate would in all probability have been closed off. So there will have to be a refund of duty payable by the fiscus to somebody—it may be to the estate, it may be to certain heirs under the estate or it may be to other persons in the estate, but a refund of duty will be payable. This duty may have to be apportioned between the estate and other persons who obtained benefits from properties deemed to have passed in the estate. Therefore the estate of the deceased may have to be reopened. There seems to be no machinery basically provided to give effect to this particular provision. I hope therefore that the hon. Minister will indicate to us how he thinks this will work in practice and whether these problems have been considered, because in practically every case where the annuitant has died or has re-married within five years after the annuity became available, occasions will arise where estate duty will be refundable by the fiscus and following from that there will probably be a reopening of the estate. There are also certain other problems which will flow from this in regard to other persons entitled to benefits under the estate.

As far as my experience goes very few estates are closed within five years. In my experience it usually takes a very long time even in the case of a moderately small estate. In reply to the hon. member I should like to say that there always is provision in the law for what has to happen to certain moneys accruing into an estate which has already closed down. But this is not a matter which I can discuss with the hon. member across the floor of the House. If he wants to have a considered opinion I suggest he should brief someone else and pay the necessary fee for it. I am sure, however, that as far as my knowledge goes there are means, or they can be found, for dealing with a situation where there is an amount which has to be paid into an estate which has already closed. The means for doing that will be found.

Quite frankly I did not expect an answer from the hon. the Minister but I thought it proper that this point should be raised so that the department concerned can give some thought to the matter in the meantime, because this type of problem is going to arise. I do not think the hon. the Minister is quite correct in stating that most estates are not dealt with within five years. The estates with which I deal, I am happy to say, take much less than five years. So I should be very happy to come to the assistance of the hon. the Minister should he run into trouble at some time or other. However, I simply intended focusing attention on the problem. It is probable that in terms of Section 6 (3) ways and means can be found. I simply wanted to focus attention on what is not a major problem but which still is a problem which can arise under this most useful and acceptable change in our law.

I am sure that the department will find the necessary means of dealing with the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The text of this Bill is very short, and apart from the change in the designation of the control post at district offices to “controller of customs and excise”, it provides for corrections to certain deficiencies in the principal Act, the large majority of which are to the benefit of importers, clearing agents, manufacturers, etc. Apart from the taxation proposals which have been fully discussed in the Committee of Ways and Means, the schedules, which form the major part of the Bill, contain amendments to the schedules of the principal Act which have been made since 24th March 1965, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries and which are now ratified in terms of Section 48 (6) of the said Act. Hon. members have already received notice of this. The position is that the list of amendments in the schedules, amendments made on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries, has to be ratified from year to year. The amendments are also explained in a memorandum made available to all hon. members, but if there are any hon. members who desire more information, I shall satisfy their desire as far as possible.

We have no objection to the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said many of its provisions have been discussed by us during the Budget Debate and also during Committee of Ways and Means. There is, however, one item which we cannot accept and that is the penalty tax on beer against which we intend voting during the Committee Stage. Most of the recommendations in the schedule have already been dealt with, as I have said, or are items which have been recommended by the Board of Trade and Industry or are items which have been fully discussed with interested parties. Under the circumstances we shall not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

There is only one matter which I would like to raise at this stage. This relates to the application of this measure at parcels offices. When one receives a parcel from overseas the documentation which is required is so involved and complicated that the ordinary person can very seldom handle it.

What clause are you referring to?

I am dealing with the application of these tariffs to the person who receives goods from overseas and has to pay the tariff. I could also relate this to the change in the title of the controller because sometimes I feel that he should not be called a controller but the wizard of unravelling and interpreting the schedule. The problem of the ordinary person receiving a parcel from overseas, any item which falls under one or other of these schedules, is that the procedure he has to go through in order to collect that parcel is so involved that he has, in fact, to use a professional clearing firm to collect his goods. I want to plead for a simplification of the documentation relating to customs duties when applied to parcels and air freight parcels from overseas. I can understand that when a shipment comes in you require bills of lading and all the other documents which are required in order to calculate and pay the correct duties. But the ordinary small businessman and the private individual receiving a parcel from overseas, a parcel which often is completely valueless …

By post?

Yes, by post, has got to go through the complete procedure laid down in the Customs Act as though it was a major shipment coming in and worth tens of thousands of rand.

My appeal is for some simplified procedure for parcels and air freight packages. Perhaps there could be a value limitation in respect of packages which do not constitute a major importation. Those of us with small businesses sometimes receive three of four parcels daily with a total value of less than a rand. And yet to clear goods which are virtually valueless, one has to pay a minimum charge of 50 cents to your clearing agent, simply for the filling in of forms. In fact, it is so complicated that if the South African Airways receive documents in respect of a parcel from overseas, in nine times out of ten, if not 99 times out of a 100, they do not even send the documents to the addressee. They send them to one or other clearing agent and the clearing agent then clears them for the addressee. It has just become standard practice now for the Airways to send the documents to a clearing agent. It is all very well when you are clearing a ship, but it is an unnecessary burden to have to pay the clearing agent’s fees on small items which, as I said, are often valueless. I hope that the hon. the Minister will go into that aspect.

For the layman to interpret and to classify items under this Act to-day is becoming a tremendous problem. Even the officials, when you enquire as to the tariffs applicable, simply cannot give you an answer. Although I realize that we are following the Brussels nomenclature now, there are still some incredible anomalies in this. For instance, you may import a machine and sell it to customer A in which event it would come in free of duty. The identical machine, if sold to customer B, becomes dutiable. I give you an example which I myself had. A machine sold to a clothing factory came in duty-free. But the identical machine sold to a laundry carried a duty. There is no difference, not a screw different: If I imported the machine and sold it to the clothing factory and then took it out of this factory and sold it to a laundry, I could evade the duty. But simply because a recipient is different, you have to pay a duty on it. There are numerous such anomalies which I believe still require a lot of attention before we can be completely happy with the position.

