Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to inform hon. members what the business of the House will be for the next week or two. I have a pleasant announcement for all those members who have a zest for work. As from Tuesday we shall sit in the evenings as well, and from Monday the 17th we shall sit in the mornings and in the evenings until the end of the Session. We hope that the House of Assembly will complete its business on 21st June and that Parliament will adjourn on Saturday, 22nd June. We shall continue dealing with the Votes until all of them have been disposed of. This will probably be on Tuesday evening or fairly early on Wednesday, and then we shall continue with legislation. The Appropriation Bill will not be brought up before Monday week. That will be the last general discussion. We shall proceed with the other legislation, except for the following, which will have to stand over: Notice of Motion No. 2 and Orders of the Day Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16. They will have to stand over until next year. There are one or two other Bills which still have to be introduced and which have to be dealt with during this Session. One of them deals with pollution of the sea. In addition there are the usual financial measures which still have to be introduced, but I think we shall be able to finish by Friday, 21st June, if hon. members are not very talkative.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, I move as an unopposed motion—

That Order of the Day No. 6 for to-day —Second Reading,—National Supplies Procurement Bill [A.B. 83—’68]—be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

Agreed to.

I want to thank hon. members for having discussed this Vote so calmly. It goes without saying, of course, that if I am in charge of a Vote, matters will proceed very calmly. I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House, such as the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. member for Algoa, very sincerely for the way in which they dealt with the matter of Bantu education. As regards the two main critics, the hon. members for Kensington and Houghton, we had from them what we have from them year after year. As far as Bantu Education is concerned, these two hon. members are still living in the colonial era. They have not learned anything as yet. and they are still clinging to systems which have been proved wrong throughout the whole of Africa, and as far as Bantu Education is concerned, I have never seen two more “verkrampte” members than them.

Before dealing with the individual points which were raised, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank Mr. Van Dyk, the Secretary for Bantu Education, who will retire one of these days, very sincerely for what he has meant to me personally during the two years I have been working with him. I recall that shortly after the appointment of certain Ministers and Deputy Minister a cartoon appeared in The Cape Times depicting caricatures of the new occupiers of certain portfolios. I recall that the Minister of Defence was looking down the barrel of a rifle. The Minister of Sport was playing with his yo-yo. The Minister of the Interior was wearing a fez, and in a bottom corner I was sitting with my curly hair, my protruding ears and bare feet, my toes well spaced from one another, and I was reading a book. The book was entitled “How to Educate the Bantu”, but I was holding the book upside-down. After having worked with Mr. Van Dyk for two years, I can assure hon. members that that book no longer is upside-down.

But no more than that.

I have learned a great deal from Mr. Van Dyk. He was a very patient and brilliant tutor, and I think that he will be the first to admit that in me he had a very patient and brilliant pupil. Today I know a great deal more about Bantu Education. I want to thank him for that and I want to wish him a very peaceful but not an entirely unproductive retirement. I think quite a number of writings will flow from his pen to the benefit of education in general, and to the benefit of Bantu Education in particular.

Then I also wish to welcome the new Secretary for Bantu Education, Dr. Van Zyl, and extend io him my heartiest congratulations. In him we have an eminent educationist, a man who gave evidence for us in the World Court with brilliant success. I am convinced that our co-operation will be of the most cordial and that Bantu Education will continue to make the same rapid progress under his leadership, as under the leadership of Mr. Van Dyk, as it has been making for the past 15 years.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) furnished certain figures here in regard to What the Bantu, according to him, had to pay for education. I do not know where he got those figures from. He advocated free Bantu education. Bantu education is virtually free, but he produced certain astronomical figures, and I should like to know from him where he obtained those figures.

I want to take a photo of him after the Prime Minister’s second reply.

I just want to tell him what the Bantu do pay in point of fact. For board and lodging, when they live in hostels, they pay R60 per annum. White children pay the same fees as they do. but they pay at a considerably higher rate. For the school fund, Bantu secondary pupils pay Rl per term, lower primary pupils 10 cents per term and higher primary pupils 30 cents per term. The hon. member wilt know that white pupils pay much more than this.

Are these general?

Yes, these are more or less general. As far as school books and stationery are concerned, free books are not provided in the secondary schools, and the reason for this is that we have limited funds. I do not want to go into the merits of the financing of Bantu Education. The fact of the matter is that we have limited funds at our disposal, and experts on Bantu Education have come to the conclusion that they would be able to utilize those funds to the greater benefit of the Bantu if they did not provide free books in the secondary classes. Books cost Bantu pupils in Std. VIII approximately R3 per annum, and the costs increase to approximately R30 per annum in matric. As far as primary schools are concerned, the pupils receive their books free of charge and the costs of stationery are quite minimal.

All primary school pupils get their books free?

Yes, in primary schools they do.

Does that include exercise books?

No, they have to buy stationery such as slates and slate-pencils, but the costs are quite minimal. The Department provides schools with a large number of books. In the case of primary schools the amount came to nearly R17,000 in 1962-’63 and increased to R264,000 in 1967-’68. In hard cash the Department gave R6,799 in 1962-’63 and R92,500 in 1967-’68. In addition other books are also donated by the Department to Bantu schools. The number of books increased from 795,000 in 1962-’63 to 929,000 in 1967-’68, and the amounts increased from R220,000 to R246,000. Therefore we are doing our duty in this respect.

Is there any provision for bright pupils in secondary schools who cannot pay?

At a later stage I shall deal with the question of bursaries and everything which is made available to these people.

Is this amount R220,000 for the two million children?

YES.

That is approximately 10 cents per child.

I have not worked it out yet, but I am quite satisfied with the progress which is being made. [Interjections.]

Order! This is no time for arguing across the floor of the House.

I think that what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) really wanted to advocate was not free education for the Bantu, because they have virtually free education, but compulsory education for the Bantu, which is, of course, the ideal but something we have been unable to consider up to now for practical and very obvious reasons.

Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke of the few facilities in the school at Mbali. Well, there is a shortage at Mbali. There is one primary school and the higher primary pupils attend the nearby school at Slangspruit, which is a combined higher and lower primary school. There is a shortage of two lower primary schools, two higher primary schools and one secondary school. One lower primary school will be built before long and a higher primary school is being planned. There is an Indian school in the vicinity and before long, when the Indians move, that school will become available for secondary classes.

Can you give me any indication when?

No, it is difficult to say.

The hon. member for Cradock pleaded for a full-fledged faculty of agriculture at the University College of Fort Hare. Classes in agriculture are being given at Fort Hare and the present establishment in this respect consists of one professor, one senior lecturer, one white farm-manager and one Bantu farmmanager. The college has 600 morgen of land on which it keeps 220 high-grade milch cows and on which provision is made for pig and poultry divisions. Intensive crop-farming is being carried out on 50 morgen of land under irrigation. In January, 1966, an inter-departmental committee recommended the establishment of a full-fledged faculty of agriculture at the University College of Fort Hare to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has approved this. Financially the planning of this faculty makes provision for R283,000 for academic purposes, R27,000 for farm-buildings and R40,000 for scientific apparatus and equipment. The establishment will be increased at an additional cost of plus-minus R60,000 per annum. The posts for the staff who would have been required in 1967, were advertised immediately, but as a result of the general curtailment of Government expenditure this service had to be held in abeyance. The Department of Bantu Education is proceeding with this planning, it is proceeding with the preparatory work, particularly as regards buildings and other capital works, in the hope that things may take a turn for the better. Under present circumstances it will unfortunately not be possible to complete the buildings before 1970,but as the hon. member can see, we are hard at work as regards the establishment of such a full-fledged faculty of agriculture.

The hon. member for Kensington complained that the annual report came out too late. I would like to point out to him that the Higher Education Department’s report is also for 1966 only and that the reports of the Provincial Departments are only for 1965. I do not think therefore that we are doing too badly.

I mean our Department of Education. We had the 1967 report early this Session.

At any rate, I do not think we are doing too badly. I give the hon. member our assurance that we will do our best to get the report out earlier.

Then the hon. member referred to a speech made by me at Cradock where I am supposed to have said that the Bantu cannot absorb more education than they are getting at the moment. That was misunderstood by very many people. What I actually did say was that the Bantu community could not absorb more than they were getting at the moment. So that there could be no misunderstanding in the future I wrote down my explanation which reads as follows: It is accepted practice in education planning that the provision of educational facilities should bear a direct relationship to the ability of the community to absorb trained manpower issuing from the schools and also to its ability to make use of facilities that exist in the schools. It is therefore important that the rate of expansion should not be over-rapid but should keep pace with the ability of the Bantu community to absorb and to use the products of the education system. This does not imply that there is any desire to hold back the development of the Bantu, and the 12 per cent compound interest yearly growth in secondary education in recent years should be sufficient proof of this, but that educational growth and development should be placed on a sound basis. Until existing facilities—this is the crux of the reply —are used to the full, and this is particularly true of certain sectors of vocational, technical and senior secondary education, it is not reasonable to expect further expansion in these particular fields at this stage. I think the hon. member who is an educationist will agree with that.

The hon. member for Houghton asked why evening schools were closed in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Sir, we were very patient with those people. We tried to assist them as far as possible. Year after year, we gave them an extension of time and eventually we had to put our foot down and order the closing of those schools. But that does not mean the end of evening classes for the Bantu. We thought it advisable to have those classes where the Bantu find themselves in the evening, and that is in the Bantu townships.

They cannot get there.

They can get there if they ask for permission. It is not difficult to get permission. It is not difficult in the case of genuine teachers who want to go into the area and with whom the school board is satisfied, but certainly not teachers who want to go into the Bantu townships and agitate amongst the Bantu, and there are quite a few of those people.

Does the hon. the Minister not know that it is dangerous for women to travel alone in the townships at night? Many of these teachers are women. Will he not admit that they are doing very good work?

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

Sir, if there is any real urge on the part of these people they can get male company. We can give them police protection if they want to give evening classes but then it must be under the Bantu school boards in the townships. And if they are eager, and do not want to acquire everything by way of least resistance, then they will go there. However, I am quite satisfied that some of these people are not as keen as they pretend to be to educate the Bantu. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Rus-tenburg allowed to call me “an agitator”?

Order! The hon. member for Rustenburg must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

I think it will serve a good purpose to review at this stage the fantastic progress in regard to Bantu education since the passing of the Bantu Education Act in 1953. I should like to draw the attention especially of the hon. member for Houghton to this fantastic progress, because she seems to want everything to be perfect from the beginning; she wants the standard of Bantu education to be the same right from the start as the standard of white education. The fact that we have made more progress than anywhere in Africa, whether under the British, or Belgian, or French governments, counts nothing with her—absolutely nothing.

But South Africa is the richest country in Africa.

Nothing which has been done by dedicated Whites for the Bantu people within the past 15 years can show more spectacular progress than the programme of Bantu education initiated by the Bantu Education Act of 1953. To-day four outof every five Bantu between the ages of seven and 21, can read and write; four out of every five Bantu children in South Africa are at school, and long before the year 2000, illiteracy as defined by Unesco, will have been wiped out completely amongst the Bantu in South Africa. The chief instrument which forged to-day’s enlightened order for Bantu education in South Africa was the Bantu Education Act of 1953. It was Dr. Verwoerd, whose memory will still be revered for long amongst the Bantu, who shaped that instrument and supervised its passage through this Parliament—“A new education deal for the Bantu”, was what Dr. Verwoerd called it. Let us look at the progress we have been able to make. Let me give hon. members certain figures in this connection. The total number of Bantu pupils at school in 1955 was 1,014,000; in 1966, 11 years later, the number was 2,039,000—more than double the figure of 1955.

How many in secondary schools?

I am coming to that. The number of pupils in primary schools increased from 970,000 to 1,959,000. For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) I should like to report that the number of pupils in post-primary schools in 1955 was only 43,600 and in 1966, 80,900—nearly double. Let me tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that he ought to be ashamed of himself to make the suggestion, as he did, that as a matter of policy this Government wanted to keep the Bantu from having secondary education.

You did not listen to what I said.

It looks as if a little Bantu education will not do that hon. member any harm. It was Dr. Verwoerd who said, “One may remain Bantu through the Bantu languages as medium of civilization and one’s whole community will in this way reach a higher spiritual, social and economic level”. This sums up the far-sighted ideal of Bantu education. It seems incredible that only 15 years ago Bantu education was controlled and provided for mainly by missionary efforts of some 44 different religious denominations. Of course, they were heavily subsidized by the Government. While I have the highest regard and admiration for what these missionaries did for the education of the Bantu, it cannot be denied that certain mistakes were made, not as a result of lack of knowledge so much as in the process of trial and error. As a result of a process of trial and error many mistakes were made by these missionaries and some misguided things done. The Government was absolutely right to insist upon a more pragmatic form of Bantu education. This was belatedly approved by Bantu education experts of 28 African countries who met in Tananarive, the capital of Malagasy. At that conference they emphatically rejected European orientated educational systems which were in operation until then in their respective countries. The basis for Bantu education in South Africa was the Eiselen Report. Of this Dr. Verwoerd said—

This is precisely what the Bantu Education Act has attained since its passing 14 years ago. This Act put an end to all attempts to westernize only individual Bantu students and to introduce instead a concerted process civilizing the Bantu peoples as a whole and as entities. This new education system retains and cultivates all that is of value in the cultures of the various Bantu people of South Africa, including their respective languages. Of course, pupils study English and Afrikaans but they are taught in their mother tongue, in one of the seven distinctive Bantu languages, at least for the first five to eight years at school.

Why did Matanzima revert to English?

You had better ask him. I have no doubt that he eventually will come back to mother tongue instruction. Mother tongue instruction has been a major factor in the promotion of literacy amongst the Bantu and in the development of the expressive powers of their respective languages. Educational theory and practice were adapted to the material with which the teacher had to work, i.e. a Bantu child from a Bantu community, shaped by a Bantu culture, and speaking a Bantu language learned from a Bantu mother. That is the material they have to work with and that is the material they have to develop.

I should just like to enumerate the basic principles laid down by the Eiselen Commission for the reform of Bantu education, principles which have all more or less been adopted by the Bantu Education Act. These principles briefly are: The establishment of a central government department for the control and administration of Bantu education to secure efficient and thorough co-ordination of planning, budgeting and administration designed to develop sound social institutions and adequate schools; the placing of increasing emphasis on the education of the mass of the Bantu to enable them to co-operate in the evolution of new social patterns and institutions for the Bantu; the co-ordination of education with a definite and planned policy for the development of the various Bantu societies; the efficient use of the available—and I admit limited—funds; the provision of education with a definite Christian character; the production of literature of functional value in the various Bantu languages; mother tongue instruction; Bantu teaching staff to be used to the maximum; to make the schools as Bantu in spirit as is possible; as well as to provide employment for qualified Bantu teachers.

Bantu parents, and this was done for the first time in our history, have a share in the control and the life of their schools. I will presently deal with the number of these Bantu parents actively assisting to-day in the controlling of these schools. Provision is made for vocational education, coupled with economic development. These revolutionary provisions of the Bantu Education Act did not go unchallenged. Years were to elapse before the Bantu Education Act was (fully recognized for what it is, a piece of enlightened legislation that holds out a fully rounded education for every Bantu of South African birth and the enshrinement of a system of education, which in every way is the envy of other states in Africa, which have a very long road to travel before they can give to their subject what we are giving to the Bantu people in South Africa. The foundation of the Department of Bantu Education was firmly laid, and I wish to pay tribute to a corps of devoted, hard-working officials, inspired by the example of their late chief, Dr. Verwoerd. The late Dr. Verwoerd sent out these officials as friendly ambassadors to explain to the churches proposals for the take-over of their institutions as Government schools. New procedures were devised slowly, and not always without error, in the place of divergent (procedures formerly followed by each of the four provinces.

I wish to point out, however, that there is a wrong impression that mission schools were summarily taken over. Church bodies controlling schools in Bantu homelands and in the Bantu townships were given the choice of two courses of action. They could hand over the schools immediately to the State and be compensated for the buildings and the equipment, or they could maintain control on a basis of progressively decreasing subsidies, that would finally cease after a period of about four years. It is interesting to note that the choice of immediately handing over the schools was folowed by 44 churches, and only two preferred to keep them for another period of about four years.

It should also be stressed that church mission schools are neither suppressed nor prohibited in South Africa. Religious denominations which choose to retain control of and to finance their own schools, can apply for permission to register a new school on the understanding, of course, that they must supply all the necessary funds. It is not that the State take-over of these missionary schools means and end to religious instruction. On the contrary, religious instruction was made compulsory for the first time in all Bantu schools.

To give hon. members an idea of the progress we have made during the last years, I want to give the following information. When the department took over Bantu education in 1954, there were only 5,791 Bantu schools. These figures were given adequately by the hon. member for Heilbron, but I think it would be a good thing to repeat them. In 1965 there were 8,810. In 1954 the number of teachers was 21,561, which increased in 10 years’ time to 34,042. In 12 years’ time many more qualified than previously.

How many qualified altogether?

The progress made means nothing to this hon. member. She now wants to compare the qualified teachers at the Bantu schools with qualified teachers at European schools. I want to point out to her, as was so brilliantly done by the hon. member for Riissik, that the progress made by Bantu university colleges is far faster than ithose made by the old Victoria College, which is now the University of Stellenbosch, and by the University of Pretoria. But she wants everything on a golden plate immediately. She knows she is completely unrealistic about it.

You are far too pleased with yourself.

In 12 years’ time the number of Bantu secondary pupils has nearly doubled. The percentage of Bantu children at school increased from 10 per cent of the Bantu population in 1954 to 16 per cent. Ail Bantu schools have been classified since 1954 into six main categories. I only wish to mention community schools, State Bantu schools, farm schools, mine and factory schools, hospital schools and scheduled schools. I do not need to go into particulars about every one of them, except to point out the following with regard to farm schools, because there is a great interest in them. Farm schools are established by farmers for the children of their employees. These schools are managed by the farmer or his appointed representative, but they are financed by the State. A very interesting matter which I only discovered a few weeks ago, is that primary education is provided for Bantu children confined to hospitals for a period of at least three months. There are to-day 39 of these hospital schools in the Republic, and the Department of Bantu Education subsidizes the teachers’ salaries and the pupils’ textbooks. It is a fact that the Bantu public has realized the opportunities offered by the policy of separate development, and to-day it is no longer fashionable, at least among the Bantu, to criticize Bantu education. They welcome it.

Now hon. members know how Bantu education is financed. R13 million is paid from Central Government funds, as well as all the direct Bantu taxation without any deduction whatsoever.

Why is it lower this year?

Is it lower? I have not seen the latest figures, but I know that over the last period of five years it has increased from something like R5 million to well over RIO million. I think the estimate was that this year it will be in the vicinity of R12 million.

May I ask a question? May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if some of the taxes collected in the Republic are not handed over to the Transkei for their Education Department?

No, not to my knowledge. Those taxes are used for Bantu education here without any deductions. We are receiving the Bantu’s taxes. We are making collection more and more efficient, and it will increase. All indications are that these taxation increases will be in the vicinity of R500,000 to R1 million per year.