I quite understand the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to the smaller parcels arriving by air freight or by post. It is a very difficult matter. It has always been a matter that has given us considerable difficulty. It is not like a big consignment that comes by ship where you have the ordinary means of not only discovering what it is or what its dutiable value is, but it is to a certain extent something new. It is much smaller and we have to accommodate it. Take post offices all over the country. They have not got the same facilities. At the same time I want to say that we have our ordinary work-study officers who are continually busy with the problem of simplification of forms and procedures. And this will be one of the matters which, if they are not concerned with it yet. I shall ask them to look into. Because it is a matter of difficulty and my Department would like to have much more simplification all round. And it must be a simplification which will be consistent with carrying out their duties in a proper way. The Department has already performed wonders. The transposition to the Brussels Nomenclature was a very big task which they have carried out. It has simplified matters considerably and has removed a large number of anomalies. It may be quite right that there are still anomalies. I think the Department will look into that. As far as the other point which the hon. member has raised in regard to the importation of machines is concerned …

That was just an example.

I do not know. In certain cases for certain purposes rebates are granted on machinery. But that is not on the machinery as such but on the use to which the machinery is nut. It may be one of those cases. I do not think this is an example which is very well …

I took it right to the Commissioner.

… brought out against us. The hon. member should really direct his remarks to the Board of Trade and Industries. They are the people responsible for the fact that there are various rebates of duty on the same item depending on the use to which it has got to be put. We do not decide that. We simply have to carry out what they have decided. I have already dealt with parcels imported through the post. That work is done by the post office officials in most instances and it is not necessary to employ a clearing agent. I understand that the post office officials themselves are prepared to help the recipient of the parcel. In the case of goods imported under rebate of duty, however, the goods must be cleared at the customs house. The hon. member will realize that it is not the full duty that has to be paid. There is a rebate on the duty and the postmaster would not be able to help very much there. The whole question of simplification of forms and procedures is a matter which will engage the necessary attention. We have as I have said a special department for that kind of thing now. Our officers in regard to work-study will give their attention to this matter.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to launch a full-scale debate on this schedule. We dealt with it at some length under the Committee of Ways and Means, but we feel that it is necessary that a matter which we consider to be of the greatest importance, namely that of the discriminatory taxation on tariff item 104.10.20, should be placed on record as a matter to which we take the strongest exception.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move—

On page 41, to omit tariff item 104.10.20 and to substitute the following item:

I move this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to place on record our objection to the principle of a tax based upon efficiency and production. And I do so because when this matter was debated in this House we failed to attain from the hon. the Minister a clear picture of his intentions in regard to this.

The hon. the Minister refused to commit himself as to whether this was to be now general practice, or an isolated incident. He has therefore left industry in South Africa with the sword of Damocles hanging over its head. He has said to industry: “You must realize that at any time I may now impose on you a discriminatory tax to punish large-scale productivity.” We believe that this is harmful to the development of industry, that it is harmful as far as the attraction of capital for investment in industry is concerned and that it is harmful to an industry which is already established and is contemplating expansion. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we lodge the strongest possible objection to this type of taxation. Secondly we object to this tax because it cuts across the accepted policy of this Parliament, namely that we should try to persuade people who want to drink, to drink liquor with the lowest possible alcohol content—that is beer and wine. This Parliament accepted that as a principle and as a policy.

We have gone to considerable lengths to try to change the drinking pattern of South Africa, to attract people away from high alcohol-content liquor to low alcohol-content liquor. When we pointed out to the hon. the Minister that this particular tax was in direct conflict with that policy and with that drinking pattern, we received no explanation whatsoever from the hon. the Minister. He merely shrugged his shoulders and said: “Well, beer seems a good way of getting some money, and I am going to tax beer.” He did not indicate how he justified a tax which was going to drive people away from drinking the low alcohol-content beer. He did not tell us whether he now, as Minister of Finance, intends to pursue a policy which would make it more costly and therefore less attractive for people to drink beer rather than spirits, which for the same amount of money can give them more alcohol. We feel that the Minister owes the House, and that he owes the country a better and a more explicit explanation than the one which he has so far given, particularly in regard to the effect on this tax on the drinking pattern of the country. My information is that there has been a considerable drop in beer consumption in South Africa since this tax was imposed, and that already the effect of this tax is making itself felt on the beer drinker. And therefore I move my amendment.

As the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, we had a fairly detailed discussion on this matter in Committee of Ways and Means. The second point he raised here relates to the drinking pattern. I would not pretend to be an expert as far as the drinking pattern is concerned. If my son drinks anything, I should also prefer him to drink beer instead of brandy. If the hon. the Minister had simply asked for a general contribution from beer—an additional 23 cents per gallon—would the hon. Opposition still have objected to it? In view of their argument regarding the drinking pattern, I think it is most important that I should put this question directly to the Opposition. I am not speaking of the first part of the hon. member’s argument; I shall come to that later. I am now speaking purely with reference to the second part of his argument, namely as regards the drinking pattern. To me there is no argument about the fact that beer must also make a contribution. Neither in Committee of Ways and Means nor to-day has one member of the Opposition risen to say that beer should not also make its contribution to finance these Estimates and to distribute the burden widely in order to finance the Estimates in a non-inflationary way.

Beer has been penalized specially.

We are not speaking of the penalizing section of the clause now. We are now speaking of the basic increase of 23 cents per gallon. And the hon. members are silent.

Beer must make a contribution, but not disproportionately.

In other words, I take it that they would have regarded the increase of 23 cents per gallon as a reasonable contribution that beer should make. If that had been all there was to it, they would have accepted it. Surely that would also have changed the drinking pattern, because it would have increased the price of beer by 2 cents a pint. And hon. members know that. And with an increase of 2 cents per pint, it would have provided an additional one-tenth of a cent per pint profit to the breweries. In other words, I cannot regard this question of the drinking pattern as a matter of life and death.

I now come to the first part of the hon. member’s argument. According to that, there is now “a tax upon efficiency and production”, and he says: “Is this general practice now?” But at the same time he says: “The hon. the Minister refused to commit himself” and immediately afterwards he says “The sword of Damocles is hanging over industry in South Africa”. But surely both cannot be true. Why do they want to prod the hon. the Minister of Finance into an assurance that they would be able to hold against him in black and white for all times? This is a fiscal measure. This is a budgetary measure, and nothing more. This is a measure to raise money to finance a budget in a non-inflationary way, and nothing more. This is not a sinister threat to industry in South Africa. Industry in South Africa knows where it stands with this Government, and industry in South Africa may have the utmost confidence in this Government for the future, also as regards its fiscal and monetary policy.

Like the breweries today, it seems.

I want to say once again that this is not a case where the duty was levied on a company; we have to do here with a duty levied on a brewery, and all the breweries in South Africa could have carried the increased duty of 2 cents a gallon jointly. The companies that own various breweries will not lose anything. They have gone and increased the price of beer by 3 cents per pint. I ascertained that again to-day. Hon. members who paid 16 cents for a pint of beer only the other day, paid 19 cents for it this afternoon. The companies are going to make a much larger profit than they made previously, because this excise duty is passed on to the beer drinker, and they are taxing him even further by more than half a cent per pint. In other words, their profits will continue to increase. Then why are they complaining? As regards the drinking pattern, I do not believe that this increased duty will make any difference to it. I do not have much knowledge of it, but I think the drinking pattern will remain unchanged, and I want to make the point here that there was no need for the breweries to increase the price of beer by 3 cents per pint. I see this increased duty purely as a means of raising additional revenue, and the large breweries, because they are so large and because they are efficient, could have defrayed this additional amount from their profits. We have already discussed this in Committee of Ways and Means, and I am merely reiterating it from this side of the House for record purposes.

Sir, one sees very simply and easily what this tax means by turning to the Estimates of Revenue. The tax on beer last year produced R16,500,000; this year they expect R27,500,000, an increase of R11,150,000, which is being taken from the drinkers of beer.

What about spirits?

I am not talking about spirits; I am talking about a competitor with beer, which is wine. Let us take what has happened to wine this year. This year they expect from wine R6,400,000; last year they got R8,500.000. They have reduced the amount by R2,100,000. In other words, we are giving wine preference over beer. That is the first point. Then I come to the second point; I do not want to labour it; we have discussed it before. We say that the big producer, the efficient producer, should have his beer taxed at a higher rate; I am not talking about his profits; I am talking about the bottle of beer he sells. On that he should pay more than the small producer. I ask the hon. member for Paarl and I ask the hon. the Minister the same question—two gentlemen who know wine and brandy much better than I do or let me rather say, two gentlemen who know wine and brady production better than I do: Are they in favour of taxing a big producer of wine, at a higher rate than a small producer? I am talking about the price per bottle. If a man produces more, should he be taxed more per gallon or per pint or whatever it is? That is the principle. If the hon. the Minister is going to extend that principle—and we have asked him on more than one occasion for an assurance that he is not going to extend that principle— what is going to happen in industry, because the same principle will apply? I think this tax on beer is most unreasonable, particularly from the point of view of the consumption of light liquor, in regard to which an appeal was made to us by the hon. the Minister of Justice, an appeal to which I think the country has responded. I think it is most desirable that young people especially should drink beer rather than spirits or than wine even. As the hon. member for Queenstown has said he would rather see his son drink beer than brandy. Would he rather see him drink beer than wine?

Not necessarily.

I think he would because it is less potent and we like young people to drink the less potent beverages. We used to have a “special” beer which had a very low percentage of alcohol. I think that is the sort of drink that our young people should have. Sir, we are very much opposed to this tax.

One of the reasons why we moved this amendment is that although we have discussed this problem twice with the hon. the Minister of Finance to-day, we have really not had a satisfactory answer from him. We raised the matter in the Budget debate and he did not reply at all. We raised the matter in Committee of Ways and Means and he gave us two main explanations for this tax. He said that it was not unusual to differentiate, as we did in the gold mines, and he said that this type of differentiation was found in, I think, Germany, Austria and Sweden. That might well be so, but as was pointed out, it is only applicable to a local industry of a particular town. In the same way in which the hon. the Minister has made provision to help border industries because he wants industries in a particular place, so in these Continental countries they have this differentiation in order to keep a brewery in a particular town. But I think the hon. member for Queenstown has given us the answer. We cannot get the answer from the hon. the Minister of Finance but we have had it from the hon. member for Queenstown. That this is purely a taxation measure.

We have sunk to the level, in raising funds in this country, that in order to bring in a few million rand per annum, we are prepared to differentiate between different sectors of the same industry and we are prepared to go to a particular section of an industry and say, “because you are operating efficiently and because you are large” (which is what the hon. member for Queenstown said) “and because you are making profits you can afford to contribute more to the fiscus”. That is what the hon. member said. Sir, it is the most scandalous thing I have ever heard, that it should be the policy of the Government to go to any sector of a particular type of industry and say “Because you are efficient, because you are large, because you are making profits as a result of your size and efficiency, I am going to impose a special penalty tax on you”. That is what has been said here and that is obviously the reason. It is complete and utter discrimination against individual firms. Because of the way this particular section is drawn—it does not apply to an industry; it applies to a brewery, to a firm within an industry—no other firm need ever pay this tax. They can set up individual breweries and never reach the 2,500 gallons which is the minimum. They can therefore never have this tax imposed upon them.

Sir, we have said before and we repeat that not only is this undesirable from an ethical point of view in a free economy, but it is foolish from the point of view of bringing about an improvement in our economy generally. What does the hon. the Minister want industry to do? Does he want the fragmentation of industry? Does he want industry broken up into small little sections all over the place, or does he want an industry to be established on the most economic basis possible? The hon. the Minister must tell us, because so far he has told us nothing except to say that it is not unusual in Germany, Austria and Sweden where there is a local tax. The repercussions of this will be felt for a long time, particularly after the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown this afternoon who, after all, is the major spokesman, outside the Cabinet, for the Government on financial matters.

Do not twist his speech.

Sir, I have been accused of many things in my life by a lot of people …

On a point of order, Sir, is it in order for a Minister to accuse an hon. member of having twisted another hon. member’s speech?

Sir, the remark I made was “Do not twist his speech”.

Whose speech?

I was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown.

I think the hon. the Minister should withdraw those words.

If you ask me to do so, Sir, I withdraw them. On a point of order, the hon. member for Park-town referred to the speech of the hon. member for Queenstown as a scandalous speech. Should he not withdraw that too?

Why did the hon. the Minister not raise this point when the hon. member made that statement? This happened before I took the Chair.

Well, I would like to raise the point now. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Parktown should not be ordered to withdraw the word “scandalous”, which he used in referring to the speech of the hon. member for Queens town? After all, I had the decency to withdraw the words I used.

The word “scandalous” has been allowed over and over again in this House. I believe that the hon. member for Parktown referred to the tax as a scandalous tax; he was not referring to the hon. member’s speech. The hon. member may continue.

Sir, I made no reference to the hon. member’s speech as being scandalous. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister interpreted it that way. I would certainly not say anything like that to the hon. Member for Queenstown. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should go and look after his forests and that he should not poke his nose into things he does not understand. Sir, I am going to say again that what the hon. member for Queenstown said implied two things, firstly, that this was purely a budgetary issue and that the purpose was to raise revenue. Is that correct?