The changed attitude of the Bantu people to Bantu education became apparent when membership of the committees and of the school boards was regarded as a much soughtafter privilege. The whole-hearted support we got from these people to serve on advisory boards and school committees was most encouraging. Just to show the hon. member for Houghton how these people appreciate this system of education. I wish to point out that we have to-day no less than 80,000 Bantu parents serving on school boards, school committees and other organizations dealing with education. If ever there was proof that Bantu education is being accepted by the Bantu people and that they are taking a keen, personal interest in the progress and growth of their schools and in the education of their children, then it is this number of 80,000 Bantu parents who are now actively taking part in education. I would say that nothing has done more for the benefit of Bantu education than introducing these Bantu parents to assist in the schooling of their children. I just want to say that 15 per cent of the total Bantu taxation in the Republic is being paid over to the Transkei. The hon. member for Houghton, was therefore correct.

I do not know why the hon. member for Houghton does not like comparisons with other African countries. She says we are the wealthiest country in Africa. Lesotho. Botswana, Swaziland, Malawi and part of Ghana were under the British Government for very many years. She will not say we are a wealthier country than Great Britain. It is no use the hon. member pulling faces at me. These are facts. I say we in this country did much better than Britain did in Africa; we did much better than France did in Africa; we did much better than Belgium did in Africa. Whether she likes it or not, I am going to make these comparisons because they show that as far as Bantu education is concerned, we have the proudest record on the whole continent of Africa, including those parts that were under Western governments.

What about Rhodesia?

Yes, I will give the figures for Rhodesia. I now wish to give this House the number of pupils expressed as a percentage of the total black population of the country. In South Africa it is the highest, namely 14.8 going up to 16. For the benefit of the hon. member who is so talkative there now, the Rhodesian figure is 14.1. I am not referring to the hon. member for Transkei, I have peace with him this morning. I was referring to the hon. member for North Rand. In Ghana the figure is 13.3, in Zambia 9.4, in Nigeria 8.3, in Liberia 6.6 and in Ethiopia 1.4. Ironically enough Liberia and Ethiopia took us to the World Court because they alleged we did not look after our non-white people. As far as the number of school-age Children who do attend school is concerned, we have in South Africa by far the highest figure, namely 81.3 per cent. Those are the latest figures, and the figures are still rising. In Liberia it is 54.2 per cent and in Somalia 4.8 per cent. But these figures mean nothing to the hon. member. For us, however, they mean a lot. We are not superhuman and that is why we compare what we do with What is done in other countries. Moreover, our standards are continually rising. In 1966 no less than 59,113 Bantu children obtained their St. VI certificates, 9,917 passed St. VIII and 871 obtained their Matriculation certificate. The respective pass rates were 84.4 per cent, 71.75 per cent and 56.3 per cent. This is a considerable improvement on the 1955 figures. I may point out that the matriculation examination papers are the same for both Bantu and white children.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here now, but he asked me about financial assistance given to Bantu children. Annually about 2,000 Bantu pupils receive bursaries valued at about R87,000 awarded by Government departments, municipalities and private bodies. About 1,000 Bantu students at universities and university-colleges receive outright bursaries valued at a minimum of R 102,000 and R64,000 for bursary loans. I prefer to have them all as bursary loans rather than outright bursaries, and we will work in that direction.

I want to conclude in regard to this aspect by saying this. As far as primary and secondary Bantu education is concerned, this Government and this department have a proud record second to none on the entire continent of Africa. It is second to none even if we go further afield than the continent of Africa. We are improving continually and I think it is a proud record not. only for this Government but for South Africa as a whole.

Now I should like to say a few words in brief about the university training of theBantu. There was a great deal of bitterness when the Separate Universities Bill was passed and the main charge was that that merely constituted an attempt on the part of the Government to rob the Bantu of a proper university training. Hon. members will recall what a bitter struggle preceded the passing of that Bill. Is there anyone to-day who wants to repeat those allegations? I want to make this statement. To-day the university training of the Bantu, both as regards quality and quantity, is much better than anything anywhere else in Africa and a thousand times better than anything we had prior to the application of that legislation.

Better than the old Fort Hare?

Yes, I think so. I want to pay tribute to the principals, to the staff, the professors and the lecturers. White and Bantu. For the information of the hon. member for Kensington, who really ought to know better than anyone of us, we have to-day not only one or two Bantu professors, but quite a number of Bantu professors and a large number of Bantu lecturers. Our policy is aimed at achieving a situation not in the too distant future when the staff of the university colleges, which are going to become full-fledged universities before long, will consist entirely of Bantu. We are making fairly rapid progress in that direction. I want to pay tribute to those white and Bantu professors and lecturers.

At this point I should like to say a few words about the principal of Fort Hare, Professor Ross. He is retiring at the end of this month. I personally want to pay tribute to Professor Ross not only for the work which he has done at Fort Hare but also for the missionary work which he did in the past. Fort Hare has been very fortunate to have a man like Professor Ross to guide them. He has developed Fort Hare into a university college of which we may be rightly proud to-day. The hon. the Minister has asked me to pay tribute to Professor Ross on his behalf and to convey to him our thanks for everything which he has done in the fields of missionary work and education in South Africa. May he be happy, healthy and richly blessed in his retirement.

I should also like to pay tribute to the Bantu students. Here and there we have had a spot of trouble, but on the whole the behaviour of the Bantu students at the three university colleges has been exemplary. I attribute this not only to their sense of responsibility but also to the discipline maintained by the teaching staff. I paid visits to all the institutions and I was more than pleasantly surprised by the relationship existing between white and Bantu members of the teaching staff and between the teaching staff and the Bantu students. I believe that that relationship can hardly be any better under the circumstances.

As hon. members know, the Cabinet has approved of these university colleges becoming full-fledged universities. The legislation will, I believe, be introduced next year. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the University of South Africa, the institution under which these university colleges still fall, on having succeeded in maintaining such high standards at those institutions and to thank the University of South Africa for the good work it has done. The estimates for these institutions for the financial year 1967-’68 are approximately R2 million, excluding capital expenditure.

I want to conclude by pointing out the increase in the number of students at these university colleges. In 1960 365 students attended these university colleges, and in 1966 the figure was 1,161 and in 1967 1,313. The hon. member for Houghton will probably be delighted to hear that an estimated number of more than 6,000 students will be at these institutions by 1975. Fortunately she will no longer be here to make a fuss about that.

How many have matriculation exemptions?

I shall try to find out for the hon. member.

In addition I just want to point out what the rate of growth was prior and subsequent to the establishment of separate university colleges. The number of Bantu students at white universities and at Fort Hare increased from 365 to 619. between 1948 and 1959, a period of 11 years, i.e. an increase of approximately 70 per cent. This represents an annual increase of 6.4 per cent. From 1959 to 1966, a period of seven years, the number increased from 619 to 1,302, an increase of 109 per cent, which gives one an annual increase of 15.6 per cent as against an annual increase of 6.4 per cent before. With these facts before us, no one should tell me that this Department of Bantu Education has not worked wonders during the past 15 years. I challenge any other department or government to achieve in a period of 15 years what we have achieved in the field of Bantu education as regards primary education, secondary education, the bringing in of Bantu parents into educational matters and university education. I think this is a proud record, and although it may perhaps be too much to expect of the hon. member for Houghton not to disparage this constantly, I think that the rest of South Africa, if they want to take an objective view in this regard, can be very proud of these achievements, and for those achievements I want to pay the highest tribute to the Secretary for Bantu Education and his staff. I think I have now replied to more or less everything.

I wanted to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister two questions, but to one he gave the reply towards the end of his speech. That was in regard to the establishment of non-white universities. The other is in regard to the statement that has beenissued to the effect that the control and administration of Bantu education would now be handed over completely to the territorial authorities.

I now have the information which the hon. member requested in connection with the number of students who have university exemptions. Ouit of the total number of 1,305 students, 874 have such exemptions.

As regards the final question, yes, that is the plan. In due course six departments, will be handed over to the territorial authorities. I am now speaking under correction but I think that is correct. One of those departments will be the Department of Education. I may just mention that they will have the equivalent of a Minister of Education in all the different territorial authorities, but they will be assisted in all those departments, and also in the Department of Education, for as long as may be necessary by a white secretary with whom we shall provide them until such time as the Bantu have received sufficient training to enable them to take over the secretarial work from the Whites. Therefore the hon. member’s information is correct. It is very difficult to say how rapidly this will happen. At the moment we are engaged in this task. This is being developed. I do not want to say that we shall commence with that as early as this year. Perhaps we shall. But we are engaged in transferring education to them.

Votes and Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes 47,—Justice, R14,500,000, and 48,—Prisons, R21,435,000

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my adopting the rather unusual course of rising first to discuss a Vote, but I am doing so for a good reason, namely as a result of a statement made by my colleague during the discussion of the Coloured Affairs Vote, when he said that I would make a statement in regard to liquor matters under this Vote.

Hon. members will recall that in the course of that discussion reference was made to the consumption of liquor and to the habits disnlaved by Coloureds in white areas after they had consumed their liquor. There were such w’1d doings that the hon. the Minister was obliged to sound a note of warning. I thought it proper to put the following to the Committee. I have it here in writing, and it reads as follows—

1. 1. Tn general the present state, of affairs in regard to the availability of liquor to the various population groups is as follows—
   1. (a) Subject to prevailing conditions and to the Act on-consumption privileges, where they exist, are accessible to everybody; and
   2. (b) it is possible for all groups to obtain liquor in containers for purposes of private consumption. At present nobody in any race group, except blacklisted persons in that group, has therefore been excluded from the privilege of obtaining liquor.
2. 2. The way in which liquor is being made available for on and off-consumption purposes, differs from group to group and from province to province, and generally speaking the present state of affairs is as follows—
   1. (a) The Bantu:
      1. (i) In all the provinces the Bantu are excluded from on-consumption privileges in white residential areas, but in areas which have been set aside as or are Bantu residential areas, it is possible for the Bantu to avail themselves freely of these facilities where they do exist;
      2. (ii) it is possible for them to obtain liquor in containers for consumption away from the licensed premises, provided that it may not be drunk in public places.

   2. (b) The Coloureds and the Indians:

      Here the position differs from province to province.

      1. (i) In the Free State the possibility of on-consumption does exist for these race groups at licensed premises, but in practice there are no such places in white residential areas;
      2. (ii) In the Transvaal there are a few places where liquor may be supplied to these groups at licensed premises in white residential areas;
      3. (iii) In Natal provision has been made for on-consumption for these two groups at a considerable number of licensed premises in white residential areas; and
      4. (iv) in the Cape there are between 400 and 600 such places in white residential areas, and they are rather the rule than the exception.

   3. (c) The Whites:

      As far as my Department is aware there is no provision for on-consumption by Whites in the residential areas of the Bantu or those of other races, with the exception of one hotel which borders on the Coloured area at Athlone. A stop will be put to this as soon as the necessary alternative provision can be effected.

3. 3. The Government will not permit—
   1. (a) on-consumption privileges to be made available to Whites in non-white residential areas; or

   2. (b) on-consumption privileges to be made available to Bantu in white residential areas.

      This state of affairs obtains at present, and I am not aware of any inconvenience experienced by either of these two groups on account of this.

4. 4. In view of this it follows logically that there cannot be any reason either why onconsumption privileges to Indians and Coloureds cannot be confined to their own residential areas in order to make the position in respect of all race groups a uniform one in the whole of the Republic. Therefore I now state here for everybody’s information that this objective is now going to be carried into effect, and that on-consumption for race groups in one another’s areas will be terminated.
5. 5. Now the following question arises: What has been done in this regard? I am not taking the Bantu into account in this connection, because their cases do not present problems at present. Therefore, where I refer to nonWhites from now on, I mean the Coloured and Indian groups.
   In 1962 it was provided that Coloured and Indian associations could obtain liquor licences for on and off-co n sumption purposes. This provision has been on the Statute Book for almost six years, and I must accept that the opportunity that was afforded has by now been exploited fully. Over this period of approximately six years 35 liquor concerns have been established in such areas throughout the country—27 in Coloured and eight in Indian areas. Sixteen of these business concerns were financed by the Coloured Development Corporation to an amount of approximately R693.344. According to a survey another 52 such concerns could possibly be established successfully in such areas throughout the whole of the Republic. It is doubtful whether the Coloured Development Corporation and therefore the Government should involve themselves more deeply in the liquor trade, and consequently the financing of new liquor concerns should preferably be derived from other sources.
6. 6. The on-consumption of liquor by one race group in the residential area of another remains a source of annoyance, for unfortunately the consequences of the consumption are not confined to the licensed premises. It manifests itself in the streets and on public conveyances and leads to offensive actions, bad conduct disturbances, threats, assault, and so forth. The Government is determined to put a stop to the on-consumption of liquor by various race groups in one another’s residential areas as quickly as possible but also with as little disruption as possible. For this purpose ll have the support of my colleagues the Ministers of Community Development, of Coloured Affairs and of Indian Affairs as well as that of the Government as a whole.
7. 7. The question is: What action shall we take in order to achieve this aim?
   Firstly, for a considerable time already those granted new liquor licences in white areas are being prohibited from supplying non-Whites with liquor for on-consumption purposes. In non-white areas the same conditions are being imposed in respect of Whites. This evil will therefore not be allowed to continue.
   Secondly, in the General Law Amendment Bill, of which the first reading was taken this morning. I request powers which will enable me to do the following: (i) To prohibit on specific or identified licensed premises the supply of liquor for on-consumption purposes to non-Whites; (ii) to prohibit at all licensed premises within a defined area the supply of liquor for on-consumption purposes to nonWhites. In terms of the legislation I envisage, these prohibitions can be imposed by virtue of the fact that undesirable conditions exist or persist at specific premises, or by virtue of the fact that adequate facilities are already being provided in a nearby non-white area, where the persons concerned may enjoy their on-consumption privileges. I shall only be able to exercise the envisaged powers after the National Liquor Board has investigated the matter and given a hearing to interested parties.
8. 8. I am very well aware of the fact that licensees who may be affected, will maintain that their established rights are being interfered with, and that they will go bankrupt if they were deprived of the revenue they derive from on-consumption sales to Coloureds and Indians. It would be a bad day if one were to admit that a hotel for the white group finds justification for its right to exist in the drinking habits of a section of the non-white population. If this is in fact the case, such an hotel might as well close down. But to a large extent the Government has already made alternative provision for this possible loss of revenue by granting off-consumption privileges to hotels complying with classification requirements. Those that have not been classified, have themselves to blame if they do not share that privilege as yet. As soon as they comply with the requirements, they can be granted that privilege, and the fact that they are lagging behind is, therefore, their own fault. Of course, I must concede that some hotels have been enjoying off-sales privileges for many years.
9. 9
   1. (a) In view of the fact that, since the insertion of section 100 sex during 1962. only 28 Coloured liquor concerns have been established, one must inevitably come to the conclusion that the Coloured community as such is as yet unable to produce from amongst their own ranks persons who can come forward and be of assistance in removing this problem from the white area at a rate which one would like to see.
   2. (b) It is also reasonable to accept that a particular Coloured or Indian group area will not necessarily require the same number of individual liquor facilities that exist for such Coloureds or Indians in the white area in question.
   3. (c) In order to encourage the establishment of adequate facilities in Coloured and Indian group areas, and to accommodate at the same time licensees who will be justified in objecting to the curtailment of their so-called established rights, the following is being envisaged: (i) the National Liquor Board, in consultation with the Department concerned and the local authorities, will make a survey of the further need for liquor distribution points that exists in Coloured and Indian residential areas; (ii) the National Liquor Board will submit a report to the Minister and make recommendations on the way this need is to be met, with due regard to the interests of existing licensees who will be affected by the envisaged measure whereby Coloureds and Indians will be prohibited from enjoying on-consumption privileges in white areas.
      I foresee the possibility of licensees being allowed by way of consortiums under permit to exercise on-consumption privileges in nonwhite residential areas until such time as the Coloured and Indian groups themselves are able to provide the facilities and to take them over later on. I do not want to anticipate this matter, but I want to state frankly that white licensees must accept that through these envisaged transitional measures they will not acquire any permanent or lasting trading rights in the non-white residential areas concerned. It will merely be a transitional measure for the purpose of achieving an object. As soon as the board has submitted its report, this House will be approached for the necessary legislation, if any.
10. 10. As regards purchases for off-consumption purposes, the following problems are being experienced at present: Bantu or other groups drink the purchased liquor where it was bought, or in that vicinity, and leave the containers lying about, and thus all sorts of undesirable conditions are created. At other off-consumption points again, one sometimes finds people congregating, which is another source of annoyance. At present there are powers in terms of which the supply of liquor for off consumotion purposes to certain groups may be prohibited in a specific area, and in terms of which a specific licensee may be prohibited from supplying liquor for off-consumption purposes to a specific class or classes of persons. Should it become necessary to take steps in terms of these provisions, because a certain class or group could not restrain their desire for liquor until they reached their homes, or because the licensee did not exercise proper control over his customers, action will be taken. Licensees of off-sales permises might as well take note of this. However, the major problem in this regard is that the moment such a prohibition is imposed generally, the liquorrunner will immediately appear on the streets again. In the meantime the police will implement as strictly as possible the provisions of section 166 (i)bis in terms of which the evil of drinking from the bottle in or near any road, street, open space, etc., is being prohibited, so as to prevent undesirable conditions from arising. The congregation of people at such premises will also receive their attention.

By these means the Government hopes to put a stop to sources of annoyance which result from the supply and consumption of liquor, although it will in this process nevertheless have due regard to the interests of all groups and persons affected by it.

The hon. the Minister has made a very imptortant statement concerning the consumption and distribution of liquor. He has indicated that he is going to take the power to effect these changes in the General Laws Amendment Bill, which has been read a first time already. We will not, as the hon. the Minister will appreciate, be able to discuss his statement during this Vote. We feel that we should rather discuss it properly when we have the provisions of the Bill before us and we have had time to study the implications of the statement together with the Bill. I do not propose therefore to follow the hon. the Minister in his statement, but we are pleased that he has made this statement before the second reading of the General Laws Amendment Bill comes before us.

The matter I should like to deal with is the statement in the report of the Secretary for Justice for 1967 about the shortage of staff in his department, especially qualified professional staff, so much so that great difficulty is experienced in opening up new offices. On page 1 of his report the Secretary says—

Then there follow these significant sentences—

This is, indeed, a very grave situation. While one appreciates that a similar position has to be faced by many State Departments to-day, such a shortage in the Department of Justice has more serious consequences than in the case of any other department. There is, for instance, the position of professional assistants to the attorneys-general. The Minister himself has admitted that it is very difficult to get sufficient properly qualified persons to take on the jobs of State advocates and senior State advocates. And one is not surprised that this is the case when one looks at the salaries these people are paid. It must be remembered that a man cannot appear for the attorneygeneral unless he has been admitted to the Bar. Now we find that such a person acting as professional assistant to an attorney-general reaches the salary scale of only R3,600 after 10 years’ service. Therefore, a man who is qualified to practice at the Bar has to have another 10 years’ service to reach a salary of R3,600. So, it is quite clear why the Minister is having difficulty in filling these posts. However, this at least can be remedied and the Minister is indeed remedying it by allowing attorneys-general to brief independent members of the Bar to prosecute on their behalf.