Yes.

Well, that is all I have said. [Interjection.] Sir, I have known the hon. the Minister for a long time; I have listened to him for a long time and I do not want to listen to his interjections now. Sir, if the purpose of this particular tax is merely to raise funds, then I repeat that this tax is scandalous.

I really think that the hon. member is doing me an injustice. He quotes me as saying that these companies, because they are big and because they are efficient and because they make huge profits, can therefore pay this tax.

A discriminatory tax.

That is not what I said.

And that is what that hon. member called “scandalous”.

I just want to repeat what I said. I said that this measure was a fiscal measure, a budgetary measure, which was designed to obtain revenue in a non-inflationary way, and I said that beer had to contribute its share of the revenue. I pointed out that this tax was on a sliding scale, and I said that the bigger companies, which are more efficient and which have lower unit costs, would be able to absorb the higher tax applicable to them. [Interjection.] No, not because they are big. I said that they would be able to meet this additional tax, which is a small amount, out of their profits, because they are big and efficient, and that they would then still be in the same comparative position as the small breweries.

But you said that the consumer was paying.

Of course the consumer is paying. The whole additional tax plus almost a cent per pint has been passed on to the consumer. A big company with a big turnover is therefore going to make even more profit than it used to make.

The hon. member for Queenstown who has just spoken makes the assumption that the big brewery will be able to absorb this tax. He does not say, however, on what he bases his assumption; he does not say whether he has an inside knowledge of the breweries; he is not sure of his facts; he is guessing.

But you said that they were efficient.

They may be efficient but that does not necessarily follow that they will be able to absorb this tax. If the hon. member will look at the schedule and if he makes inquiries he will find that the effect of this tax is to put the biggest burden on one company in South Africa. It is a blatantly discriminatory tax.

I did not say so.

No, we say that; we say it is blatantly a discriminatory tax against one company. Will the hon. the Minister follow the same procedure in the case of one of the bigger wine companies? I do not want to mention his name but the hon. member knows that one of the bigger wine companies has been buying out smaller wine companies. Would he apply the same principle to them and tax them at a higher rate because they produce a higher volume, and then justify it by using the argument advanced by the hon. member for Queenstown that because they are bigger they must be more efficient and therefore they can absorb this tax? Would he apply this principle to the cigarette industry? Or is this tax being imposed because so far as this company is concerned he knows that this tax is only going to hit one particular brewery and that they alone will have to carry it? Surely it will be obvious to the other breweries that all they have to do to avoid paying this discriminatory tax is to keep small and to form a series of brewery companies. It is that principle that we object to and it is for that reason that I support this amendment.

I rise to deal with one point only which the hon. member for Queenstown made and which I cannot allow to go on to the record without correction. The hon. member said that the breweries had raised the price of their beer by three cents. I merely want to place on record the fact that that is not correct, not that I hold any brief for any individual firm or for the breweries but it is a matter of fairness. The person who is being taxed here, as the hon. member for Queenstown has said, is in the last resort the beer drinker who is on the whole the poor man. The breweries increased their price by the amount of the tax plus one cent which means that the price of beer from the breweries now is 5.41 cents. That is on the Witwatersrand. Out of that .64 cent represents normal company tax; that means that 4.74 cents, or 41 cents, is the price of the beer and the excise tax on it is 6.7 cents. There is discrimination between beer and other liquor. The tax on beer per drink is 6.7 cents; the tax on wine is .25 cent; the tax on fortified wine is 1.6 cent and on brandy 5 cents. In other words, compared with wine, the tax on beer is 6.7 cents as against a quarter cent, and the tax on beer is 1.7 cents more than the tax on an equivalent amount of brandy.

What do you mean by “an equivalent amount”?

In other words, per drink or per cent. There are 20 tots in a bottle of brandy. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has obviously never heard that brandy has an alcohol content of 43 per cent and beer of 4.3 per cent, and when you are drinking you base it on what you have when you have a drink. The hon. member for Stellenbosch compares a bottle of brandy with a bottle of beer. If he drinks a bottle of brandy each time I drink a bottle of beer, I would not like to compete on those terms. My point to the hon. member for Queenstown is that beer is the highest taxed of the liquors. That is why this additional tax now is forcing people away from beer on to hard liquor. I have no objection to wine being encouraged, but here we have discrimination against the least harmful of drinks. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever heard of an alcoholic addicted to beer. Alcoholics are addicted either to spirits or wine. You very seldom find an alcoholic addicted to beer. It is the healthiest drink. It has a food value and it is the least alcoholic, and that is my objection to the Minister discriminating against the least harmful of drinks in favour of more harmful drinks.

I did not wish to enter the debate again, because all the arguments we are hearing now are old ones. Hon. members on the opposite side said that I did not satisfy them with my reply, but I have now heard them three times and I may say that they did not satisfy me with the case they presented. Take the last argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point). When was it ever a principle in South Africa that the duty on liquor should be levied according to the alcohol content? The figures he mentioned are founded on the principle that the duty should be adjusted to the alcohol content of the particular type of liquor. That is an impossible principle. The real principle we have adhered to through the years as regards liquor was: What can the traffic bear? That is what the Minister of Transport is always saving; he makes the traffic pay what it can bear. And I think the beer traffic can bear it, and we need it and this is a fiscal measure that we are adopting. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the particular company for which the hon. member is pleading sells 90 per cent of the beer in South Africa. I am not to blame for that. Of course they must pay more than the others. But let me come to his two specific arguments. This is not the first time we heard them. He wants me to give an undertaking to industry in general, and he says that unless I give the undertaking that I will not apply this principle, a sword of Damocles will be left hanging over their heads! But I fear that the sword of Damocles is always hanging over the heads of industry, and over the heads of everybody! Not only industry, but everybody is always subject to the sword of Damocles in the form of taxation. And, in any event, it is not a terrible additional tax. Is the hon. member trying to tell me that if some industry or other has an article on which there is a 25 per cent ad valorem duty, then everybody subject to the 10 per cent levy will suddenly be afraid that their levy will also become 25 per cent? Surely that is ridiculous. He says it is merely a question of the same principle. But if there is one article on which a specific duty is levied and the ad valorem duty on another is less, must the latter be afraid that the sword will descend on him and that he will be treated according to the principle of the former? I think the entire argument of the sword supposedly hanging over all industry in South Africa is utter nonsense, nor can I attach much more value to the second argument, that we are now changing the drinking pattern. Last time I furnished figures to the hon. member to show the relative increase in the duty since 1948 on beer and spirits and fortified wine—because at that stage there was no duty on unfortified wine—but on those three items the increase in duty was virtually the same. There is 1 per cent or 2 per cent difference in the increases as regards spirits and beer.

Per volume.

No, I say in the duty levied, the duty itself; not on the amount raised.

The hon. member for Kensington said that the amounts raised in respect of wine decreased in recent years, but what did he prove by that? Merely that there was a lower consumption. He said that the duty on whisky … pardon, I am also associating the hon. member for Kensington with whisky. [Laughter.] The hon. member said that the amount on beer had increased so tremendously, but is that not because there was a larger consumption of it? Is that not the answer to the hon. member’s argument?

Then I was asked whether I would do it to a wine company. That is what the hon. member for Pinetown asked me. Well, the largest wine company is the K.W.V., and my difficulty, if I want to apply it to them, is that they are not allowed to sell liquor to the public. In addition they are a co-operative society. They can sell only to wholesalers. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall consider all these matters. It may be necessary, if the principle is to be applied to others, and then I shall consider it. I cannot commit myself by saying that I shall never apply this principle. Nor can I commit myself by saying that I shall in fact apply it. All I can say is that it is not only an unfair question, but also a stupid question to say to a Minister of Finance that he should commit himself never, but never, to impose this form of taxation on any other article. It is unfair and it is actually a silly question.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

As is the custom, this Bill has been introduced to give effect to certain budget proposals. In addition it deals with other miscellaneous matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railways and Harbour Fund. I do not deem it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, because the various clauses are explained in the White Paper or Explanatory Memorandum which hon. members have before them.

I just want to make a few remarks in respect of Clause 10. Hon. members will recall that during the discussion of the Vote of the Provincial Administrations I explained the reasons why it was essential to extend by one year the temporary formula on which subsidies were being paid. As I said on that occasion, I am of the opinion that the formula is functioning very advantageously for the provinces. Therefore the proposed extension cannot in any respect be regarded as being to their detriment, and the Administrators have been informed about it.

To my mind the other clauses need no further explanation, but should any hon. member desire more information on some aspect or another, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars. I move.

This is the usual Omnibus Bill, but there are one or two new principles contained in it to which I think one has to refer at this stage. In Clause 3 it is proposed that the Government hand over the financing of a number of dwellings to the Industrial Development Corporation, dwellings to the value of some R857,000 which had been built by the Housing Commission or the Department of Community Development for various concerns in the border areas. Now it is proposed that the financing of these dwellings should be taken over by the I.D.C. I am not quite sure why it is called the financing of these dwellings because as far as I can see they have already been financed. There is no more to be paid.

What the I.D.C. is taking over is a liability by means of issuing a bond and issuing a number of more B shares to the Government. I think this is a new principle, in this sense, but this has all been done; it is normally done by the Department of Community Development or the Housing Commission, and it is only now that it has been decided to hand the thing over to the I.D.C. I think it highlights the extent to which the activities of the I.D.C. have strayed from its original intention, because whereas the I.D.C. was originally intended to help start private industries by putting up a certain amount of capital, and once they showed a profit to withdraw and leave it to private enterprise to make a public issue and to go on in the ordinary way, the I.D.C. is now really becoming something of a hydra-headed monster and it is developing in all directions, to the extent that it is beginning to look like a very carefully planned policy of developing into State socialism in this country. I think the figure is something like R250,000,000, which is all Government money invested by the I.D.C. and what happens is that this House every year is being asked to vote millions of rands to the I.D.C. for various purposes to carry out Government policy, and once we have voted the money we lose all track of it.

Parliament has no more check over it, and this is really becoming a very serious question indeed in my opinion. There is no clear appreciation by this House as to the policy and to the purpose for which this money is being used. It seems to me that we have reached the stage where a full inquiry should be made into the functions and the activities of the I.D.C., with a view to seeing whether its activities should not be divided altogether; that is to say, in so far as its normal activities are concerned, i.e. its original intention of stimulating private enterprise and under certain circumstances initiating new industries, on the one hand, and on the other hand where it is carrying out Government policy very often on non-economic lines in the sense that it certainly will not show a profit, whether all those activities should not be taken away from the I.D.C. and placed under a State Department, even if we have to have another Deputy Minister to look after it. Let it then report to Parliament, and let its accounts be scrutinized by the Auditor-General so that we may know what is being done. It seems to me that at present the I.D.C. is developing along lines which were never intended when Parliament passed the Act, and which are not fully understood and appreciated by many people. I think the time has come for a full inquiry into the actual functions of the I.D.C. and the actual Dart it can play in the economy of the country. I am not suggesting that it cannot play a very valuable part, and it has in fact played a very valuable part, in some respects anyway. But where it is simply going to be an instrument of Government policy, and not purely assisting the private sector of the economy, there I think a case can be made out for dividing the activities of the I.D.C. and probably even having a State Enterprise Department, or whatever you like to call it, so that we may know where we are.

There is another new principle in the Bill which I hope the hon. the Minister of Transport will be able to explain, or somebody else, in regard to this sinking fund. It is not quite clear from the White Paper just exactly what this sinking fund is going to do. It says here that it only refers to the money that was spent on the Railways, and it really goes back to 1910, to May of that year, which is pre-Union, and on which the Railways are paying R5,000,000 a year. This fund is being created to redeem stocks allocated to the Railways. It is not dear to me exactly what that means. I do not quite understand that phrase, and the Minister will no doubt explain it. What amount is involved? On the basis of R5,000,000 one imagines that the debt is something like R100,000,000. It means that the railway user is now going to be asked to start paying off that debt. That is what it boils down to. Any surplus revenue has so far been put into the Renewals Fund or Betterment Fund.

It has nothing to do with that. This is a concession the Treasury is making to the Railways.

I know. That is another thing. The R5,000,000 is another thing altogether. Who is the R5,000,000 being paid to now?

It is being paid to the Treasury.

That is now being paid into your sinking fund instead of to consolidated revenue. So the taxpayer will have to find another R5,000,000 for the hon. the Minister of Finance, which he is not going to get from the Railways.

It does not work out that way.