But the real difficulty lies with magistrates. Now, we all know how many cases have to be remanded in our criminal courts. As a matter of fact, I know of cases which have been remanded for up to five months by our regional courts, where the more serious cases are heard. These courts have so many cases on their rolls that once a case has been remanded it is very difficult to say when it is going to come up again—it might not be before two months, or more. We have tried to obtain information about the number of cases in which there were undue delays due to the shortage of staff, but the Department could unfortunately not furnish us with this information. But from experience one knows that these delays must be considerable. Now, a delay in justice, especially in criminal matters, can amount to a negation of justice, even to the infliction of an injustice where the person charged is found not guilty. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether the time has not come for magistrates to be placed on a completely different basis from that of other members of the service. After all, magistrates are not ordinary civil servants. As far as their judicial work is concerned they are not subject to any instructions. They themselves are the lords and masters of their courts—absolutely independent and make any decision they like. Even the hon. the Minister of Justice has no power to tell them what to do. But the duties they perform are the duties of an arm of the State. We must remember that a person cannot become a magistrate unless, in the first place, he has attained certain qualifications and, secondly, has had a considerable number of years’ service within the Department. By the time he gets to the position of magistrate he is, consequently, a fairly senior person already. But when one looks at the salaries of magistrates one is again not surprised that there is a shortage of magistrates, because 45 per cent of magistrates have as their highest salary only R4,200, before deductions. For 72f per cent, including the 45 per cent, their highest notch is R5,100, and that after a considerable period on the Bench. These are senior magistrates. The Department has indicated that the shortage of magistrates is going to continue, but in the meantime the cases coming before magistrates are increasing and with that the delays are getting worse. So, something very drastic has to be done if this situation is to be remedied at all. The difficulty of the hon. the Minister is that it is going to be difficult to get a qualified man into the service on account of the unrealistic salaries which are paid, unrealistic when compared with what he can earn in his profession. The other difficulty the Department has to face is the difficulty of training people who come into the service without qualifications. This question of legal education, of qualifying personnel of the Department to take a place on the Bench, is a serious matter. The Department has put forward certain views in its report on what could be done about this. Because I shall not have time to deal with this now in detail, I intend leaving it until later. However, it is part and parcel of the problem of our Bench, never forgetting that it is the ordinary magistrate, apart from regional magistrates, who has to try 90 per cent of all the cases that come before our courts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Minister himself will reply to the hon. member for Durban (North), because he touched upon a very topical matter indeed. I think we all agree that this shortage of staff in the Department of Justice is very alarming. There are various factors apart from the salary factor, which the hon. member mentioned. I may tell him that the question of salaries is not one which is peculiar to the Department of Justice. It is a matter with which all the Departments of the Public Service are having difficulty, i.e. that the technical person who is qualified, who satisfies all the requirements and is trained, can obtain better remuneration outside the PublicService than inside it. All the Departments are in fact having difficulty with this problem. It is a very difficult problem. I do not want to propose any radical changes, but I also believe that we must begin to look in another direction for a solution to this matter. An ambitious man who goes to work in the Department, should also be able to progress to the highest rung. Let us consider the question of the magistrates. I have pleaded for that in this House before. Apart from the fact that all kinds of administrative matters which actually have nothing to do with his legal knowledge, especially in the smaller offices, are loaded onto the magistrate, he is a kind of wailing wall to whom all kinds of difficulties are brought. He is the link between the Government and the public in that particular place. I do not want to go into that now. The topic is a stale one. But I want to suggest that the time is drawing near when we cannot make the magistrate’s highest rung merely that of regional magistrate. Once a magistrate has been promoted to regional magistrate, what is the next rung? I think that he is in a cul-de-sac. He cannot progress further than regional magistrate. By way of exception there are a few who are appointed to the head office of the Department and can then progress to the position of Secretary for Justice. But is this the correct way of granting promotion? Must a person’s ideals be limited in this way? There are many countries, and this is the radical matter which I should like to mention, where the judiciary is a career in which a person can advance from the bottom to the top. From the judiciary of the lower courts one can advance to that of the higher courts. In South Africa we have unfortunately adopted the British practice as the be-all and end-all, namely that the office-bearers of a judiciary should specifically be appointed from the Bar. I want to emphasize that I do not regard this as the correct approach to the matter. The small group of privileged persons who can reach the judiciary of the higher courts and of the Appeal Court, are appointed from the Bar. Is this the correct approach? Our Chief Justice was in the Department of Justice, and I want to say to you that we cannot have a better and a more brilliant man as chief justice. But he never had a private practice and was never a member of the Bar. There are a few other instances of persons in the Appeal Court who are as brilliant, for example Mr. Justice Botha. He is another person whom I want to mention who comes from the Department. But I am now actually pleading for the magistrates, for promotion opportunities for the district magistrate as well. The possibilities of the matter should be investigated.

But I actually want to come to the other matter which is discussed in detail by the Secretary for Justice in his report, i.e. the matter of legal training in the Republic. Ten years ago I introduced a motion in this House in which I pleaded for the abolition of Latin. At that time I received very little support in this House and outside. I am very glad of the definite attitude now being adopted by our present Secretary for Justice. I believe that he has now once and for all given us the correct guidance. No man can become an advocate to-day unless he has taken a one-year course in Latin at a university. For that he must have passed a preliminary examination of matriculation standard. In other words, if he has never taken Latin before, he needs at least two years to pass that course. It remains a fact in South Africa that there are very few of our Afrikaans-medium schools which teach Latin. I am now not even talking about the country districts, because as far as the country districts are concerned I know of no more than five schools which still teach Latin. In the country districts of the Free State I know of only two schools which still teach Latin. I may be wrong, because I did not make such a thorough survey. The requirement of Latin in this career is closing the door in the faces of many of our Afrikaans children, especially in the country districts. There are many of them who want to take up this career, but they come up against this requirement of Latin. What the wonderful value of Latin is, heaven alone knows; I do not. No professor at any university could give me an explanation as yet. I know of one university—and I will not mention its name—which, as regards the Latin requirement, puts persons through in a jiffy and trains many Ll.B. students in this way. I do not want to mention this university by name, but I know which one it is. Many students are trained in this way. Unfortunately this university is not one to which Afrikaans boys and girls can have recourse.

In the first place I want to point out that this first-year course in Latin is a course in what we call classic Latin. It is the Latin that was used 500 years before the Corpus Juriswas written. The Corpus Juris was written in a form of Latin which came 500 years after that classic Latin. Now we have to force this Latin down children’s throats because they want to take up law. I know a Judge who is in the judiciary to-day. After he had passed his first year in Latin, he came to the professor and asked him—he almost failed it because of that, but he nevertheless obtained a distinction-—who this man “Rex” was who was involved in so many cases. So small is the value of Latin; it is only a stumbling block. One needs no Latin at all to acquire legal knowledge to-day. Virtually all the Latin sources which we still use to-day have been translated into Afrikaans or English. If one cannot obtain the necessary facts in those two languages, one can obtain them in German.

The Corpus Juris was translated into German many years ago and this translation has also been used a great deal by our students. What must we do with this dead language, Latin? The argument is advanced that Latin is so beneficial to the development of one’s logic. The grammar of any language is logical if one studies it, and there is no need to haverecourse to Latin. I want to plead that serious attention be given to this matter. The most radical step will be to amend the law so as to abolish Latin as a requisite subject. This will, however, be the simplest course. I realize that there is a great deal of opposition and because I am not allowed at this stage to plead for the law to be amended, I want to plead that serious attention be given to the recommendation of the Secretary. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want briefly at the outset to react to one or two matters to which the hon. member for Heilbron referred. The first is that of the almost “dead-end occupation”, as he put it, of our magistrates. I do not think his proposal will cure the frustrations that might be felt in those quarters. I think it can be more correctly, more effectively and more properly be done by adjusting the status and the remuneration of the senior grade magistrates.

The hon. member spoke about Latin also. I do not want to initiate an academic debate on the value or otherwise of Latin as a subject. Great minds have differed on that matter. The practical aspect of the matter is the extent to which Latin has been dropped in the schools of this country. One often finds a young man wanting to enter the legal profession after passing his matriculation examination, but he has not done Latin because of the choice of subjects he made at his school four or five years earlier. I believe that is a practical aspeot which, apart from any academic considerations, leads one to accept that Latin is an obstacle to recruitment into the legal profession.

I want to refer to one or two other matters. I believe that the way in which our statutes will be published in future as far as it affeots our Department of Justice and the administration of justice needs some consideration. Henceforth I believe the annual publication of Acts of Parliament in volumes of statutes will be replaced entirely by the loose-leaf consolidated system which is made available to those who want it. In other words, Acts of Parliament as enacted will in future only be published in their entirety in the Government Gazette or in the annotated volume, if not amending legislation. If it is amending legislation then the only place where it will be published in its entirety will be in the Government Gazette. There will be no annual publication of these statutes as passed by Parliament.

One accepts immediately that the loose-leaf annotated publication is of use to the general public. It is of value to the person who is in a hurry to know what the law is on a particular subject. But I consider that is not sufficient and will be a handicap and cause considerable delay and work to the Bench and to practitioners. We know that much of our law is in faot created by judgments of our courts, and a decision of a court is based upon a statute as it existed at the time of the decision. An amendment to a particular section on which a court judgment is based may be brought about because the legislature sees fit to bring about a different set of circumstances to those relied on by the court, or for other reasons. If a student, a practitioner or a judicial officer takes out an annotated volume he does not have the legislation on which the decision was originally based and the reasoning or the comparison is not easily to hand, he cannot compare the new enactment to the old enactment so that he can evaluate the decision of the court.

I do not expect the hon. the Mitnister to give a final reply to this matter at the moment, but from my own inquiries I do believe there are some misgivings. Members of the judiciary, members of the law societies and others are not quite happy about it. I would be grateful if the Minister would cause this matter to be investigated before we allow too long a period to elapse if it is found necessary that there should be the annual publication of the statutes as well as the annotated issues. A year can be caught up with, but if this matter drags along for two or three or four years and it is then decided to reintroduce the old system, practical difficulties may be encountered. I do not think the costs involved will be so much that they will outweigh the practical advantages of having the annual publication.

There are a few matters I want to deal with arising out of the report of the Department of Justice. I see there is a desire to erect prefabricated courtrooms in areas where there is not a permanent court. Whilst prefabricated buildings have their use as residential premises and for other purposes, I wish to utter a word of warning about using them for the purpose envisaged in the report. I do not think there is a saving in costs. I have had experience of such structures of the size of a courtroom and ‘there are tremendous problems in connection with air-conditioning and maintaining proper conditions within the building, even if it is used only occasionally, especially if used by numbers of people coming and going, as happens in court. I think it would be unwise to provide buildings of this nature for the purpose which the Department has in mind. Other Departments have utilized these structures and I do not think there is a financial saving when buildings of that size are air-conditioned and equipped for court hearings.

Then I think the method of presentation of the various tables in the report can be improved upon. When looking at tables one likes to have an easy reference to the past. We find particulars of staff on page 12 of the report. These deal with resignations, vacancies, new appointments, and so on. I wonder whether we could not have the relevant figures for two or three years side by side so that onecould at a glance see whether there has been an improvement or a deterioration in the position. Comparative figures are given in respect of certain aspects of the report but they are not given there. On page 17 we find the subheading “Work studies, Supreme Court cases handled, Attorney-General’s Department, Masters of the Supreme Court, Estates handled, the State Attorney’s activities”, as well as the general activities of the magistrates’ courts. I think there again it would give one a ready picture of an increase or decrease in the burden being borne by one or other section or division. I suggest that such comparative figures be incorporated in the Report.

Finally I want to return to the matter of magistrates. I want to make a plea to the Minister in regard to two posts in particular. I refer to the chief magistrates of our legislative capital, Cape Town, and our administrative capital, Pretoria. I think the Minister will agree these two gentlemen have a particular status in protocol and among the representatives of foreign states. They are involved in a multitude of activities of which a large number are of a social nature. I believe they are often embarrassed because, first of all, they have no official residence. I know the difficulties about providing official residences for at least those two very highly placed magistrates. Any entertainment they have to do is done on a private cost basis. There is no provision for them as there is for heads of departments for official entertainment. I am sure you will agree with me, Sir, that these facilities should be available to the chief magistrate of Pretoria and I certainly feel they should be available to the chief magistrate in Cape Town, where they mix with foreign representatives who are assembled in large numbers during the Parliamentary session. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Green Point will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said, since he specifically directed his questions at the hon. the Minister. I should like to say a few words of appreciation in connection with the Department of Prisons, a department which in my opinion has in an unobtrusive way struck a great ¡blow ¡for South Africa in the past two years in connection with the international smeer campaign which is being conducted against our country, and unfortunately not only internationally, but a campaign which is also evident in our country.

Last year the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. made atrocious accusations against our prison system in South Africa, and inter alia they appointed an ad hoc work group, which brought out a report. The Department replied to this work (group immediately, and. inter alia, summarily rejected the findings of this work group and undertook to draw up and make available a detailed monograph which would present the true facts to the world. The Department once again invited the International Red Cross Committee to come and investigate the true conditions in our prisons, and as we know, two members came to undertake this task on behalf of the Red Cross. I have no doubt that our system once again left these gentlemen of the Red Cross with the impression of a modern and civilized system. It is no wonder that our system should leave that impression, because this Department has for a long time now both in letter and in spirit observed the provisions of section 2 of our Prisons Act, which provides that a prison is not only a place for keeping certain persons in safe custody, but that it should also, as far as possible, apply such treatment as can lead to the correction and rehabilitation of the prisoners.

In addition we are also indebted to the hon. the Minister for quoting very impressive figures in a recent speech to repute the false statement that the alleged high crime rate was due to hatred and tension between White and non-White. Allow me just to quote one set of figures which the Minister mentioned. These are figures for the year ended 30th June, 1966. In that year 3,940 persons were prosecuted on charges of murder. Those perpetrated by Whites upon Whites total 52; non-Whites upon Whites, 35; Whites upon non-Whites, 48; and non-Whites upon non-Whites, 3,805.

Are those assaults?

No, these are murder charges. In the past number of years this Department has dispalyed ever increasing and finer development, and what I, as a member from a rural area, want to praise in particular is the very positive method of decentralization which they are adopting in various fields. Recently, at the inauguration of the Victor Verster Prison for Whites near FransChhoek, we saw what excellent institutions are being established in the rural areas, not only to be of service to the rural areas, but also to facilitate contact between the prisoners and their next of kin. In addition we also have a very clear and fine example in the training college established for white male members of the Department at Kroonstad. This college is rapidly nearing completion, and when completed it will cost about R2 million. But because the Department itself is carrying out the work involved, we can probably multiply this figure of R2 million by three at the least. This institution will eventually accommodate 600 students. Those of us who saw the orchestra, the gymnasts and the students of this college performing will have to admit that they need not take second place to any other service institution whatsoever, and that they add lustre and prestige not only to this institution, but also to the entire Department.

A further fine figure to indicate what progress is taking place in this ¡Department, is that in respect of the training of white male personnel in their own time. It is a fact that a decade or two ago a prison warder was a very humble person. Although thorough, he was a very humble person, and there was no question of high academic qualifications in the caseof most of them. Even 10 years ago there were only three white members of the staff who had university degrees. To-day the position is that 79 members of the staff already have university degrees.

In this connection I pay tribute to the hon. the Minister, our present Commissioner, who, by the way, himself set an example in this connection, and also the untiring zeal of Mr. Victor Verster, the previous Commissioner. This Department’s staff has increased to such an extent that at present there are 8,748 posts on the permanent establishment of the Department.

I want to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister that, in view of the fine progress which this Department is making and the good work which its members are doing, even beyond the duties imposed upon them, he should always be prepared to reward this excellent growth by upgrading the more senior posts, with the adjustments which that would entail.

I want to raise one or two matters concerning Prisons with the hon. the Minister, and then another matter which falls more under the Justice part of his portfolio. I agree with some of what the hon. member who has just sat down said, namely that there have been considerable improvements effected in our prisons in the last two or three years. I for one am very glad about this. I think there has been a better attitude, generally speaking, even towards complaints about the prisons. I believe, of course, that the Prisons Act should be amended so that one could expose any abuses and other things that one believes to be going on in the prisons without fear of criminal prosecution, because I think that is just a social duty which rests on any citizen of the country. Anyway, as I say, there have been improvements and one is grateful for them. There are, however, still some matters which I think are unsatisfactory as far as the so-called offenders against the State are concerned, the political prisoners, some of whom are at the Pretoria Central Prison, the male white prisoners, and a great number of non-White. are still on Robben Island. There are also a few women prisoners left, and some non-white women prisoners at Barberton and Nylstroom.

I have been conducting a laborious correspondence with the hon. the Minister over a couple of years over some points, but I do not seem to get very much further with him on certain aspects of prison administration. The one is the slow up-grading of the prisoners in this category. I know there have been upgradings. I believe nobody is at the moment left in the “D” category. Some are now in the “B” category, but I do not think any are in the “A” category. The hon. the Minister seems to think it is perfectly justifiable that the crimes or offences these people have committed are taken into consideration in the actual grading within the prison itself. Of course my contention is that it is the court which has imposed the punishment in keeping with the crime the person has committed, and after that surely, if the person is behaving himself well in prison, there should be no barrier to his rapid upgrading from “D” to “A”, because a great deal of difference is made in prison in regard to the privileges, etc., depending on the grading one receives in the prison. That is the first point. The Minister simply said to me that he was satisfied that progressive individual reclassifications are regularly made, having regard to the nature of the offence, security and other relevant factors. Well, I do not know how much more secure one can be than in the Pretoria Local or on Robben Island, which are maximum security gaols, and within those walls it surely should be permissible for a more rapid upgrading to take place.

Then there is the question of remission of sentence. I have said to the hon. the Minister, and I wish to repeat here, that one is better treated in South Africa if one has committed the crime of rape or assault and battery or attempted murder, or any of the serious crimes, as far as remission of sentence is concerned, than if one has committed a crime which falls in the category of an offence against the State. If one has committed a crime and is found guilty of a crime in any of those categories, under the Suppression of Communism Act or under the Banned Organizations Act, or for sticking posters on walls, etc., one is far more harshly treated in South Africa as far as remission of sentence is concerned and in so far as actual treatment in prison is concerned, because of the grading system in particular, than if one is a hardened criminal who has committed any of these serious crimes of brutality and violence. Such people are not excluded from remission of sentence. Of course everybody has to serve, I think, two-thirds of the sentence before remission is considered. Some, of course, are given amnesty on certain occasions and others are released on parole. But for the prisoner who is serving a sentence for an offence connected with the security of the state, or offences against the state, apparently no remission is considered at all.

But it is partly preventive treatment.

You cannot go on indefinitely preventing somebody from committing a crime. Why do you not prevent a rapist? Why do you allow a rapist out after he serves two-thirds of his sentence? Why do you allow a man out who has committed assault and robbery? Does he not need preventive detention? Surely he needs it no more or no less than the man who has committed the crime of belonging to an unlawful organization.

What I say is absolutely true. If one is going to choose a career of crime—and II do not advocate it—it is far better in South Africa to choose a career of ordinary criminal violence than it is to commit a crime whiah has anything to do with the security of the State. I think this is unreasonable, especially as many of these people, if given a remission of sentence earlier, would leave the country immediately on an exit permit and therefore could no longer ¡be a real danger to South Africa. Surely the hon. the Minister will appreciate that.

Then there is the question of post-graduate courses at the prisons. It is part of our prison regulations that every prisoner should be encouraged to study. I want to say at once that I am delighted to find how widespread the system of prison education is, particularly on Robben Island where prisoners are being taught literacy and where they are being allowed to study for ordinary school examinations, including matriculation, and I believe that some of them even take university courses. This is so too, of course, in the other prisons, and in this regard I only have words of praise for the department. But I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s adamant attitude about that selective group of prisoners in the Pretoria local gaol and, I presume, elsewhere, if there are graduates amongst the non-Whites, as in fact I know there are—on iRobben Island and elsewhere—who are not allowed to pursue post-graduate studies. The hon. the Minister has given me one reason. He says that “such courses connote personal contact with the head of the faculty of the university concerned and possibly other outside sources, and that for practical and security reasons this facility cannot be acceded to.” I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is not true. All these courses are done through Unisa; they are all done by correspondence. I understand that the Unisa people are perfectly prepared to continue in the ordinary way with prisoners doing post-graduate courses. They are providing the under-graduate courses anyway, and there is no reason at all why they should not also do the post-graduate courses. Some of the men sitting in the Pretoria local prison have B.A.’s, B.Sc.’s, etc. What are they to do during the years and years which they spend in gaol if they are not allowed to pursue post-graduate study? They are allowed to do occasional courses, but surely some hope must be given to the men who are not serving life imprisonment. There are some who are serving lone terms of seven, nine, twelve or fifteen years. These people presumably are entitled to look forward to a life after they had served their sentences. After all. it was the Deputy Minister of Police who said to me not long ago when I asked why Arlow had been re-admitted to the police force, that he had atoned for his crime; in other words, he had served his sentence or paid whatever penalty was imposed upon him. Cannot the same mercy be shown to people who are serving long sentence for crimes against the State? Cannot they be allowed at least to look forward to some sort of life outside prison when they are finally released? I do not understand this attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister at all. Then, Sir, the work which these people are doing, by and large, is terrible work.

I know that facilities will be provided, I hope soon—and perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me when, because I have been asking him this for two years now—for work other than the sewing of mail bags and the cleaning of cells for these prisoners who are in the Pretoria Local gaol. Many of them were students in fact. The prisoners on Robben Island, of course, do hard labour. I know that there is no such thing as hard labour, expressly, in our laws, but in fact the work that they are doing is hard labour—breaking stones, moving sand, etc. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me to-day that facilities are being provided for more constructive work for these people who are serving long-term sentences. That is all I want to say in this connection.

Then on the question of prisons, I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do about the enormous number of short-term prisoners who are also his responsibility. I know that he is not responsible for the laws which in fact are the cause of these hundreds of thousands of short-term prisoners cluttering up the gaols and bulging the walls of our gaols. I think it was Prof. Venter, who is a criminologist at the Pretoria University, who pointed out that in 1964 … [Interjections.] Well, he was. Is he no longer there? Has he been thrown out?

No, I am not listening to you; I do not know what you are talking about.

Funnily enough. I am not listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister either; I am listening to the hon. member on the back bench over there. The hon. the Deputy Minister should reply to some of the things I say; he did not reply to me yesterday. [Time expired.]

I may say that I am surprised that the hon. member did not deliver her usual tirades here to-day. One is actually surprised that she did not raise the question of restrictions once again, but the reason for that may be that she did raise that question on two previous occasions. But seeing that she did not mention it, I think that I, in all fairness to the hon. the Minister of Justice, ought to do so. Consequently I just want to deal with a few aspects regarding restrictions. There are two points of criticism in particular which are expressed by the hon. member for Houghton every time and also by the Press at times. The insinuation is that the hon. the Minister of Justice allegedly employs his powers arbitrarily to restrict innocent people, to place innocent people in an inconvenient position, to deprive them of their work and to drive them from the country by those means. The other is that the hon. the Minister of Justice, as far as restrictions are concerned, ought to transfer his powers to impose restrictions to the courts. It is very interesting that requests are usually made, when a person is restricted, for such a person to be brought before the courts. The idea seems to be that threeJudges will be more competent than the hon. the Minister of Justice to impose those restrictions. I think the hon. member for Houghton will agree with me that the appointment of Judges is also at the discretion of the hon. the Minister of Justice. There has never been any complaint in South Africa either against the previous Minister of Justice, or against the present Minister of Justice, to the effect that they had not exercised their discretion well in the appointment of Judges. If that is so, why are their objections to the same Minister exercising his discretion when it comes to restrictions? If he is competent to exercise his discretion in the one case, then surely he is also competent to exercise his discretion in the other.

He is not infallible.

Sir, I just want to mention a few cases of restriction for the sake of the record. There are many more than those I am going to mention now, but I want to mention a few cases of restriction here, cases in which the Minister of Justice did in fact exercise his discretion, and I want to show what happened in spite of that. Let us take the case of Mr. Roley Arenstein. He was restricted in 1962 at the discretion of the hon. the Minister, and in November, 1966, he was found guilty by a Judge of the Supreme Court of activities against the State and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Take the case of Harold Strachan. The Minister had to exercise his discretion and he did so in 1965. In 1966, in spite of that restriction, that person was sentenced by the court to 21 years’ imprisonment in consequence of an article which he had written about prisons in South Africa. Take for example the case of Ivan Scherm-brucker. This person was restricted by the hon. the Minister at his discretion in November, 1963, and in April, 1965, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by an independent court. Take the case of Denis Goldberg. He was restricted at the discretion of the Minister in 1963, and in June, 1964, he was sentenced by an independent court to imprisonment for life. Nelson Mandela was restricted in 1962, and in 1964 he was sentenced to imprisonment for life by an independent court. Walter Sisulu was restricted in 1963, and in 1964 an independent court sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Sir, I can continue in this way. I have mentioned only a few examples of people who were restricted at the discretion of the Minister of Justice and who subsequently continued with their activities and were sentenced by independent courts. I mention these cases to prove that the discretion to which objections have been raised has never been exercised unjustly. What happens is that when an important person is restricted, he is visited by the Press. I do not think that hon. members will be so naïve as to believe that restricted person when he says that he is completely innocent. Stories are then dished up about what a pity it is that such brilliant people should be restricted by a harsh Minister. The impression is created that the people are being deprived of their livelihood by a harsh Minister. The restricted person is always the innocent person, and the Minister is then presented as a harsh person, but here I have just proved to you that these restrictions at the discretion of the Minister have been justified in every instance. The hon. member for Houghton always asks, “Why do you not tell us what these people have done?” As far as this cry is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she should exercise a great deal of care when people request her to ask the Minister for facts in this House, because those people who try to persuade her to ask the Minister for the facts of the matter in this Parliament, are not always innocent agitators. Sir, we should not overlook the fact that all restrictions are imposed under the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. All restrictions have a communistic basis, and it is of the utmost importance for South Africa that Communism in this country should be wiped out completely. I want to inform this Committee that the security which we enjoy in South Africa to-day and the fact that there is so little agitation, is attributable to the timely action taken by the previous Minister of Justice and the present Minister of Justice and by our Security Police, our Police Force, in South Africa. Were it not for them, we would most probably have been experiencing the same kind of agitation and unrest here as is being experienced in Europe to-day. But let me take this idea a little further. Surely hon. members themselves can understand that our security police have built up a security system in the interests of South Africa, a system which makes it possible for all members of this House to sleep safely at night, and if the hon. the Minister of Justice were to disclose facts relating to the deeds of restricted persons, any person who has a logical mind would realize that the system which has been developed over the years by the Police could be destroyed by the enemies of South Africa, and that is the reason why the hon. the Minister says that it is not in the interests of South Africa to disclose those faots. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the strong attitude he adopts as regards the pressure which is being exerted on him by certain sectors of the Press and especially by the Progressive Party and its members.

It has one member only.

Sir, let us be quite honest. I think that it is an unpatriotic act on the part of the Press to go along with these irresponsible actions; to come along here with all kinds of tearful stories about persons who have been restricted. Pictures of their children are published in the newspapers; stories are printed about the sufferings of those people, and the impression is created that if those persons were to have been brought to courts,they would have been acquitted. What happened in practice, in spite of all the threats, after these persons had been restricted? I just want to give you one example. In the case of Dr. Hoffenberg, certain persons in the Press threatened that a certain number of doctors would resign. I have not yet noticed one single doctor resigning as a result of the restriction of Dr. Hoffenberg. In fact, I subsequently saw in the Press that certain doctors had said that the Government knew what it was doing; that it had adopted a responsible attitude; that the South African Government had never yet acted unpatriotically or unjustly; that they knew what they were doing and that that was the reason why the persons concerned were restricted. In the time at my disposal, I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Heilbron said. From my practical experience as an advocate, I just want to say in connection with the study of Latin that I am also of the opinion that the time has come for the universities to reconsider the question whether a full law course in Latin is necessary for an LL.B, degree. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste too much time on the hon. member for Prinshof. I have quoted figures over and over again in this House to show that of the people detained, large numbers were never charged. Of those who were charged, many were not found guilty. Obviously he was disappointed that I did not make the speech he expected me to make, so he had to make the speech he had prepared in anticipation. Let us leave that matter to one side.

Now that he has raised the matter, perhaps the hon.. the Minister will be a little more forthcoming than he and the hon. the Prime Minister were earlier this session in giving us some information about Dr. Hoffenberg and his actions in this regard. I am not remotely interested in whether the medical profession said that they are sure that they know what this Government is doing. I do not think the medical profession’s diagnosis is always correct. I would much rather know from the hon. the Minister whether he can give us some information, because, unlike the hon. member for Prinshof, I do not have an absolute trust in the infallability of the special branch and of the actions of this Government. I can mention case after case of people with no connection with Communism whatsoever, who were placed under bans, detained and all the other dreadful fates that can befall them under the laws that require no confirmation by the courts of law whatsoever. Hoffenberg is one of those people, and so are Ian Robertson, Ruth Hayman and Peter Brown. I can go on mentioning names ad nauseam to the hon. member. But let us hope that the hon. the Minister perhaps, now that the session is drawing—thank heaven!—to its close, will be able to give us some information about that.

I was mentioning the question of the bulging gaols with all the short-term prisoners, and I simply want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention, because there is no time for me to go into this in depth, the statement made by Mr. Justice Steyn of the Cape Town Supreme Court about the number of short-term prisoners. He said that “the time has come for us to appreciate that short-term imprisonment is a barren exercise”. He said that rehabilitation is obviously part of the whole idea of sending people to gaol. He ended up with a very intelligent statement that it costs the State much more to look after people in the gaols, namely, 50 cents a day, than it would do if they went in for some sort of long-term solution. He said Much of our motiveless crimes of violence and petty dishonesty has its origin in the living conditions of our people. The State has done much and is doing much in this regard, but it is a burden which it alone cannot carry.

The point I want to make is that of the 339,000 people who went to gaol during the year ending June 30th, 1966, something like 118,000 received sentences of more than one and up to four months’ imprisonment, many of them for petty offences under the Pass Law, influx control and so on. 162,000 received sentences of less than one month imprisonment, undoubtedly almost all for influx control, curfew and tax offences, etc. I think this is something which the State really cannot just allow to go on year after year, with thousands of people going to gaol for petty offences, losing earning capacity, wasting man-hours, and everything else that this entails. What is more, these prisoners are becoming hardened criminals, because when they come out of gaol, they come out in exactly the same state as before they went in. They still have no job, they still are passless and likely to be picked up again the next day and put back in gaol.

Now I want to come back to one specific case which came to my attention and the attention of the Press earlier this session. That is this extraordinary case of the ten-year old Paarl Coloured boy. It is an astonishing case. If I can remind this Committee, this was a case where a Coloured boy of 10 was apparently awaiting trial for stealing mealies to feed his grandmother’s chickens. This has subsequently emerged. This boy was kept for one whole month in a police cell awaiting trial. I asked the hon. the Minister if he could give us some information about this matter. What he said, was this:

The child was detained in a police cell separate from adults and not in a gaol. The family of the child was not in a position to take care of him and as no other suitable place of safety was available he was placed in a police cell, which is also a place of safety, in terms of section 1 of the Children’s Act, until the case against him was disposed of. It is a requirement of the Criminal Procedure Act that sentence cannot be imposed in cases of this nature before a certificate by the South African Criminal Bureau is handed into court. Due to the condition of the child’s hands his fingerprints could only be identified after they were taken a second time. Consequently the case could not be disposed of earlier.

All I can say is that the hon. the Minister’s statement raises more questions than answers and more doubts than it resolves. This is all I can say about that.

In what respects?

I am just about to tell you, Sir. First of all. I want to raise the question about the definition of a prison cell and a police cell being a place of safety. Is there no other place in the whole of Paarl, with its large Coloured population, where non-white children can be kept in places of safety other than the prison cells? This is no desperado, but a 10-year old child. This is my first point. I do not believe that the Children’s Act ever envisaged that a police cell should be used as a place of safety in a case like this. I cannot for one moment believe that it envisages this. It must mean some violent young juvenile, someone who cannot be put out with some guardian or some other place of safety. It is ludicrous that this should have happened. This must have been more or less solitary detention for this child. I presume that there were no other children in the cell at the time. He was also kept separate from other adults for 30 days and 30 nights. I hope that the hon. the Minister has been able, in the meantime, to make more of an investigation in depth and that he can tell us something about that. Why was the child not left in the care of his grandmother? If she was not a fit person, what has happened to the child in the meantime? I know that somebody went to the Anglican priest, who briefed a lawyer and that the lawyer put the case before the magistrate. The child’s sentence was suspended for three years and he was sent off. Nobody knows what has become of that child since then. Surely the magistrate should have taken it upon himself to find out, because he is, after all, supposed to act as a guardian for these children. That is one of his duties as a magistrate, namely to see that such children are placed under proper care. I now want to know what has happened since. The magistrate obviously did not know that the child was in the cell for 30 days, but when it was brought to his notice what steps subsequently did he take to place this child in proper care? This child is obviously in need of care, and our Children’s Act makes all provision for such children to receive special attention.

As I have said, the magistrate, as part of his duties, should have done something about this. I think that he should have had an inquiry to find out why the child was in need of care, what was going to happen to him and why he was placed in a police cell in the first instance. The hon. Minister also mentioned that a certificate from the Criminal Bureau was not available in time and that it was one of the major reasons why the child was kept so long. Was this for previous convictions? I presume that the certificate is necessary to verify previous convictions. I think it is ludicrous and that this is not any explanation at all. And what was wrong with his hands? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what was wrong with the child’s hands, other than the bleak statement that the child’s hands were in such a condition that it was not possible to take fingerprints. I think this whole matter is most unsatisfactory. I think that this Government will bring credit on itself, and that the Ministers will bring credit on themselves if, just occasionally, one of them would say that something wrong was done by one of the departments, that they do not agree with what was done, that they think that other steps should have been taken or that they themselves would take steps to see that there will not be future occurrences. Ministers react like mothers with small children the minute anybody criticizes their department. They take it upon themselves and they think that they have to defend their departments. All of us will admit that no one can be infallible all the time. So always, to have excuses, however fatuous these excuses are and for whatever absurd actions departments may have taken, does not I think bring any credit on the Ministers or the departments. I believe that this is a real example of the sort of thing I mean. I think that there can be absolutely no excuse for keeping a child of 10 in a police cell under any circumstances for 30 days when the child was booked on a charge of stealing a basin of mealies. The farmer in this case said that he could have dealt with the child himself. Beatings are the answer, according to him, but a neighbouring farmer had been severly reprimanded by the court for having taken the law into his own hands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should very much like to have ignored the hon. member for Houghton, because that is just what she deserves. However. I want to say the following to her. The laws on the Statute Book must be obeyed until such time as they are removed. It is no use her quoting a few exceptional cases here as if they are proven facts.

The Law Society is very much indebted to the hon. the Minister of Justice for the regulations in terms of which the distribution or administration of deceased estates by persons other than attorneys is prohibited. However, it is also necessary for the Law Society to take note of the fact that they must furnish a quid pro quo. Their syllabuses do not require a thorough study of the administration of estates. However, I think that the time has nowcome for this to be made a compulsory subject. That is not all. Times have changed, of course. In the past the country attorneys fulfilled a very important role, and if they want to maintain that position, they must adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Consequently it is essential for them to have a sound knowledge of finance and economics. Therefore I want to submit for consideration that their syllabuses should include a thorough study of finance and economics, so that they will be in a position to advise people about the new avenues of investment the way to read balance sheets, and so fordh.

I think that the whole of South Africa is grateful that our country could make such a great contribution to medical science as that made by Professor Barnard and the heart team. However, these historical developments have also give rise to numerous questions in the field of medical jurisprudence, especially in respect of organ transplantation. An important question is the following: Where is the dividing line between life and death? In other words, when is the donor irrevocably dead, so that one of his organs can be transplanted? This question will in time also crop up in the field of succession. This question is now coming to the fore positively and is thoroughly testing the legal sense of file public, especially since another heart-transplant patient died overseas a few days ago. In one case the question of whether the donor was in fact dead or not is already being argued.

Certain doctors argue that cerebral death is sufficient for a person to be declared dead. They say that the advantage of using this as a criterion is that there is still some circulation of the blood and that the heart still beats of its own accord. Other doctors, again, say that a person is only dead when both the heart and the brain have ceased functioning. Doctors are looking to jurists to solve these problems, and the question now arises whether the legislature should take the lead or whether it should be left to the courts to decide the matter by way of judgments.

During a world congress in Belgium in 1967 a prominent doctor put the matter as follows—

He expressed the hope that definition would be laid down. Our own positive law provides no guidance in this field. The Post-Mortem Examinations and Removal of Human Tissues Act, No. 30 of 1952, contains no definition of what a “corpse” is and what “death” means. I refer hon. members to an article by Prof. S. A. Strauss, an expert in the field of medical jurisprudence, in the well-known journal De Rebus Procuratoriis of 2nd of February, 1968. in which he broaches this matter. He puts it as follows—

South Africa has led the world in the field of heart transplantation. I want to suggest that it is fitting, no, essential, that South Africa also take the lead in answering the question: “What is the moment of death?”

As far as the removal of an organ is concerned, an additional problem arises, a problem which comes to the fore as a result of the rapid progress which has been made. In terms of Act No. 30 of 1952 a tissue or organ can only be removed if a magistrate has given permission by virtue of a bequest or in collaboration with members of the family or bona fide friends. This permission must of course be given in writing. While all this is being done, valuable minutes are lost, and hon. members will surely realize that in matter of this nature minutes are of the utmost importance. Considering the progress which has been made in this field, I want to suggest that the legislature should consider whether it is not practicable that a magistrate, in the absence of family and friends, may grant permission for the removal of tissues or organs on the strength of medical certificates. If he grants permission, the tissues or organs can very quickly be removed to a bank to be preserved in order to be of use to mankind.

Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to follow the hon. member who just sat down who spoke about the difficulty of determining just when the moment of death occurred. I feel that as a layman I cannot delve into those depths.