The taxpayer will have to find another R5,000,000 to replace the R5,000,000 which the Minister of Finance now gets from the Minister of Transport.

It does not work that way.

Well, I hope the Minister will explain it. I am saying that it is not very clear to me exactly what it does mean. As far as I can see it means that there is now a debt of R100.000.000, and I quite agree with the Minister that it is highly desirable that it be paid off. Why it has not been paid off before I do not know.

I want it to be written off, not paid off.

I think there is a lot more to be paid off. But I hope the Minister will explain it to us, if possible.

Mr. Chairman, the subject we are discussing is one that has been discussed many times in the House and we have always received a response from the Minister of Economic Affairs. I sympathize with him. Now, Sir, I have been thinking of the first debate of this kind lasting quite a long time that I heard in this House. At that time the role of Minister of Finance was being played by the late Mr. Havenga and the role of Minister of Economic Affairs by Mr. Eric Louw. The discussion was rather similar to the discussion we are having to-day. The House was very much concerned about the development of utility corporations and especially the Industrial Development Corporation. So I looked up the debate that took place then, and I will read the extract because it will save a good deal of debating. The Minister of Finance, in replying to the discussion, said (Hansard, 21st February, 1951, Col. 1655)—

Then an hon. member interrupted: “And you have to find the money.” The Minister of Finance continued—

It was a similar discussion to that of to-day. In other words, the Minister of Economic Affairs has the responsibilities of the Industrial Development Corporation and the Minister of Finance has to find the money, or, to use a metaphor that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, is fond of using, he has to “carry the can”. He is the man who has to do the work, find the money and meet the criticism. I think it is essential that something should be done. It is a problem that has occurred in other democratic countries. We have nationalized industries, but the nationalized industries do not report back to Parliament. As I have said many times, the Minister of Transport appears here, he is responsible to Parliament whether the criticism is favourable or unfavourable. He discusses the affairs of the Railways, he has to be familiar with those affairs, as he is, of course, and he replies to our criticism. He is responsible to Parliament. But for this expenditure on the Industrial Development Corporation nobody is responsible to Parliament. I sympathize with the Minister of Economic Affairs. He appoints the directors, we vote the money, and after that there is no meeting of shareholders; there is no report to a select committee. I have put forward the suggestion before—and the Minister of Economic Affairs is familiar with it—that there should be a select committee which would not investigate the expenditure, but would give us some information. I have asked questions. I do not ask questions now. When I ask questions, I can get no information. When I asked what are the emoluments of a director, he refused to tell us. He will not give the information. We vote the money, but the Directors will not give the information. We are Parliament. Parliament, in addition to voting the money, should know how the money is to be spent. We are the shareholders. Some years ago when I received the report of the Industrial Development Corporation on the annual meeting of shareholders, I asked in the House how many shareholders were present. Because. Sir, there is only one, the Government. They are the only shareholder. They hold the shares on behalf of the people of South Africa. We in Parliament here represent the people. But these companies do not report to us. The Directors are not civil servants. They are not business executives in the ordinary way. These men are appointed and are a new class of executive which we have in South Africa as they have in other democratic countries in the world. Their system has not developed as the Industrial Development Corporation has developed. Therefore I support the contention of the hon. member for Constantia that there should be an investigation and that there should be some method of accountability to Parliament on what these companies are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the question of the Select Committee which has been raised here. I think it is a matter which the hon. the Minister ought to reply to, since it is a matter of policy. There has never in the past been any question of there having to be a Select Committee for business which is controlled by the State under its own acts. That is why I do not want to say anything about the matter.

The hon. member for Constantia raised a few points which I do not think can be left unanswered. He said that we had, through the Industrial Development Corporation, spread our wings so far and developed into such a colossus that he was of the opinion that our country was developing in the direction of socialism. He began by referring to the question of housing. What is the present position in regard to housing? When a start was made with the development of border areas, on the recommendation of the Permanent Committee and the Economic Advisory Council, it was agreed that housing was an extremely important function and played an extremely important role in the development of the border areas. That is so, Sir, because without workers one cannot establish any industries, and without White workers as engineers and as managers least of all. It became apparent in the early stages of the development already that the question of housing was extremely important. That is why the State has come forward and agreed that as part of its border area development programme it must, together with its provision of factory buildings, make provision for housing. I think the hon. member for Constantia will admit that without housing that industrial decentralization which he advocates in principle will not be able to take place at the desirable rate. But it was subsequently found that the Department of Community Development was not the best body to provide that housing. In the first place there had to be a close correlation between the establishment of the factory buildings and the erection of housing. If both fell under one body one had the greatest degree of correlation. The second point is that the hon. member for Constantia knows from personal experience that the public service machine operates slowly and that business—because it is business—can be done much more efficiently by means of a corporation under its own law, such as the I.D.C. We can speak from experience when we say that since the housing was taken over from the Department of Community Development by the I.D.C. we have not only had better co-ordination but we have also had more rapid development which has been to the advantage of industrial decentralization which hon. members on the Opposition side of the House also support in principle. But now the hon. member has said something further. He has said that the I.D.C. is implementing Government policy and that it is actually moving along non-economic lines.

What is the present position in regard to the border area development? I want to state very clearly here to-day that the Government has never—nobody on this side of the House has done so—said that border area development must take place in a non-economic way. If one examines the policy of the Government, if one examines its concessions, one will find that those concessions are predominantly of a temporary nature. No factory, no industry which is non-economic, can exist. The Government cannot be so foolish as to encourage or establish factories on non-economic lines. There can be no question of that because if that were the case that industry could not exist or continue to exist. With this Government it is a sine qua non for border area development that it should take place in an economic way. The concessionary measures which it is granting —as is the case in other parts of the world— are taking place mainly on a temporary basis to overcome those initial disadvantages which one experiences in an underdeveloped area so as to place it, subsequent to the concessions, in more or less the same position as is obtaining to-day in regard to an industry which is developing in one of the industrial centres. Those concessions are mainly of a temporary nature. The statements and the accusations from the Opposition that the Government is developing and tackling border areas in a noneconomic way, are not true.

As far as the other question, i.e. that the I.D.C. has spread its branches over such a wide area, is concerned. I should just like to mention it in this context. I think it was the hon. member for Parktown who said that it was they who had made a start with industrial decentralization. Previous mention has been made of three factories with which they made a start. I shall not mention the names here but I know which three they are because it stands in Hansard. But I want to say here today that two of those factories were not making a profit during the time of the United Party. For years they struggled. It was only under the régime of this Government, with a purposeful industrial policy, with a purposeful industrial protection policy, with a purposeful industrial decentralization policy that those undertakings also became profitable. They were correct in making a start with them but they did not give them the protection which they deserved. Now they come along and say that those factories which they made a start with, are economic, but now that this Government is applying industrial decentralization to a greater and more rapid extent, as other countries of the world are doing, they come along and say it is uneconomic. Surely that is a contradiction in terms, because if that is so, then England, Italy, the Netherlands and Ireland are surely also establishing uneconomic industries? And that is definitely not the case. They are engaged in industrial decentralization and the establishment of economic industries. I want to admit that it is possible that factories will be established in the border areas which will not ultimately make the grade. However, that is a principle which also applies in to-day’s industrial centres. The Government does not have that measure of control over an industry which could give it the assurance that that industry will ultimately have the right to exist. Before the I.D.C. grant concessions in the case of an industry which wants to decentralize it first institutes an investigation to the best of its ability. Its Act provides that it can assist undertakings only on economic merit, and economic merit not only for the first few years but particularly for the future. This requirement of economic merit is being strictly maintained by the I.D.C. I want to break a little lance for the I.D.C. here to-day. It is correct that I.D.C. was initiated by the opposite side of the House. I think it is definitely a feather in their cap. But now that the scope of the activities of the I.D.C. is becoming greater and greater and its value to the industries in our country is also becoming greater and greater, they must not become afraid of their own brain-child. The value of the I.D.C. today for our country and for our industries, particularly in these times in which we are striving to attain economic independence, cannot be expressed in terms of money. Of course the Government has control over the I.D.C. In what way? The Government appoints the directors of the I.D.C. and if it deems it necessary it can change them when their time has elapsed. There are also circumstances under which it is possible to get rid of the directors, but that is an abnormal procedure. The fact that the Government appoints the directors of the I.D.C. gives it complete control over the I.D.C. I had the privilege myself of serving for many years as a director of the I.D.C. and I want to say that the I.D.C. has in the past been and will also in the years that lie ahead be one of the greatest assets our country has.

Mr. Speaker, we do not deny the work which the I.D.C. has done but as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, the late Minister Havenga even in those days suggested that the I.D.C. was developing along lines which were not contemplated when it was originally started. When the Minister of Transport wants to start a development scheme on the Railways, when he, for instance, would like to build a new railway, he has to come to this House for permission. Also the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has to get permission before he can commence a development scheme. But when the Government wants to develop an industrial area all we get is a globular figure which this House is asked to vote. In other words, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is in that privileged position where he does not have to give this House any information at all. That is our complaint. We feel that the I.D.C. is being used along lines which originally were never contemplated and as the hon. member for Constantia has said the time has arrived where this position should be reviewed because it may be that the I.D.C. is developing industries along lines which are not economic. The hon. member for Constantia did not suggest that all industrial extensions were uneconomic. He said that only in respect of some. The mere fact that the Government has to offer concessions to industries in the border areas, the mere fact that they have to make tax concessions and the mere fact that the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration suggested yesterday that it might be necessary to introduce legislation forcing certain industries to go to border areas, indicate that the establishment of these industries in those areas might not be economic. I think it is accepted that if it is economic to go to border areas no inducement on the part of the Government is necessary. What is more, industries will flock to the border areas. But the mere fact that the Government has now to offer inducements and the mere fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has to threaten with legislation, are indicative of the fact that these industries may not be economic. I accept what the hon. member for Florida said, namely that eventually these industries may become economic although at the beginning they may be uneconomic. But what we are concerned about is that we have to face a Bill at this stage of the Session asking us to confirm what has been done already, financing undertaken by the I.D.C., financing which we cannot criticize. I accept that if the I.D.C. should finance firm A it would be unreasonable on our part to expect to debate the activities of firm A over the floor of this House. The company’s affairs naturally are confidential. But where the I.D.C. is being used as an agency for the Government and this circumstance is being used to hide from the country what is being done then I think it is time that we have some sort of inquiry. What is happening to-day is, to use colloquial language, that the dust is being swept under the carpet and the carpet is put back in its place so that everything should on the face of it look all right. I think we should have the right to examine what is being done by the I.D.C. particularly where it is being used as a Government agency. If the I.D.C. is financing something for the Department of Defence then that would obviously be a secret matter which should not be discussed across the floor of the House. But if the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the other hand may want certain equipment and decide to hand the matter over to the Minister of Economic Affairs for the I.D.C. to develop that equipment, nobody would know anything about it. If the Department of Posts and Telegraphs itself undertakes the work then we can discuss it in this House. As for the hon. the Minister of Transport, he is quite capable of answering any criticism of his administration of the S.A. Railways during the debate on his Budget. We submit that the activities of the Minister of Economic Affairs in conjunction with the I.D.C. should also be open to scrutiny. Whether that is done by way of select committee or by way of the necessary accounts being submitted to this House, is a matter which can be worked out. What we do say is that the activities of the I.D.C. are becoming too involved to remain only under the Minister of Economic Affairs, that is to say, without it being scrutinized by this House. This is not intended as reflection on the Minister as such but I think the Minister will agree with me that if the activities of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport, is subject to scrutiny, as is the activities of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he, i.e. the Minister of Economic Affairs, should not claim exemption. This is the case we are putting forward.

Finally I should like to support what the hon. member for Constantia has said with regard to the last clause relating to the alteration of the Constitution Act. This provides for this amount of R5,000,000-odd annually to be paid into the sinking fund. We are entitled to have an explanation of this. The creation of a sinking fund constitutes a new departure. It is, as I understand it, a concession which is being given by the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Minister of Transport. It will have to be paid for in one way or another by the taxpayer. Therefore we should like a full explanation from the hon. the Minister particularly since the explanation given in the explanatory memorandum is inadequate.