I do not make any apology for raising the subject which I wish to raise, and that is the registration of fire-arms. I raised this matter last year with the hon. the Minister and I do so again against the background of the recent sad happening overseas. Last year the Minister told me he would take steps to amend the Arms and Ammunition Act as soon as possible and go into the question of a central firearms registration bureau. Since then there have been quite a number of incidents involving the use of fire-arms. Last year 31,000 people were prosecuted in South Africa for radio and other licence offences. These cases take up a great deal of time. I would suggest these are relatively minor matters compared to fire-arm offences and the dangers inherent in them. Criminal acts of violence in South Africa last year took the lives of 8.640 people which is a very high figure. I am not suggesting they all lost their lives due to the use of fire-arms, but one could well suggest that fire-arms played apart in many cases. I mention this figure as an additional reason why something should be done about this subject as soon as possible. There were 4,800 odd cases reported involving firearms, according to the report, up to the end of 1966. In recent weeks in the Cape Province children have lost their lives because of the carelessness of people who left their fire-arms where the children could get hold of them.

Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourned for lunch I was discussing the registration of fire-arms. I wanted to say that I did not want to proceed with the points made by the hon. members who had spoken before me, since with one exception they were all attorneys. My experience of attorneys up to now has only been that they are expensive. I mentioned that over 8,000 people had lost their lives through violence in South Africa during the year ending December, 1966. Although one must obviously say that the vast majority of these people lost their lives through means other than firearms, one would nevertheless be accurate in saying that fire-arms did in fact play a large part. I also said very briefly that even here in the Western Province in recent weeks children have lost their lives through fire-arms. It seems, therefore, that people have tended to become very careless in the use of fire-arms and about where they store their fire-arms. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is borne out by the fact that year by year the number of fire-arms recovered by the Police always exceeds the number of fire-arms reported as stolen. It would, therefore, seem that a lot of people are having fire-arms stolen while they are completely unaware of their loss. In other words, they have put their fire-arms in certain places and then forgotten that they even own them.

As a result, in the last six years the reported thefts of fire-arms amounted to nearly 15,000 cases and the number of fire-arms recovered amounted to almost 17,000. This shows that there is a great deal of laxity in regard to the whole question of fire-arms in South Africa. I do not want to repeat to the Committee the figures I advanced last year during my plea for regulations in regard to the control of fire-arms in South Africa. The incidence of the use of fire-arms for burglaries has increased again over the figure for last year and the previous year. It would seem that there is nothing that is going to halt this continual increase in the use of fire-arms in cases of violence and robbery. I believe that the time has come when we can obviously no longer tolerate the position as it is now. Dangerous weapons have to be controlled in this country as they have to be controlled in any other country. It is particularly necessary in this country where we have such a vast population of undeveloped and uneducated people.

I should also like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the very serious problem of the periodicals and magazines which daily appear on our streets which laud the use of violence and fire-arms. I do not say that this falls entirely under the Minister’s Department, but what I am saying to the hon. the Minister as the Minister of Justice, is that I believe that his Department must look at this matter and give it very serious and urgent consideration, because if one wants to see why this increase in the crimes of violence is taking place, I believe that you need look no further than the nearest bookseller or newsagent. It seems to me that we are advertising and propagating violence amongst the population of South Africa, by the publication of these magazines. If this does not fall within the hon. the Minister’s prerogative, I would ask him to prevail, as the Minister of Justice, upon his colleagues in the Cabinet to see that something is done about this very serious position. I also want to say that for instance in this city of Cape Town one newspaper was banned because of its contents. No fewer than four out of five of the issues of this newspaper in the month of March alone were banned. I submit that this is one of the reasons why crimes of violence are increasing in South Africa. In all sincerity I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not prevail upon those responsible to see that action is taken against this kind of publication.

I want to close my remarks by once again appealing to the hon. the Minister to see that the Central Bureau for the Registration of Fire-arms is established with as little delay as possible. I would suggest that every fire-arm in South Africa be re-registered with the authorities at a given date and that periodically these fire-arms should be produced to the Police for re-registration. I think that it does no earthly good for a person merely to renew a licence or permit as he would in the case of a radio. I think that in this case he must bring the actual fire-arm along with him so that the Police or the proper authorities can see that that weapon is still in his possession and that it has not been l-os-t in the meantime. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the name of the hon. member who spoke before me is the same as that of a well-known firearm, he can speak with much authority about fire-arms. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about what he said in regard to the danger of fire-arms. I think it is necessary that fire-arms should be handled with care. I think, however, that he should just make the distinction in so far as the appeal he is making that more care should be exercised in the handling and care of fire-arms, should not be addressed to the hon. the Minister but to the general public. I want to say that, in so far as the hon. the Minister has control over the question of fire-arms, we in South African canbe very grateful today that we need not introduce emergency legislation as we learned this morning had to be introduced in America on the question of the licensing of fire-arms. This was urgent legislation which had to be introduced to put the matter right.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the statement he made here this morning about the question of the provision of liquor to non-Whites. I think that in making that announcement here he had eliminated many of the objections which there used to be and which still exist at present. People generally will be grateful for that. I would also like to bring an aspect which has a bearing on this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. His Department controls this matter as well, namely the concern which exists in the wine industry that the provisions of the Liquor Act of 1963, and the recommendations made by the Malan Commission prior to that legislation as regards the fact that natural wines and light drinks should be made more readily available, are not implemented quickly enough.

Voices were heard in this connection at the annual meeting of the K.W.V. yesterday or the day before. I want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate that large organization. which plays such an important role in our wine industry, on its 50th anniversary which was celebrated recently, and also on the responsible way in which that co-operative organization is looking after the interests of the wine industry. The concern which was expressed about the fact that the provisions of the Liquor Act in that regard are not implemented fast enough, concerned two aspects of the matter. One is the economic aspect and the other is the sociological aspect.

Now, as regards the economic aspect, the wine industry is of the opinion that if the provisions of the Liquor Act and the recommendations of the Malan Commission are not implemented, there will not be enough competition and that the prices of our natural wine products will be too high compared to the price the farmer receives. It is a fact that the new drinking pattern referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister when introducing that legislation as the then Minister of Justice, namely that better use would be made of our natural wines instead of stronger liquor, is progressing all the time and one is sincerely grateful for that. The only aspect which is less gratifying is that this matter is not progressing as rapidly outside the Western Cape, i.e. outside the natural production area of wine products, as it is progressing within the area concerned.

One has to pay too much for it.

The hon. member says that one has to pay too much for it. This is the very essence of my argument, because I want to make the statement as regards the economic aspect of this that, as natural wines are becoming more readily available by means of grocers’ licences, the hon. member will be able to obtain them at a much more reasonable price, and then it will not be regarded as something which should be hidden away. When announcing earlier this year that he had not granted any new applications for grocers’ wine licences this year, the hon. the Minister dealt with the matter in detail and I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Minister for the sympathetic and understanding way in which he dealt with this matter. He said that people should not expect that grocers’ wine licences would be granted on a large scale in the immediate future unless it could be proved that the sale of natural wine products was not progressing satisfactorily.

Furthermore, he said in his statement that the effects of the granting of such grocers’ wine licences—the limited number that had been granted—would be studied and that due regard would be had to local conditions as well as to the nature and extent of the sales of liquor in the particular area. In saying this, he naturally had in mind what quantity of natural wines and what quantity of strong liquor are sold in a particular area. He added that it would perhaps be unfair, especially at that stage, to expect hotels to have themselves classified at great expense and that they would be subject to too strong additional competition as a result of the granting of such licences.

He added that the number of selling points have increased considerably in the meantime, something which was welcomed by the wine industry too and which was also anticipated by the Malan Commission at that time in order to meet the economic aspects of the matter, because the more selling points there were, the more competition there would be and prices could therefore be forced down. The hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that the number of selling points had increased in the meantime.

In the third place, the Minister also said that existing licensees, i.e. hotels, would probably not qualify for ordinary liquor licences towards the end of this year but only for wine and malt licences, and that they would then also become factors in this set-up and that the full picture of the effects of these measures would have could only be considered in 1969 in order to determine what should be done in future as regards the granting of grocers’ wine licences.

I feel that all these aspects deal with the economic side of the matter, but I do not think aspects which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his statement as that time paid sufficient attention to the social aspect. The social aspect in connection with grocers’ wine licences, as was mentioned in the report of the Malan Commission, is that the wine producer does not like his product to be regarded as anything else but an ordinary agricultural product. In other words, moving from our present stage, i.e. that wine or liquor is sold by way of a licence, we must try to move in the direction where natural wine can bemore readily available to the general public just as food or any other agricultural product is available to them so that there will be no stigma attached to the product of the vineyard either.

I think much can be said in favour of this argument, because many of the undesirable things which are linked with the sale of the product of the vine are due to the fact that sales are taking place by way of a licence, something which necessarily causes it not to be generally available. We also have the conditions the hon. the Minister referred to this morning, namely the fact that people congregate at drinking places in certain townships and urban areas. I can well imagine that if further progress is made with what was said, and anticipated in the report of the Malan Commission in connection with grocers’ wine licences, we shall not have people congregating there any longer, because natural wine will then not be something one has to look for only at certain points, but it will be available in the same way as food is available and when and where one needs it. I want to admit straight away that one cannot advance to this point immediately and rapidly from the point where we are finding ourselves at present. [Time expired.]

Unfortunately our time for the discussion of this Vote is limited, so that we have to get as much as we can into the ten minutes we are allowed. I will not reply to the hon. member for Stellenbosch now. I intend dealing with different subjects, but other hon. members will also talk on the points he has now raised.

The first point I want to raise is in regard to legal aid. I do so because I see the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued a publication “South Africa and the Rule of Law”. It was issued in April of this year for distribution abroad, and it contains an item on legal aid. Now the House will know that I have raised this question of legal aid on several occasions in the past under this Vote, because I feel it is quite wrong that only the very poor, the paupers, and the very rich should be able to go to court. There is no argument about it that the ordinary middle-income group man simply cannot afford to go to court. I am not going to repeat arguments I used in the past, or make comparisons with other schemes in other countries, but the publication I referred to says that an amendment of the present general legal aid scheme is now being considered which may result in the establishment of a legal aid fund subsidized by the State and from which practitioners will be remunerated for the services rendered. This scheme has been under consideration by the Government for some time, even before the present Minister took over, and I want to ask him when they are going to do something about it. At present, except in peculiar cases which I will mention just now, as a rule the only legal aid which is given is given by practitioners at the Side Bar, mainly, and also at the Bar occasionally, for nothing. As far as I know, it only operates more or less effectively in Cape Town and Johannesburg. As far as I know, it does not operate effectively anywhere else. The Minister can correct me, but from the inquiries I have made I think that is the position. One of the disadvantages of the present scheme is of course that anyone wanting legal aid has to go to the magistrate or an assistant magistrate, who operates the scheme, being ex officio chairman of the board. It is unnecessary for me to tell this House and the Minister that prisoners do not like going to the magistrate to set out their case. They are afraid, quite unjustly, but it is an official and they are afraid that the police or the court will get the information they divulge, and the present system is not a satisfactory one. I want the Minister to tell us what he is doing about it, because great play is made in this publication of legal aid and in every country it is becoming an increasingly important question. In this article it is stated that they get assistance in criminal cases. But I do not know of any criminal cases where they really get much assistance. In civil cases they get it in regard to divorces, but otherwise what assistance is given to the middle income groups, or even to the pauper, in civil cases? In this article it is stated that if you do not qualify under the means test—and it is a very low means test— the legal aid officer will refer it to an attorney who is on the roster and whose turn it is to assist. Now, why should the attorney be compelled to give this assistance for nothing? As far as criminal cases are concerned, it has always been the practice that pro Deo assistance is given to anybody who is charged with a capital offence and there the barrister and the attorney—usually just the barrister, but sometimes also the attorney—are paid by the State for the services they give in pro Deocases, but this payment is very little. There is great reluctance to take on these pro Deocases because they can last for a long time. Often they are very important cases and they last a long time, and these people are compelled to do the work over that period. This article goes on to deal with the defence of persons accused of committing offences with a political background. Obviously this was necessary in an article which was being sent abroad, because of the Government’s attitude to Defence and Aid and other bodies which provided defence for persons charged with criminal offences. We had the notorious case at iHumansdorp where the accused was eventually acquitted in the Appeal Court, but the case lasted for at least a month and it was held in an outlying place and the attorney and the barrister had to go there. But in this article it says, after dealing with the reasons why Defence and Aid was banned, that in new cases and in part-heard cases where the accused was not represented, an advocate or an attorney could be employed to defend the accused if he wished to accept such service,and in such cases the lawyer would be remunerated by the State. I want to ask the Minister to tell us how this assistance is given and to whom it is given. I can understand it if it is a capital offence, but if it is not a capital offence will the Minister please tell us when the State pays for the services of the attorney and the barrister? I am sorry I cannot go into this matter any further because I do not have the time.

Then I want to mention another matter which is causing much concern to the public. Sir, recently we saw a report about remarks made by a Judge in the Cape court about a prisoner who was convicted of robbery. The Judge pointed out that this particular person had been convicted and sentenced on several occasions. I think he said, if my memory serves me correctly, that on seven occasions he had been declared a habitual criminal, and yet this man was released from gaol and then finally committed robbery. Robbery can, of course, be a capital offence. This is probably an exceptional case, but too often we see that serious offences, usually associated with violence, are committed by persons who have been convicted before and who have received long sentences, including the indeterminate sentence, and then we find that as soon as they are at large again they commit offences. The public wants to know how it is that these people are released from gaol so easily. The police have an arduous task in tracing these criminals, finally making arrests and often under dangerous circumstances. Then we find that the man goes to gaol and the next thing that happens is that he is either released or that he escapes from gaol. I think there are far too many escapes from prisons. It is no good telling us that this happens in other countries as well. We know that people escape from prisons in other countries too, but we find far too often that prisoners escape or that the prison board releases them, and then the police have to start all over again. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has consultations with the prison board. No reasons are given as to why prisoners are released or why their sentences are remitted. Does the hon. the Minister from time to time meet the prison board and discuss with them the principles on which they act? I can assure him that there is a great deal of concern about what is happening. There is an impression abroad too, of course, that we do not have sufficient gaols and that prisoners are being released to relieve the pressure in the existing gaols. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether that is true. If it is true, then we should see to it at once that we get more goals.

Then I want to raise another matter, and that is the question of the granting of off-sales licences. The position to-day is that when hotels are classified, they are given off-sales privileges. I raised this matter with the previous Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, and I was assured by him at the time that they would only be allowed to move the licence away from the hotel in exceptional cases where they do not come into competition with vested interests. I brought a case to the Minister’s attention where a hotel was given off-sales privileges in an area far away from the hotel in competition with three other licensees who had been there, in the one case since 1928, in another case since 1946 and in the third case for many, many years. [Time expired.]

I should like to move on to a different field. I should like to bring a matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister in connection with our children’s courts. As we know, all cases in the children’s courts are dealt with by a commissioner of child welfare. These persons inevitably are ordinary magistrates who have been designated to do this particular work. What the Children’s Act envisaged with the appointment of commissioners was to constitute the children’s courts in a special way; to allocate a special position to social welfare officers; to give special recognition to the social workers who investigate the circumstances of children in need of care and to ensure the confidential nature of court proceedings. Everything is aimed at the protection of the child, and consequently commissioners of child welfare are expected to be people of special ability, people who. take a special interest in and who have a special knowledge of the factors revolving round the special needs of children or the circumstances under which children are brought before the children’s court.

I want to say that our Children’s Act is generally accepted to be a particularly fine Act, and because this is so, it is our experience that our commissioners of child welfare have made an enormous contribution to child welfare. I am convinced that if time permitted we would have been able this afternoon to mention a long series of names of commissioners of child welfare who have made history over the years with the role they have played in developing our Children’s Act and child welfare in general. Because this is so, the few shortcomings which do exist strike one forcibly.

At present the position in our larger centres is, particularly in the urban areas, where a great many cases are dealt with by the children’s count, that a magistrate is designated to devote his exclusive attention to this kind of work; this work occupies all his time. In the smaller industrial centres and in the unban towns there are not sufficient cases to justify designating a person to do this work on a full time basis. Consequently we find, as a result of the tremendous change-over which normally takes place amongst the officials, that a magistrate hardly becomes conversant with the operation of the Children’s Act or with the entire spirit of the Children’s Act, before he is transferred to another court. The newcomerwho succeeds him then has to start from scratch to acquaint himself with the provisions of the Act.

Sir, time does not permit me to do so, but we would perhaps have been able to point out interesting shortcomings which arise in practice as a result of the extent to which there is a change-over of staff in the children’s courts. I nevertheless want to mention to you, Sir, the ignorance we come across as regards the objectives of the Children’s Act because of the fact that most commissioners do not deal with that Act every day as they perhaps do with other Acts. At times we find confusion amongst commissioners about the function of the children’s court and about the position which the social worker or the social welfare officer may occupy in that court in terms of the Children’s Act. At times there also is a lack of real interest in the person as such on the part of the commissioners. Often they are concerned about the letter of the law only and not always the spirit of the law around which especially our Children’s Act revolves. A very great shortcoming is the lack of knowledge of our entire welfare structure and particularly of the welfare policy of this country, the methods according to which welfare organizations are linked up with the welfare services of the State, etc.

Social work in our country, which has very close connections with the children’s court, is a discipline which employs various instruments and the Children’s Act along with the children’s court, is one of the important instruments in this connection. Consequently I want to deliver a plea this afternoon that the commissioner should have not only knowledge of the Act as such or of the procedures, but also a wide interest in this particular branch of his work. I contend that the whole object of the Children’s Act is to bring about an atmosphere in the children’s court, when proceedings are in progress, which will afford the commissioner the opportunity of understanding the needs of the child brought before him. In most cases the commissioner does not form a judgment about the child as such. What he is concerned with, is in point of fact the question whether the child is in need of care, but the person who actually appears before him is the parent of the child who has been neglected. He goes into the circumstances which are the cause of the neglect. We feel that it is necessary that the commissioners should be able to visualize these particular circumstances more fully. It is in this light that I want to plead with the hon. the Minister this afternoon for a revised approach to the function of the commissioner of child welfare. When this matter is investigated or studied, I believe that this will have to be done in co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare and the voluntary welfare services, which are allowed to occupy such an important place in the children’s court.

I want to draw attention to the fact that we Pre living in a time of specialization, and if the Minister should take the step to have this matter investigated, such an investigation should be concerned chiefly with the status of the commissioner, the grading of his post, the question whether the commissioner should not be placed in a position which would enable him to make a deeper study of related subjects in addition to judicial subjeots. I have in mind related subjects such as social work, sociology, criminology, and the factors which really cause the child in need of care or the neglected child or the juvenile delinquent to be brought before him. I have in mind the possibility of investigating the question whether commissioners cannot be appointed on a regional basis, particularly in the industrial areas, so as to enable commissioners to visit certain courts on certain fixed days in order to eliminate the necessity of a magisstrate having to go from the ordinary court to the children’s court in order to hear a single case or two cases. We know that different directions are being advocated at present as regards the most desirable set-up in our children’s courts; I do not want to go into that matter now. Some people say that social welfare officers should play a much bigger role in those courts; others are of the opinion that this is a service which should be linked up to a large extent not with the courts as such, but with an office of the Department of Social Welfare. But I do not want to advocate these things. I am merely pointing out that there are certain schools of thought. I know from the experience of welfare organizations that a study of this matter is sorely needed.