I deeply regret that hon. members opposite have once again found it necessary to make certain insinuations against the Industrial Development Corporation. I am aware that they may not have meant it in that sense. However, we have been finding for quite some time that the Opposition has been making insinuations, particularly against the I.D.C. The reason for that may be that the I.D.C. has been used by the Government in recent times as an agency for implementing its policy of decentralization by means of the border industries. And, because the Opposition is opposed to border industries for political reasons, they are now also opposed to the I.D.C., which has to implement that policy of border industries. Where they are now attacking us here for allegedly doing uneconomic things through the agency of the I.D.C., things of a political nature, there I level the accusation against them that they have launched their attack on the I.D.C. to a very large extent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. Political, because the I.D.C. is being used to promote border industries on behalf of the Government. The hon. member for Constantia made two remarks which surprised me to a certain extent. The first remark made by the hon. member was that the I.D.C. was apparently developing into a hydra-headed monster because it was beginning to grow. It is true that the I.D.C. is beginning to grow. It is much bigger than it was when we took it over from the previous Government. But what is wrong with that? May any other corporation and any other business in this country grow but not this particular institution which was established by an Act of theirs and which is now being administered by us? This is a body which performs a major function on behalf of the State. Should it not grow because it is a Government body? I think it is a feather in the cap of the I.D.C. that it has succeeded to grow. This proves that it has been operating successfully. This is proof of the need which exists in the country and which will still exist in the future for an institution such as the I.D.C. It is true that it has grown and I foresee that it will become even bigger in the future. For that reason I was so surprised that the hon. member for Constantia took exception to the I.D.C. for that very reason, namely, that it was beginning to grow and because of the simple fact that the I.D.C. was being requested to finance housing in border areas. Because it provides capital for buildings, machinery and similar articles and is now also taking over accommodation, this is used as an argument for launching an attack on the I.D.C. based on the fact that it allegedly was too big. The second thing which came from the hon. member for Constantia which surprised me, was his suggestion or idea that we should divide the activities of the I.D.C. into two sections—one for dealing with the normal activities of the I.D.C. and one for implementing what was really ideological Government decisions—and that this second section for the implementation of the ideological policy of the Government should come under a Government Department. The hon. member for Constantia knows as well as I do that we cannot continue managing more and more businesses under the State itself. The State cannot manage any businesses. Surely one cannot think that the State itself should manage factories as it is being managed at present by the I.D.C. in the border areas. Are we now to manage them as a Government Department? I think the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members will, if they consider this in a matter-of-fact way, agree with me. This is absolute socialism and an entirely wrong thing. It is entirely out of the question to expect that the State itself should establish businesses and should manage them. It must have an organization through which to do so. I think hon. members ought to be glad that a body such as the I.D.C. is being used for implementing the State’s policy of border industries as a result of which they and the country have the assurance that the implementation of that policy is under the supervision of an expert body. An expert body which has the men available, which has experts in all fields and which can ensure that that policy of border industries will be implemented as economically as possible.

Then I come to the argument which was raised here by my friend, the hon. member for Florida. To tell us here that one has economic industries, on the one hand, and that border industries are identical to uneconomic industries—in other words, if one has a border industry it is an uneconomic concern—is an argument which does not hold water. Other industries may be as uneconomic and border industries may be as extremely economic as any of the others. One cannot draw the distinction that when it is a border industry and because it is implementing Government policy it must consequently be uneconomic. Sasol, too, is implementing Government policy. Foskor. too, is implementing Government policy. The synthetic rubber factory, too, is implementing Government policy. In this way I can continue to mention numerous factories controlled, managed, established and financed by the I.D.C. Can one then say that because they are implementing Government policy they will not be economic? The hon. member also said that the I.D.C. should be allowed to do its duty towards private initiative. Of course the I.D.C. is always doing its duty towards private initiative. The very fact that it has grown to such an extent in recent times and the demand which there is for its work is proof that it is doing its duty towards private initiative. There is a tremendous demand for its services. But if it does so and it grows they say it is developing into a hydra-headed monster. The hon. member for Kensington also raised the question of “accountability” to a select committee before which this body should appear. He also mentioned that Mr. Horn had said at that time that he felt that something should be done in this connection. “Control should be over broad questions of policy.” I do not think we have any objection to questions of broad policy of that Government body being discussed here in this House. There has never been any objection to that. Hon. members have always had the opportunity to discuss those questions. They may do so by way of a motion and they may do so under the Appropriation Bills. They may do so on various occasions. They may discuss the broad policy principles of those organizations to-day. However, what we warned against was that discussions should be conducted on such lines that business aspects of a confidential nature were not raised, for instance, where the I.D.C., or businesses financed by the I.D.C. are often in competition with other businesses. The hon. member for Pinetown spoke here about the Railways and the Post Office. There is a vast difference between the Railways and the Post Office on the one hand and the I.D.C. on the other hand.

They are Government Departments.

They are Government Departments. Their Votes are put here, they receive their money directly from the State and Parliament tells them how to spend their money. Does the hon. member want us to present and itemize a Brown Book and a White Book in respect of the I.D.C. in the same way as we do in respect of the Railways? We give it R10,000,000 and it must spend that money in a particular way. Then we check every year whether it has spent that money in that particular way. Surely that is inconceivable. One gives it that money and one has a board which one has constituted and which is autonomous. One must trust that board and it must spend that money according to business principles. If it does not do so one must appoint another board. But if we as a Parliament can inspect the business activities of the I.D.C. one by one, as the hon. member mentioned, in order to see whether the I.D.C. is developing in an economic direction, in other words, if we are going to investigate its investments in order to determine whether it has made unsound or sound investments, we are going to interfere directly in the business aspects of that Corporation. And surely this is something which is impossible. I just want to say that to my mind no case has been made out for a commission of inquiry. The other argument mentioned here, was that the I.D.C. was too big. It was said here that the I.D.C. was making investments in border industries. To my mind the arguments advanced by the hon. member were not at all strong enough for any inquiry in this connection to be considered at the moment. I may just mention that hon. members are free to discuss the broad principles of policy in respect of all Government corporations in this House at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the explanation in regard to the sinking fund to which the hon. member for Constantia has referred. The pre-Union debt amounts to something like R146,000,000, and annually there is an amount of a little over R5,000,000 that the Railways have to pay to the Treasury. Now we are putting that R5,000,000 into a sinking fund under the Public Debt Commissioners, and it will be available to us there for the purposes of the loan account. It is merely to a certain extent a transfer of an income item from the revenue account to the loan account where it will be available for us for appropriation under the loan account. That is all that it really means.

Bill read a Second Time.

Judging by Clause 12 and the explanation the hon. the Minister has given us in regard to the Railway account it seems that his policy is now to transfer funds from revenue to loan account continually, so that when the end of the year comes, he will have a deficit on revenue account and a credit on loan account. I think we have to watch this very carefully.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.