I am aware that several objections can be raised by toe Department, such as the shortage of staff and the fact that magistrates should like to make a wider study of law in general and not only of this particular direction. The matter with which we are dealing, i.e. the child in need of care—a section of the community that has fallen by the wayside and with whom the Children’s Act has to deal—justifies this Act coming into its own, also along the lipes of making a thorough study in connection with the functions of the commissioner of child welfare. [Time expired.]

I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister in connection with our prisons. We hear a great deal about the rehabilitation work which is being done there and of the humane way in which prisoners are treated in our prisons. This is of course very commendable, especially in the case of young people and people who land in gaol for the first time. However, I should like to elaborate on a matter touched upon by the hon. member for Transkei a while ago, namely the question of prisoners who are released before they have served their sentences.

Let me say at once that I regard this as a very good thing; one does not want to strikeor kick these people once they are down. I am speaking under correction, but I think that prisoners automatically get a remission of sentence for good conduct. We find that many of the people to whom this concession is made never get into trouble again. It is clear that they appreciate this concession, but unfortunately, as the hon. member for Transkei rightly said, there are many people who return time and again and who receive a remission of sentence time after time. The question that occurs to one straight away is whether this remission of a part of the sentence is not a waste of time in the case of some of these old gaol-birds. One wonders whether the present system of automatic remission of a part of the sentence, which is applied to first offenders and young people, should be applied to these old criminals. Not so long ago a few articles appeared in the Press in which the police and the Department of Prisons addressed each other in quite strong terms about this very question of prisoners escaping and of other prisoners not serving their full sentences.

The hon. member for Transkei told us of the person who bad been sentenced time after time and released again, and then eventually appeared in court on a charge of robbery. We had a similar case in Pretoria last week. An escaped prisoner appeared in court again and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for escaping. He is only 34 years old and his list of previous convictions indicates that he has been declared a habitual criminal no fewer than six times since 1957. How is it possible that a person was declared a habitual criminal six times over a period of 11 years? How can he commit these offences when such a sentence was imposed upon him? What part of his sentence does he serve before being released? Apparently certain people are quite incorrigible. Although one does not want to treat them unfairly, it would appear to me that one takes a grave risk in releasing them in that they can then move freely amongst the public again. They usually commit the same type of crime over and over again and in an increasingly serious degree. In many cases they commit crimes involving violence, and sometimes even murder. It is not right that such people should be released, in any case not before they have served their sentences. It is not right that the public should be exposed to these dangers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether releasing this type of person on parole, or suspending the sentences of this type of person, whom one can almost call the old hands, the habitual criminals, should not be approached differently.

What does Helen say about it?

But I have nothing to do with Helen now. We are dealing with a serious matter. [Interjections.] Of course one feels very sorry for these people, but I think it is in the interests of the public and also in their own interests that they should be rendered harmless by serving their lull sentences.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply in full to the points which have been raised here up to the present. I begin with the hon. member for Durban (North). He referred to the annual report of the Secretary of Justice, in which it is stated that a shortage of juristically trained persons was being experienced, and that a general shortage of staff did in fact exist. That is correct. All the Government Departments are experiencing a shortage of staff. People outside are also experiencing a shortage of staff. However, the Department’s shortage is not of such a nature that it is impeding the administration of justice.

The hon. member spoke about the delays which were being experienced, and referred specifically to the regional courts. There we have absolutely no shortage. My information is that there is no delay, and that the average duration of a case in a regional court from beginning to end is only two months. The relevant statistics are forwarded from time to time, and if there is the least indication of delays, additional assistance is made available. The Secretary did in fact say that owing to the limited number of staff we were not able to provide a magistrate’s court at simply any little place. We are making the best use of our staff in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. That is in fact what is happening there.

In addition I just want to mention that within the Department we have the training scheme where a lot of good work is being done to ensure that the men are juristically qualified. At present we have 200 full-time law students at university, who are earning their full salary while studying to become juristically qualified. We have two groups of a 100 each who are studying for three years to obtain the B. Jur. degree. Having done so the man is fully qualified for the judicial bench in the magistrates’ courts. Everything possible therefore is being done.

I want to agree with him that the salaries of our regional magistrates and magistrates doing special work, as well as those of State Advocates, is disproportionately low for the work those people are doing. I readily concede that. But as long as the Department remains part of the Public Service, we will not be able to get away from it. Unless we are established on the same basis as the Railways or the Post Office, we will not be able to get past this difficulty. This is in fact the position. I think I have now dealt with all the questions raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Heilbron referred to Latin as a qualification for legal training. I have learnt that certain other hon. members also want to discuss this topic, and for that reason I am, for the time being, leaving the matter at that.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the new form of consolidated statutes. An arrangement has in fact been made with Butterworths, in terms of which the new consolidated statutes will continually be kept up to date. I have one of the volumes here. Perhaps the hon. member has seen one before. This new method has many advantages. It is an impossible task for my Department, which is the largest utilizer of the statutes, to continue wita these never-ending annotations. And for that reason we have undertaken to purchase a certain number from Butterworths, and they have introduced this system. However, it does not mean that tne statutes are not available in the other form. After legislation has been signed by the State President, and a copy has been despatched to the Registrar of the Appeal Court, it will be printed and will appear in a form which will make it very easy to bind together in sequence at the end of the year. The Department will do the work, and the Government Printer has also undertaken to insert an index at the beginning of such a collection. Covers are available to keep the whole book neat. They will therefore be available for those who either do not want the new consolidated volumes, or would like to see how the Act has developed, or who want to see how the statute read when the court gave its judgment. That person will of course have to take the trouble of making his own annotation from time to time, something which we are not always so eager to do.

The hon. member also referred to the preconstructed court premises. I just want to assure him that they are not to be sneered at. Those buildings have a very neat appearance. We have two of them at Booysens near Johannesburg, and another one at Hospital Hill Police Station. We undertook this decentralization in Johannesburg owing to the accumulation and the traffic jam at the magistrate’s offices there. They are fine buildings, and serve their purpose extremely well. They were erected because the time factor was a decisive one; ordinary building methods would have taken too long. But he can rest assured, as far as this is concerned, that the court rooms are quite efficient. The people who have to appear there, whether on the bench, or whether as attorneys, advocates or accused, are suffering no discomfort.

He asked for comparative tables to be furnished in the annual report. Comparisons are in point of faot the work of the Director of Census and Statistics. Although they may be useful—which I readily concede—I do not think we ought to let that duplication take place.

The final point made by the hon. member was that the two chief magistrates, namely those of the legislative capital and that of the administrative capital, Cape Town and Pretoria respectively, ought to be granted an allowance, because of the position they occupy and the circles in which they move. I am in full agreement with that. In fact, we have already tried to do so. It was refused, and was in fact refused because there was a fear of a chain reaction. Hon. members know what tends to happen in the Public Service. If one gets something, then pressure is exercised for the next to get it as well.

The same applies to Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

The same applies to them, and to ordinary Members of Parliament as well.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Kroonstad for his praise of the work of the Department of Prisons, and for the work which is being done at Kroonstad. That is true; we are proud of the Department. It is also true, as he said, that the people are working to acquire higher qualifications. One unfortunate fact remains, however—as soon as they improve their qualifications they leave tie Department. It is an unfortunate fact, but one cannot of course stand in the way of any person who wants to improve his position.

The hon. member for Houghton was back wit i her usual complaints. The people concerned are not always the general prison population; it usually concerns either the Robben Islanders or the prisoners in the Pretoria Central Prison.

Especially them, but also the others.

The hon. member stated that ffie new facilities which would be made available for those people and which would enable them to do work other than the ordinary, monotonous work of sewing post bags had been talked about for such a long time. I can also give her the assurance that the building will have been completed towards the end of July. There will be opportunities, particularly in the direction of woodwork. There will be various other opportunities for the peonle, for the purpose of keeping them occupied. I want to invite the hon. member, before we transfer them to that new building, to go and examine it and see whether it suits her.

The hon. member also asked why these people were not receiving reduction of sentences.

Like everybody else.

That is not entirely correct. Just take the question of amnesty for example. The vear before last, with the celebration of the fifth anniversary of the Republic, amnesty was granted to all, except for a few groups, under which these people of course fall, and another three or four groups as well. As far as that was concerned, an exception was not made of them. Together with others they received the same treatment.

One-quarter and one-third reduction of prison sentences was also discussed here. It must be understood that this is a privilege of prisoners and is not a right which they are entitled to. It is also subject to good behaviour, and what the person’s outlook is. The difficulty with these people is that they do not change their opinions. The same argument applies to their grading. From first to last they never stop thinking about escape possibilities, and that is why one must be very careful with these people. One cannot expect them to make as rapid progress as ordinary prisoners. An ordinary prisoner is sorry for what he has done, and decides that he will not do it again, even the murderer does this. It is a fact that saboteurs are a State security risk, and they remain a State security risk to the last. The other day representations were made to me by an hon. member on the opposite side. I thought that I could perhaps go out of my way to accommodate this man for special reasons, but I have now received a report. He is still of the same opinion, and whether one gives him a reduction of one year or five, it does not make the slightest difference and he may as well be kept there, for up to the very last he remains a risk to the State.

Have you made the same inquiries about all the others?

No, I have not. I know that the hon. member has also submitted representations to me from time to time. However, it so happens that I am mentioning the case wsich came to my attention again yesterday. The hon. member spoke about the “hundreds of thousands” of short-term prisoners. We regard a prisoner who is serving a prison sentence of from one to four months as a short-term prisoner, but these are people who are in prison for reasonably serious crimes. One must remember that a magistrate can impose a maximum sentence of only six months. In other words, to have received a sentence of four months, a person must already have committed a serious crime. Therefore, when a person receives a sentence from one to three months, we must not pretend that he is virtually guilty of nothing, or that it was merely a triviality.

What about the 160,000 under one month sentences?

Yes, that is possible. I have the statistics here, and J can eo into that matter. However, I do not think that it is so important. These sentences are for minor offences. What does the hon. member suggest as an alternative? Does the hon. member, as an alternative, want us to release them immediately? That is the difficulty. They must be punished, and they must be kept there, and the hon. member must also remember that the number she mentioned have in fact ended up in p-ison, but that many of them subsequently pay their fines and are then released.

No, they do not. That is the trouble and I forgot to tell you. They keep t-’em there until they can be sent back on the Wednesday train.

These persons are not all there for contravention of influx control laws.

The hon. member and I will also continue to differ on the question of post-graduate studies. In the prisons attempts are made to provide a general instruction, and wonderful progress is being made with this. Persons are also being allowed to study for a B.A. degree, and they can study for various B.A. degrees. However, we do not want to train specialists in prisons. There is enough time for general instruction, and such a person can study for two B.A. degrees if he wants to. However, he cannot study at a post-graduate level. This is a question of policy on which we differ and in regard to which I unfortunately cannot accommodate the hon. member any further.

The hon. member also spoke about the poor little Coloured boy in Paarl. She said that he stole a basin of mealies for his grandmother’s fowls. The fact of the matter is that he stole a three-quarter bag of cow meal. But it does not really make any difference what he stole. He appeared before the court, and on the same day he appeared before the court and was found guilty his grandmother, with whom he was staying was, sent off the farm. She appeared before the court, and when the child was found guilty, it was not possible to place the child in her care. She said that she could not look after him, because she did not even have food for herself. She said that she did not know where she was going to. She had been sent away, and was forced to find another nlace to live. Then they had to keep the child in a place of safety. There was only one other olace of safety where the child could be kept, but this was still under quarantine from chicken-DOX. So the only place they could keep the child was in the cell.

Could they not have found another respectable Coloured family in the area for him to stay with?

I am now giving the hon. member the facts. The child was looked after there. He received three well-balanced meals per day. That was possibly much better than he would have received from his family. It is a stipulation in our penal code that when a person has been found guilty of theft or any other offence, fingerprints have to be taken. This ooor child’s fingers were smooth. He arrived there in that condition; the magistrate was not responsible for his condition. When they wanted to take the fingerprints, the process would not work prooerly. The finger-Drints were sent in, but they could not be identified.

Why do they want the fingerprints of a ten-year old?

The Act requires that fingerprints be taken of persons who have been found guilty. It is a statutory requirement. Unless we change the Act, this provision must be complied with. After he received care, and after his fingers had healed properly, they were able to take proper fingerprints. Subsequently he was released. Then, of course, these questions were asked, and we replied to them. The Cape Times kicked up a big fuss about the matter.

And quite right, too.

Yes, the hon. member for Houghton will always agree with that. I want to assure the hon. member that I at least do not feel guilty about what happened to this child. The child was properly cared for and fed. He was not detained like a prisoner.

Do you know where the child is now?

Of course it has been quite some time since he was released from prison. I cannot say whether he has been declared a child in need of care, or whether he has been placed in care. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not mar the spirit of this debate by making personal remarks.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) spoke about heart transplants. He asked when it is possible to determine that death had set in. I am afraid I am not qualified to express any opinion on that and to say that it should be laid down by way of legislation. It is an interesting subject, but it is not something in regard to which I am qualified to express any opinions.

The hon. member for Port Natal spoke about the registration of fire-arms. I want to say that I realize that what he touched upon is a very important subject. I said last year that we were drawing up a Central Register. What has happened in the meantime is that a resolution has been adopted to the effect that this particular law must in future be administered by the Department of Police, and not by the Department of Prisons. The Department of Police is at present drafting a new law, instead of merely amending the old Fire-arms Act, which will make provision for this Central Register. I have ascertained from them that they have made a great deal of progress with it. However, they are not yet in a position to submit the necessary legislation. I do not believe I can tell the hon. member anything more in this regard. As I have said, it is an important subject. The fact of the matter is that it has become apparent that people are very careless with their fire-arms. I can just assure the hon. member that while the Department of Justice was administering this matter we did not permit a man to purchase a second fire arm if he had lost his first one, or had allowed it to be misplaced, and there was any suspicion that he had been negligent. This was the policy, and I take it that this will also be the policy in future.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I understood the hon. the Minister to say that the registration of fire-arms falls under the Department of Prisons. I should like to know whether that is correct. He said that the registration would be handed over to the Department of Police.

At the moment the Department of Justice is administering the registration of fire-arms. It has already been decided that the Department of Police will in future undertake this registration. They are at present busy drafting a Bill in this regard. I am sorry; it was a slip of the tongue.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke about grocers’ wine licences. It is true that we have up to now imposed restrictions on the allocation of grocers’ wine licences. Originally two were issued as an experiment. Last year wegranted nine, to place the experiment on a broader basis. This year I announced that with a view to the special circumstances I thought it would be unfair to offer the hotels further competition. At the same time the hon. member said that he welcomed the statement I made this morning. I said that we were trying to eliminate the unsavoury conditions which had arisen as a result of the sale of liquor within white areas to other Coloured groups. I just want to inform the hon. member what would happen in regard to these grocers’ wine licences, as I see the matter at present. As I see the matter, and as experience has shown, the chain stores will be best qualified for this purpose. They are going to use the sale of wine as an attraction. They are going to sell it cheaply. In fact I have figures here which indicate that they are at present selling it at 1 cent above cost price. Consequently, there is going to be a tremendous rush. Actually therefore the hon. member expressed two opposing ideas. If it is to be sold normally in the trade, then everything will be fine. However, I fear that the people who will make use of this will be able to do this. They will be the large chain stores, and they will use it as an attraction. That has already been our experience. One of the first two licences was issued to a chain store in Springs. There was such a rush, and the store kept the prices so low, that K.W.V., by whom this criticism is being expressed to-day, went to the former Minister and asked him to do something about it. The expansion of wine licences and the implementation of price control is becoming an absolutely impossible task for any Minister. In addition we must still try to keep the brown and the black people away from them. However, I am not setting the matter aside. The principal reason why I have not promulgatedit this year, is that we are expecting all the hotels to be classified this year. That is my principal reason. We do not know how many additional distribution points there will still be, from which only wine and malt will be distributed. It seems to me that this year is a very inopportune time for allocating a large number of wine licences to grocers. The other reasons I have mentioned are simply additional reasons.

The hon. member for Transkei first raised the question of legal aid. This question has been raised from time to time, and it is also correct that we are giving attention to the matter all the time. We have made a great deal of progress with it. Of course the position at present is still that we are paying for pro Deo appearances. I can only say that subject to the approval of the Treasury, the pro Deoremuneration will be considerably increased. We are paying for all accused who are being charged with political offences, if they need defence. We approach the Bar Council of the Division concerned to appoint someone and we pay in full for his services.

Not upon full reapproaches the Bar Council?

The magistrate in the first instance. He approaches the Bar Council and he asks the chairman or the secretary of the Bar Council to appoint someone. He then appoints a suitable person.

Is there any question of a means test?

No, there are definitely no such considerations. I come now to the ordinary legal aid for the man who, as the hon. member said, is not a very poor nor a very rich man. In this regard we are in continual contact with the Association of Law Societies. We have had proposals and counterproposals in this regard. The Association has submitted to us an entire legal aid scheme. They have for example proposed that there should be a countrywide legal aid board. In addition they proposed provincial legal aid boards, district legal aid boards and a national director of legal aid. What they proposed would have required a tremendous organization. As we worked it out, it would have been larger than some of the smaller government departments. We asked them what the proposed scheme would cost, but they were unable to give us any indication of the costs. We could not accept the scheme. After further discussions a smaller scheme was decided upon. But we were also unable to reach unanimity on this smaller scheme in respect of the operation of the scheme, because we must have the co-operation of the legal profession. In the same way as the medical practitioner is sometimes prepared to work for virtually nothing, and in the same way as the attorney is in many cases to-day obliged to act without remuneration, we will have to ask the legal profession not to insist upon full remuneration.

Not upon full remuneration, but upon a certain measure of remuneration.

Yes, remuneration on some basis or other. The snag is still to decide precisely how we should do this. We shall have to lay down a means test. It cannot be done for any Tom, Dick and Harry. The accused who appeared repeatedly, and the ordinary skolly, who appears before the court day after day, cannot receive legal aid. At least, I am not prepared to grant legal aid in that case. I shall gladly grant legal aid to a man who honestly deserves it and the only test ought to be that the magistrate should determine whether he needs legal aid and secondly, whether he falls within the means test. Of course, if he is of that type which turns up repeatedly there, he will have to be disqualified. But I can inform the Committee that I have Cabinet approval in principle for an amount in respect of legal aid being included in the Estimates next year. It is now a question of finding methods of doing this, and the best alternative would be to come forward with a Bill, setting out the way in which this will be applied.

In civil cases as well?

Yes, it will be for civil cases as well.

And the means test must be on a proper scale.

Yes, there will have to be a means test, but these are details which I am still considering. As I have said, I have in principle received approval for an amount which will be included in the Estimates, but I shall still have to consider the details.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for North Rand referred to the question of people released on parole who returned repeatedly. I have statistics here which I can furnish, but we are in a bit of a hurry to deal with this Vote. This matter arose out of a report which appeared in the Cape Argus of 13 th February, 1968. I am reading only sections of it—

Then the State Advocate, Mr. Brunette, said—

And then Beyers, J.P., said—

We were very concerned about this case, and we made inquiries. It then appeared that the hon Judge was referring to a certain Henry Fisher. I just want to give an account of the case and relate how a wrong impression can be created. On 4th November. 1952, 16 years ago, Henry Fisher was given an indeterminate sentence after he had been found guilty, since 29th May, 1945, on eight different occasions, and had been sentenced for crimes of dishonesty. He is therefore a dishonest man, and you know that a legal provision exists to the effect that if a man has been before the court more than a certain number of times, it is obligatory to impose the indeterminate sentence. Since 1952 he has been in prison, and in 1957 he succeeded in escaping for six weeks, and while he was a fugitive, he commited six robberies, for which he was found guilty on 27th June, 1957. in the regional court in Cape Town. He then received four indeterminate sentences for six robberies. While he was in prison, round about 1958. he committed two assaults on prisoners inside the prison, and he again received two indeterminate term sentences. He then had seven of these sentences. We then sent him to Barberton and there they brooked no nonsense from him. and after they had taken him in hand, because he was rebellious, he was a changed person. In 1967 the Transvaal Prisons Board was able to recommend that this man had to a certain extent changed his ways, after he had been in prison for 15 years, and had only been out for six, to such an extent that they believed they could recommend him for parole. He was then recommended for parole, and it was not long before the incident occurred for which he appeared before Justice Beyers. Now in all fairness to the Prisons Board I feel that what the Judge had to say was very drastic. I feel that if he had been aware of the circumstances, he would certainly not have expressed himself so drastically, and I must express my honest disappointment that criticism of departments should be levelled from the Judicial Bench, when such criticism is not deserved. That is what happened.

May I ask whether you are satisfied with the policy of the Prisons Board?

Yes, I am satisfied. In fact, I must sign each one of these things, and there is a tremendous amount of work. The Prisons system is aimed at rehabilitation and prevention, and one must prepare the man for return to the community. One cannot keep him there indefinitely. You must try and prepare him. But I now want to inform hon. members that we are in fact achieving quite a good deal of success with this. I want to mention the following figures. Of the total number of sentenced prisoners who have been taken up in the prisons during the past 12 years, 45.1 per cent of them were first offenders. In other words, 54.9 per cent were returning to prison for a second time. During these 12 years there was a period of three years during which the newcomers were more than half. Then the newcomers were 52.9 per cent, 51.8 per cent and 52.8 per cent. For the same period particulars of persons having only one former sentence were collected, that is to say persons who were being sent to prison for a second time. I am afraid my notes have let me down now, but the conclusion is that when first offenders are released a certain small percentage of them return for a second time. Of the second offenders, a somewhat smaller percentage returns, and of the third offenders an even smaller percentage, but taken on an over-all basis we have very good results as regards return after release or parole before the time, or remission of punishment.

Can the Minister inform us what the normal sentence is which an habitual criminal must serve before he is released, and. secondly, could he perhaps tell us something about this case which occurred in Pretoria last week, of a person who was declared an habitual criminal six times in a period of 10 years?

The normal period he has to serve as an habitual criminal is from nine to 15 years. He cannot be released before nine years, and the longest period is 15. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the case to which the hon. member referred. If the hon. member gives me the name, I will go into it.

I must still reply to the hon. member for Transkei in resnect of the distribution of off-consumption privileges. The hon. member and I exchanged correspondence in regard to this matter. It is correct that my predecessor, the present Prime Minister, stated in 1963 that existing rights would be taken into consideration. In 1965 the hon. member again raised this matter. (Hansard, Vol. 15, col. 7151.) The hon. member asked—

Then the then Minister replied—

But then he went on to say: “It is of course very difficult …”

No, he said “But in this connection, and almost to my dismay”.

I was only reading a little further on. I shall read it all again—

That is in fact the point I want to make, because it has been my experience, particularly after so many classifications have taken place.

It is very difficult to satisfy everyone in the liquor trade but it is the policy of the Board to spread licences as much as possible and not to have them on top of one another. But in many cases there are no suitable premises to which the licences can be moved and sometimes one can simply not do otherwise than to have these premises fairly close to one another.

In the case in East London to which the hon. member referred, application was made by the licensee for the removal of his licence to premises immediately adjacent to an industrial area, something which we do not readily allow. We do not like to locate off-consumption premises near workers. The application was therefore refused. He then applied for a second time, and his application was granted. The licence was removed to premises in the main street of East London, or the market in East London, where all the licences are concentrated.

Near the market.

There is an hotel there already, and another bottle store.

There are two bottle stores and a hotel.

That is unfortunately ffie position. We are trying as far as possible not to have a concentration of licences in one place, but at the same time the position is that there are only certain trade premises available. One cannot grant licences in a residential area because objections will then be raised; one cannot grant licences in industrial areas because objections will be raised to that, and one cannot grant licences near Coloured residential areas because objections will then be raised to that by the hon. member for Karoo. One is subsequently compelled to concentrate licences in the same place. I have, addressed further inquiries to the National Liquor Board in this regard, and they have assured me that they simply could not find any other solution.

Then the hon. member for Transkei spoke about the escapes. Many people harbour misconceptions in this regard. It is not always the case that escapees are dangerous people. We cannot always keep the prisoners locked up. One must organize them into work teams, and keep them busy, and that is usually when the escapes take place. Escapes are also made by people who have served a large part of their sentence and who are then enjoying certain privileges. There are even some of them who act in a supervisory capacity over other prisoners on farms, and this is where those escapes take place. As soon as escapes have been made, it is of course news. It is published in the various newspapers, and if the escapee is dangerous, then the fact that he has escaped is broadcast over the radio. One finds a duplication of news taking place and people come under the impression that a tremendous amount of escapes are taking place. The fact of the matter is that statistics indicate that escapes are proportionately very low if one takes into consideration the large prison population. This is of course something which gives rise to concern. One must continually try to guard against it. There are some old prisons which are not so secure, and of course escapes from these also take place.

The hon. member for Westdene touched upon a very important matter, a matter which lies very close to my heart and this is the question of children’s courts and child care commissioners. He asked that magistrates should be kept in the children’s court long enough to acquire the necessary knowledge of the Act and the local circumstances and that they should not be replaced by another magistrate every now and then. That is what we are trying to do. The present Secretary in particular is in full agreement that we must try to establish a kind of family court where one can see the child in his correct context and where the magistrate will in point of faot be the family head, in the case of broken families. We are working in that direction, andI am glad that the hon. member raised this matter here. The Children’s Act is of course being administered by another Department. All that I have to do of course is to make magistrates available to act as child care commissioners. As I understood the hon. member, he would like them to serve in the children’s courts permanently and that other magistrates should not be appointed every now and again to serve as child care commissioners. This is a matter to which the Department is already giving attention.

This morning the hon. member twice referred scornfully to “the bulging walls of the prisons”. How she can make a statement like that, is beyond me. Up to now she has not given us any indication of what she would regard as a normal number of inmates in our prisons. It is true that on 9th February this year she did ask the Minister for certain particulars in regard to the number of inmates in prisons. She was given those particulars, and on 12th February the following appeared in The Cape Times in a leading article, what is more—

Rubbish! I did not say that.

I quote further—

The hon. member says that this is rubbish; that she did not say this. I know that she did not say this, but I want to point out how these figures are twisted to give one the idea of “bulging prison walls”. The question put by the hon. member was used by The Cape Times to bring the public under a wrong impression. What happened here is very serious because this article is bruited abroad; what is more, it was a leading article. What happened here, was that The Cape Times did not make a proper distinction between persons who had been convicted in court and persons who had been detained. Certain detainees are released on bail; others are discharged and others are acquitted by the courts. Not all detainees are convicted. But The Cape Times compared the number of persons convicted in one year, namely 339,000, to the number of persons detained the next year, and The Cape Timescame to the conclusion that there had been a collosal increase of 70 per cent in the prison population. Mr. Chairman, if our prison population is going to increase by 70 per cent in one year, it will only take a few years before the hon. member for Houghton and all of us will also be in prison In that case the whole of South Africa will be in prison. If The Cape Times had compared the number of persons convicted in one year to the number of persons convicted in the following year, it would have obtained an increase of 4.6 per cent, which is the correct percentage. The percentage increase in the case of detainees can also be calculated; this may be somewhat higher but unfortunately I do not have the figures here. I contend that this kind of deception brings discredit upon our country. It may behove that newspaper to publish the true state of affairs. In addition I want to refer to another wrong impression created by that article. The article continues—

The article wants to suggest that it is a treat and a pleasure for our police to catch persons and to fill our prisons. This is very far removed from the truth. At all times our police and our judiciary try to keep the number of inmates in prisons as low as possible. In addition our prison facilities compare favourably to the facilities of the very best prisons in the world. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, a sensational court case a few months ago when people who had tried to besmirch our prisons, were put on trial. The outcome of that court case was that our prisons emerged with a clean record. We can be proud of our prisons.

That case is sub judice.

I also want to refer to prisons and cells in other parts of the world. You will recall, Sir, a recent report dealing with a cell measuring 6 ft. by 8 ft. in one of the African states to the north in which 20 persons had been detained.

Shame!

It is indeed a shame. We may safely maintain that our prisons are streets better than prisons in other parts of the world.

Mr. Chairman, my time has nearly expired. I still want to say something about the question of parole. The principle of release on parole probably is one of the finest principles embodied in our Prisons Act. Along these lines we try, in the first place, to keep people out of our prisons. Many people regard it as a disgrace to land in prison and when they are released from prison, they have a kind of inferiority complex. That is why it is such a good thing to assist those people to be released on parole. In the second place, if people should land in prison, they might come under the bad influence of other prisoners, and therefore it is to their advantage to be kept out ofprison. We also reed those people as workers in the country. We can utilize their services very usefully. If people are released on parole, it greatly benefits their families as well. Therefore I want to ask that the system of release on parole should be made much more flexible and easier. We have, of course, three groups of persons under sentence. For the purposes of parole prisoners are classified into three groups which are, firstly, those sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four months; secondly, those sentenced to a term of imprisonment varying from four months to two years; thirdly, those sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding two years. In the case of people who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than four months, it is at the discretion of the commissioner to release them on parole. They may be released on parole as soon as they arrive at the prison. As regards the second group, i.e. those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment varying from four months to two years, they have to serve one half of their term of imprisonment before they may be released. The present position is that the Prisons Board recommends the release of those people on parole through the commissioner to the Minister. and only then may they be released. This really is a somewhat cumbruous procedure and I want to ask whether an improvement cannot be made so as to enable these people to be released on parole sooner. As regards the term of imprisonment which they have to serve before they may be released on parole, I also want to ask whether an improvement cannot be made so as to enable these people to be released on parole sooner. I have in mind young people in particular who may land in prison not entirely through their own fault. It often happens that a man lands in prison as a result of circumstances, and I should like to plead for that type of person. Prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding two years, also have to serve a specified term of imprisonment before they may be released on narole, and in this connection I should also like to ask whether a more flexible method of releasing them on parole cannot ‘be introduced. Then we also have what is known as daily parole. This relates to people who have served part of their sentence and who are allowed out on daily parole towards the end of their term of imprisonment. This is a very good form of parole but sufficient use is evidently not being made of this form of parole, although it already is in operation. I also want to ask whether a more flexible method cannot be devised so that more of these people may be released on parole. They can be employed usefully. During the day they can work and at night they can go back to the cells where they will again be protected. They will be employed and will therefore be able to support their families, and perhaps their families may be allowed to visit them at their work.

A system like that will (be very useful, both for them and for society.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to certain matters affecting liquor and hotel legislation. I want to start immediately by saying I am sure the hon. the Minister will be pleased to hear that I have had no complaints from Fedhasa, the official hotel organization, this year; so either the Minister has trained them or they must be very satisfied.

They sent me a telegram congratulating me.

Fine. Then they are either satisfied or trained; in any case, they have no complaints. However, many individual people have approached me and the points which I wish to raise are problems which I believe affect far more than the few individuals who have raised them with me. The first point I want to come t-o is the speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who referred to and said he was satisfied with the changed drinking pattern in South Africa. I want to say just the opposite. I want to say I am deeply concerned about the current trend in the drinking pattern, and I would have thought the hon. member for Stellenbosch would have been concerned too.

I am pleased with certain aspects only.

This particular aspect I should have thought would have worried the hon. member. Up to June, 1967, I find the South African consumption of the weakest alcoholic drink, namely beer, dropped in the quarter preceding that date by as much as 20 oer cent. Beer contains only 4.5 per cent alcohol whilst spirits contains 43 per cent abohol and natural wine 12 per cent. Beer is a healthy drink, contains the least alcohol of all. and is good for the health of our youth, yet its consumption dropped, as I say, by 20 ner cent. The consumption of natural wine increased by 16.4 per cent.

Which report are you quoting from?

These are figures from a rer>ort. entitled “An Analysis of the Consumption of South African Alcoholic Liquor. Anr-il to June. 1966, and April to June, 1967”. This was compiled by the South African Breweries Institute and is dated 14 November. 1967. Moreover, the consumption of spirits prepared from the grace has reduced by 12.5 per cent, whilst the consumption of spirits manufactured from other ingredients, that is non-grape spirits, has gone up by as much as 54 per cent. That trend continued during last year and I think any sociologist will agree that the drinking pattern of the youth to-day has steered away from beer towards the consumptiontion of white spirits, cane spirits and vodka particularly. They do not drink the spirits from the grape so much, they prefer the white spirits, which to-day are so much cheaper than beer. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to plead with his colleague the Minister of Finance and with the Government to protect the youth of South Africa from this dangerous trend, a trend away from a reasonably healthy drink with a low alcoholic content to a high-alcoholic content drink containing over 40 per cent alcohol and a drink which is not even assisting the wine farmer.

If we compare the increased, consumption of natural wine with the decreased consumption of beer we see an overall decrease in these figures of 5.6 per cent in lighter beverages, lighter liquor. That is balanced fairly evenly now, but the fact, the inescapable fact is that our youth to-day are not drinking beer for the simple reason that they cannot afford it. For 13c or 14c one can buy a tot of liquor with far more alcohol in it than in a pint of beer which costs 20c or 21c or even more. So they are turning away from beer. That is a fact. Anyone will notice it. I believe it worries all parents of young lads. We are forcing our youth because of our liquor and taxation systems, as well as our attitude to liquor affairs as a whole, to drink hard tack. I say the natural drink, particularly for young sporting lads, is a glass of beer, but very few of them can to-day afford to drink it. So I cannot join with the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who seems to accept a swing away from grape products and away from beer towards to hard tack—hard tack which is not even coming from the grape.

I want to deal for a moment with the question of the control of hotels. I will not repeat the old argument, the old plea I have been making here year after year, namely to remove hotels from the National Liquor Board and place them under the Hotel Board. However, I want to plead that one group should be so transferred. Those hotels with which the National Liquor Board has had its fun, those hotels which it has classified, hotels which have met all the conditions laid down and who conform to the requirements, should not, I suggest, have to come back every three years to be reclassified. I say they should be placed under the control of the Hotel Board, inspected in the normal course by the grading inspectors, and thereafter they should be treated as permanent institutions. They should not be kept on a temporary basis, coming back to the National Liquor Board after every three years. The board has basically physical qualifications.

Let it continue to deal with the liquor licence, the bar, the off-sales, and so on, I will not argue on that point. But once a hotel has met all physical demands, then the body which deals with service, with general management, and with matters of that nature concerning the hotel should be the Hotel Board. I want to plead with the Minister to release from the National Liquor Board those hotels which are qualified and which have become registered and now fall under the control of the Hotel Board. In this way we will at least reduce the dual control of these two bodies, if the Minister is not prepared to abolish it altogether. As the Minister knows, the National Liquor Board lays down its requirement, but these are changed from time to time. Every now and again it comes up with something new. It seems to be building an empire.

The Minister and the board are even interfering now with the local liquor licensing boards; laying down conditions; refusing to let them have non-white entertainers; demanding this, demanding that; a toilet must be situated in a particular place, things which were not laid down in the original schedules but which are added as the National Liquor Board thinks of them. The board apparently suddenly thinks, “Well, this will be a good thing to apply”, and so they add an additional requirement. I believe once an hotel has met the basic requirements then the way it is run should be controlled by a body which understands the running of hotels, namely the Hotel Board. I have not the time to quote from it but I glanced through the March issue of Hotelier and Caterer. If we look at the index we see the item: “Non-liquor Hotels Quizzed in Bid for easier Grading Rules—1,000 still to be Classified.” We find in it: “Let Hotel Board take control, Natal hoteliers plead.” We also find: “Better spread of hotels, Minister in a dilemma.”

We see that a Cape meeting is told the same thing I have just raised, and so on and so forth. In every sector of the trade there is a feeling that once they have met conditions required for their licence, the Hotel Board is the body which is best qualified to control the running of those hotels. I give up my fight for the complete abolition of dual control. I accept the position for now. But I plead with the Minister to make a gradual abolition. Let then the National Liquor Board deal with liquor. That is what it is, it is a liquor board. Let it deal with liquor and liquor licences, but let it not deal with hotels and the running of hotels as far as it service to the public is concerned.

The Minister has on a number of occasions said he is going to streamline the Act. But in fact it is becoming more and more complicated and we are having more and more amendments. I do not want to deal with the coming General Law Amendment Bill or with the Minister’s statement. That I believe can best be debated when the Bill comes up. But I would plead with him to look again at the simplification of the Liquor Act. It requires streamlining so that we. can get it consolidated. Instead of having it in the form of a vast complicated web, it should be brought down to a simple system of control. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that our administration of justice in South Africa is held in very high esteem in the world. It is also a fact that that esteem is due to the quality of the men who are concerned with the administration of justice, and also, I believe, particularly to the standard of education in law. All the jurists, all the persons who find themselves in the field of law in South Africa to-day, are persons who have followed the same difficult, hard road until now. Amongst other things, they were obliged to master Latin. Now I wish to differ with my colleague in the legal profession, the hon. member for Heilbron, in that he pleaded for the abolition of Latin to-day. I also want to differ with my old class-mate, the Secretary for Justice, about the same matter.

It is so that Latin is the language of the oldest sources of our Roman-Dutch Law, and I should like to emphasize the “Roman Law” part, because that is actually what our Roman-Dutch Law has developed from. I want to make the statement that one can never make a really thorough study of our law without having a basic knowledge of Latin. I want to make the statement that Latin is indispensable for at least three groups of legal scientists, namely the university lecturers, the Judges and the Appeal Judges, and perhaps to a lesser extent the advocate. The hon. member for Heilbron to-day referred to the hon. the Chief Justice Mr. L. C. Steyn as an outstanding jurist in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Heilbron that no lawyer will be able to read Mr. Justice Steyn’s standard work “Die Uitleg van Wette” without having a knowledge of Latin. I want to suggest that no student will be able to pass Roman Law without having taken Latin. From the plea that Latin should be abolished it must then follow that Roman Law, which is one of the requirements for the degree of Ll.B. or B.A. (Law), must also disappear. I want to say that I wonder whether it would not later be found that if Latin should be abolished it would in fact be impossible to satisfy the minimum requirements for the Ll.B. degree. I cannot imagine any subdivision of our common law in which Latin phrases do not crop up. Even the Secretary could not refer to Latin in his report without bringing in two Latin words. Professor Joubert, the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of South Africa, aligns himself with the Secretary for Justice, but he could not do so without using Latin words. The name of the magazine of the Faculty of Law of Unisa, Codicillus, is in Latin. In four of the articles in this magazine Latin is used to a greater or lesser extent.

I want to concede that Latin is not absolutely essential for all facets of our legal profession and legal science. But nor is an Ll.B. essential for all facets of the legal profession. An Ll.B. is only required for admission to the Bar, and therefore it is indirectly also a requirement for appointment as a Judge. But I think it is inconceivable that one can become a university lecturer in law without having an Ll.B. degree. In order to make such a profound study of our law Latin is essential. I know it is the position that Latin is no longer taught at all our high schools and that there are problems in this connection. But all our universities offering courses in law meet the requirements by offering a beginner’s course in Latin in some form or another which will enable a student to master Latin I. We in South Africa should take care that we do not try to make things too easy. We have all observed what has taken place abroad in the past few weeks. One of the questions occurring to me is whether all this is not partly due to the fact that we want to make everything in life easier and less complicated and want to remove challenges that exist. I am an Afrikaner. It has been said that it is the Afrikaners who suffer as a result of Latin being a requirement. I cannot agree with that.

I also want to touch upon another remark made by the hon. member for Heilbron. He advocated that regional magistrates should be appointed to the Bench. He made the point that it was frustrating for magistrates that they can rise no higher than the position of regional magistrate. I cannot agree that that is a frustrating limit for a regional magistrate. I have always regarded promotion to regional magistrate as being the ultimate goal for the prosecutor and the magistrate. I want to say that it is a noble aspiration. I have great respect and appreciation, and I want to express it, for the quality and the work of our regional magistrates. They are outstanding men. But I do not think that they should feel frustrated in this regard. The question occurs to one: Suppose the Bench is filled by regional magistrates, can there not be frustration for advocates as well because they can no longer be promoted to that position?

Reference has been made to the legal systems of other countries and it has been suggested that by analogy we should follow the same systems as far as appointments to the Bench are concerned. I think that our system differs from those systems, for example from those on the Continent, where an official is trained right from the beginning to administer justice. They are trained for the Bench. That is not the case in this country. Here a person is trained as a prosecutor, and subsequently promoted to the position of magistrate. Our system with its magistrates and judges, its prosecutors, attorneys-general and their staff, its Bar and Side Bar is functioning well at present. I do not think it is reason enough to change a system merely for the sake of opening doors. I think there should be a good reason to change a system that is functioning well. A system may be changed if it is not functioning well. I cannot see that the proposed changes will solve the major problem at the moment, i.e. the problem of manpower. I can only see that abolishing Latin is going to cause more officials to leave the Department of Justice in order to join the private profession. I can only see further vacancies being created where there is already a shortage, if regional magistrates are promoted to the Bench.

I want to conclude by saying that we are proud of our courts, our administration of justice and the standard of their work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am also very sorry that the hon. member’s time expired when it did, but I will continue with the speech that he was making for him. I want to say that, while I do not profess to have the same views as the hon. member about Latin, I have an open mind on that. I am sure the hon. member for Transkei will deal with this dispute. But I do want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down for taking the view that he has taken about our Supreme Court, our judges. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to deal with this question as to how our judges are to be found, how one qualifies to be a judge. This question raised its ugly head some time ago with one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors. The suggestion then was made that magistrates should be appointed to the Supreme Court bench, that they should become judges, as the hon. member for Heilbron suggested, on the argument that they have a great experience of sitting on the bench. True, at the time it was said that they should only become judges in the Criminal Division and that the Supreme Court should be divided into a civil and a criminal division, and one could find advocates to staff the civil division, and that the magistrates were really far more qualified to fill the bench in the criminal division. This was an unfortunate moment in our legal history. After the Minister who was then responsible became the present Prime Minister, this Minister was appointed. I hope that, as this matter has been raised by a front bencher, and one is entitled to take his suggestion seriously, the hon. the Minister will deal with this question, as it has now come before the House twice from people on his side of the House. Let us examine the reason for the plea of the hon. member for Heilbron. He did so in reply to a suggestion that I made that magistrates should be treated differently from ordinary public servants. They are different. The hon. the Minister agrees. They should be paid more. To have the standing, the power, the authority and the responsibility that magistrates have and yet after nine years on the bench their optimum is R4,200, is ridiculous for a man in that position. The next step one goes to, starting from R4,200 and going up to R5,100, is that of a Senior Magistrate. I know the hon. the Minister says they are in fact all part of the public service. But they cannot complain. They have to complain to the Public Service Commission, which has to treat everyone in the same way. But if the hon. the Minister can do something or persuade his colleagues to do something about this, then the Public Service Commission does not matter.

This hon. Minister can persuade his colleagues to do something. Unless this is done, nothing will be done. But what I want the hon. the Minister to do, is to repudiate the suggestion made by the hon. member for Heilbron that there is any likelihood or chance of magistrates being appointed to the Supreme Court bench. As the hon. member for Waterkioof has said, we have here a system. We have a Supreme Court. We have judges who have no peer in this world. Throughout everything that has happened, no matter how we have disagreed upon and changed all sorts of institutions, standing out head and shoulders above everything else, has been our Bench. Why do we have such a good Bench? The answer is very simple: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The system produced the judges. It has continued to produce them, and it will go on producing them. If we are going to fiddle or play around with that, I feel that we are going to strike at something very basic, at one of the greatest things that our heritage has given us in these difficult times. Why do we appoint judges the way we do? We take the cream of the Bar, this old profession, with its tradition, its independence and integrity, with the experience and the ways of the profession. We take the cream off the top and they are put on the Bench. Therefore one finds judges who are independent completely, whose whole career and environment has been one of being absolutely impartial, espousing not only one cause but all the causes they have to apply their minds to.

I do not want to go into the history of this new attitude too far, because it is not very pleasant and I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone. But there was a time when a Chief Magistrate took silk. I see in the paper to-day that he has retired from the law. A Chief Magistrate took silk at the very time that one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors was toying with the idea of in fact changing the Supreme Court into a Criminal and a Civil Bench. All these questions are related one to the other. Then one finds a suggestion, for example, in the report of the department that—

The suggestion is that perhaps it ought to be given the control of that as well. The Admission of Advocates Act laid down the qualifications. It is for this Parliament to decide whether those qualifications should stay or whether they should not. But let us not interfere now with the education qualifications for advocates. Let us leave that where it is and where it has been all these years, all these centuries, namely, with the profession itself and the court itself. Let us not hand this over to a board to decide what sort of qualifications advocates and prospective judges should have. Let us leave it where it is, to be determined by the profession itself, which is best qualified to decide these matters, and with the court, as the judges of every application for admission to the bar.

While I am on my feet, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Green Point should not really receive more attention, namely the matter of Chief Magistrates and their allowances. Chief Magistrates do not necessarily want to be entertained at all the various places they are asked to. But they are asked because they are the leading citizens in that area. They have to go. They do go, because it will be rude to refuse. They are asked, really, as a representative of the State. They feel, just like other people feel, that when someone stands them a drink, perhaps they ought to stand him one as well. They have to do it, and they do it. It is done out of their own pocket. I do not think it is fair, because they are asked there in their official capacity. This applies as much to Durban and presumably any other place as it does to Pretoria and Cape Town, because there are members of the diplomatic corps in Durban and in Johannesburg

The hon. the Minister also used the phrase “political cases”. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can explain to me what a political case, because I seem to recall …

I took the words from the opposite side.

I can remember when the person to whom the hon. the Minister is referring asked questions of his predecessor in regard to convictions in political cases, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said that he did not know what she meant. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into the discussion of the question of Latin too deeply, but with all respect I want to say that I differ with both the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. member for Waterkloof in what they said. I do not want to enlarge too much on this, but the Secretary for Justice advocates certain changes in attitude as far as the study of Latin is concerned. He does not say specifically what he would suggest at this stage, but only states his view in general terms. In reply to this Prof. Joubert of the University of South Africa, for example, said the following (translation)—

He then discussed the present situation and concluded by saying—

In this connection I should just like to suggest that the use of Latin in our inferior courts by our magistrates, our prosecutors and our Law Society is absolutely non-existent. The requirement of having to study Latin keeps many persons out of the legal profession because they do not have the opportunity at school to study Latin, and people who do not have a particular flair for languages are also being kept out of this profession. We cannot find staff for the Department of Justice, we cannot obtain persons to act as prosecutors and we cannot obtain people for the attorney’s profession either. They are kept out by this study requirement, a study on which they have to spend money and at least two years and which is absolutely worthless to them in practice later on. I took Latin for my Ll.B. studies and in all the years that I was attached to the Department of Justice and that I practised as an attorney, I never found it necessary once to apply any knowledge of Latin in connection with practical matters in court. I am not referring to knowledge of a few general dictums and a few elementary sentences which may perhaps be necessary to understand certain things better. Translations of these are easy to come by. I therefore think that we should think in the direction of abolishing Latin as a qualification for appearing and acting in the inferior courts. However. I do not think that we should think of abolishing Latin as a qualification for appearing in the superior courts. The persons appearing in the superior courts are supposed to be specialists in the profession and I can testify from experience that they are indeed specialists. We also have to pay them specialist fees. When one has to pay specialist fees to someone, one at least wants to receive specialist knowledge from him. I should like to argue that Latin should be retained as a required qualification for the purpose of appearing in superior courts, because they have to make a more profound study there, which is expected of them by the public and also by the courts where they have to appear. That is what I want to say in connection with the aspect of Latin.

Before discussing what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said in connection with the liquor question, I should like to touch upon a matter which I have been specially asked to raise in this debate. The hon. the Minister is aware of it. A large section of our public is becoming concerned about the continual maiming of young children by dogs. For quite some time now reports have been appearing in the Press almost every week of women and children having been bitten and mauled by dogs. Many of these attacks are by Alsatians, and to a lesser extent other breeds. I myself am particularly fond of dogs, but here we have a type of animal which is apparently giving rise to fear amongst our people. In conversations one finds that ladies tell one that they are afraid to take a walk with their children, because some neighbour of theirs has some dog or other. I know there are regulations which provide that one is not allowed to keep a ferocious animal within a municipal area and that the police may act in such cases. However, it appears to me as though it will in fact be necessary to lay down under what conditions it is safe to keep these animals. A decision can then be made on this basis. When I discussed this idea with a colleague to-day, he asked me whether it was not my views that one should bite back. I do not think we should take that view. A moment ago I consulted one of my advocate colleagues about a Latin expression, and the position is that we can say that the actio de pauperie still exists and is still applicable and that a person is liable to pay compensation if his dog has acted contra natura sum. That is about as far as my Latin goes. However, this is a very serious matter which I have been requested to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned matters concerning the Central Liquor Board and the classification of hotels. I do not differ with him to any great extent, except that I think that the provision that the classification of a hotel should be revised every three years is a good one. The human factor is always present. A person goes to a lot of trouble in having his hotel classified, and not everyone will see to the regular annual repair and maintenance of his premises. That is one of the reasons for this provision in this Act, namely to prevent hotels where people have to stay from falling into disrepair. I therefore think that this is a very good provision. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) would do well to take the trouble one day of himself handling an application for classification of an hotel right from the beginning. He himself should go to the chairman of the National Liquor Board or to his staff and discuss the matter with them and carry out the entire classification of the hotel. He would then be less concerned. I am saying this in a friendly spirit and with all due respect to the hon. member. What is the real position? I do not want to discuss the regulations in this regard now, because these are very clear and really not complicated. The requirements of the regulations—and this we have seen in this House by now—are not so very difficult for the licensee to comply with. Another important aspect is, and I say this gladly, the helpful attitude of the chairman of the National Liquor Board and his staff in this matter. I have had the privilege of doing same of the hotel classifications. My experience is that one finds particularly helpful people there who often turn mountains into molehills after one has discussed matters with them. I should also like to appeal to our people to contact these officials for advice at an earlier stage. They will then find these matters far easier to handle and that far less cost is involved. I know of a specific case where a person—the province does not matter now; this was told to me in confidence, but I can give the following information—was advised that he would have had to spend a tremendous amount of money in order to get his country hotel classified. The owner travelled to Pretoria and after talking to the chairman of the National Liquor Board for about half an hour he realized that it would only cost a few thousand rands to make all the alterations and to get his hotel classified. By the time he left there his mind had been completely set at rest. I think our people will profit by contacting this Board in connection with this planning at an earlier stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in replying to me on the question of the allowing an hotel to establish its off-sales premises in an area in competition with other businesses referred to the present Prime Minister’s speech of 1965. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the reply given by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1963 when the hon. the Prime Minister said—

In respect of the case I referred to. the hon. the Minister ended up by saying “Dit was ’n ongelukkige geval”. “Dit is baie ongelukkig” for the competitors who have been established in that area, in one case since 1928, and I certainly hope that the board will be most careful in future in seeing that vested rights are protected. We will then not have the same thing as happened in this case where a new licence was issued for a site only about 28 yards from another licensee. 88 yards from another and also near a third. All of these were in the same neighbourhood. I certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this aspect in the future.

I also want to know from the hon. the Minister what is meant by political cases, because it affects this question of legal aid. The horn the Minister said in reply to me that assistance is given in all political cases and that the State pays for the defence. I did not know that and I would like to know what type of cases assistance is given to. The hon. the Minister, in reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) who asked him what a political case was, said that he was only using the term which I had used. That is right, but where did I get that term from? I got it in this publication by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Is it used in that book?

Yes, and the name of the book is “South Africa and the Rule of Law”. It says—“Defence of persons accused of offences with a political background”. It then goes on to deal with these particular offences. We would like to know what the offences are for which the State provides free defence. I think it is most important that the country should know so that people who are accused of those offences will know when they can get free legal aid.

I do not want to go into a long discussion on Latin here now. The matter has been raised by several hon. speakers. I want to remind the House that when this matter was raised here before by way of a Bill by the previous Minister of Justice, Mr. Swart, it was then made a non-party measure. It was intended to be treated as a non-party measure. There was opposition on both sides to the measure and there was support on both sides for the measure. I happened to lead the opposition to the measure on this side as a member of the Council of the Law Society. I have, however, changed my opinion and now support the abolition of Latin. Although I do not like, to see it go, we have to be practical. The position is simply that we do not get the young lawyers and articled clerks appearing to-day, because they do not have Latin. Several young men have told me that they would have liked to take up law but that they do not know Latin. I know others who have started their articles and who wrote their exams but cannot be admitted because they did not have Latin. It is amazing how people do struggle to get Latin. Even if they pass their exams they battle to get Latin. I have, therefore, taken the practical line and now say that I am prepared to support the abolition of Latin now. As far as the hon. member for Heilbron is concerned I think that his society in the Free State is the one which opposes the abolition of Latin. I think it is the Free State and Natal who are opposed to the abolition of Latin. I sincerely hope that the matter will be raised by the Law Societies again. The last time the matter was brought before this House the universities were the stumbling block. The universities refused to give the certificate unless students had passed Latin. The universities were the stumbling block previously. Unless the universities change their minds, we are going to have an uphill battle in this respect. As far as I am concerned. I hope that if the matter is raised again by way of legislation it will be treated as a non-party political matter. I will certainly give my support to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer first to the plea made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus for a more flexible system of parole. I want to assure him that the system is a very flexible one. At the moment I do not see my way clear to granting less restricted parole than exists at present. I do not want to elaborate on this matter, but I want to tell the hon. member that we must bear in mind that an offence was committed. We must remember that the police did their work by implementing the laws of the country. We must also remember that the court sat and that we had the prosecutors and the magistrates there. Therefore, if the presiding legal officer has imposed upon a person a term of imprisonment of six months or of one year, we cannot simply release such a person on parole. We may not undermine our system of law through the system of parole. Although we want to do upliftment work in the humanitarian sense, we must try to maintain a proper balance between the two systems.

I am pleased to say that the hon. member for Durban (Point) was not in such an aggressive mood as he usually is. He is concerned about the sales of beer. He compared the figures for a particular quarter with those of a previous quarter in the previous year. I would rather take a long-term view of the matter. We do in fact find that in the report of the Secretary for Justice. In Schedule B on page 2 it is shown how the sales of the various kinds of liquor have increased. It shows how the sales have increased over the period 1963 to 1966.

It was in 1967 that the changed duty came into operation.

At this stage I just want to show the hon. member how the various quantities increased in 1966 in comparison with 1963. The sales of fortified wine increased by 34.7 per cent. The sales of spirits increased by 48.49 per cent, and those of unfortified wine by 29.73 per cent. The sales of malt liquor increased by 52.91 per cent. In other words, in the long run there has in fact been an increase in the consumption of beer.

Is that by volume?

Yes, it is by volume.

But that is no comparison.

Over the same period the same population consumed various kinds of liquor in various quantities. Of those the sales of beer were the greatest in volume.

Please do not bluff yourself with those figures.

The hon. member says I must not bluff myself, but I do not want him to bluff himself either. He should not think that beer is such an innocent beverage. The percentage of alcohol in brandy is 46 per cent. The percentage of alcohol in beer is 9 per cent at most.

No, it is 4.55 per cent.

No, it is 9 per cent. If we bear in mind that there are 22 tots of brandy in a 26 fl. oz. bottle of brandy, we find that at a percentage of 46 per cent of alcohol, one tot of brandy gives one an alcohol intake of .504 oz. of alcohol, i.e. not taken neat, for water has been added, but that is the actual percentage of alcohol one has taken. If one has drunk one 13 fl. oz. pint of beer at an alcohol content of 5 per cent, then one has taken .65 oz. of alcohol. In other words, in reality the alcohol content of a pint of beer is higher than that of a tot of brandy; that is why it is by no means such an innocent beverage as the hon. member wants to suggest. The hon. member also requested that the Hotel Board should at a certain stage take over the work of the National Liquor Board. As soon as the National Liquor Board has classified all the hotels and seen to it that all of them are in order, it has to hand over its work to the Hotel Board, which would then have to see that the standards are complied with. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that he would not mind if the National Liquor Board continued to supervize matters relating to liquor.

Yes, that is what I said.

But my point is this: I fail to see why the National Liquor Board has to be saddled with all the unpleasantness in connection with the classification of hotels. They have to raise the standard of hotels up to a certain level, and having reared the baby up to that stage, they have to hand it over to another body.

But it is no longer a baby.

Yes, it is true that it is no longer a baby, but it is a child that has been reared for them by this board. This board has seen to it that there are hotels of a certain standard in this country. The lever it has been using, is liquor. It is the lever it will also have to use in future to ensure that those hotels maintain certain standards. If these matters have to be handed over to the Hotel Board, what control would the Liquor Board have over these hotels then? In that case the Hotel Board would have to undertake this work, even though it is not their function to ensure that hotels maintain certain standards. It is not their function.

But it is their function.

I just want to tell the hon. member that it is not the intention to continue in future with the triennial classifications. We want to introduce a system whereby ordinary inspections will be undertaken. If it can be done satisfactorily with ordinary inspections, and if it is to the satisfaction of the National Liquor Board, we would be prepared to issue the reclassification certificate. This is a simplification of the system. The National Liquor Board would then retain the control over the hotels. It would also see to it that the conditions there are as it would like to see them in the case of a classified hotel. I am not referring to two, three, four or five star hotels, but only to ordinary classified hotels. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. member that this division should take place.

The hon. member for Waterkloof made a strong plea for Latin as a requirement for the legal profession. The hon. member for Durban (North) nodded assent. We know the story of the baboon who had lost its tail and then wanted to make the other baboons believe that it was very fashionable. Then he told the others that they should also cut off their tails. It seems to me as though this matter is the exact opposite. These two hon. members are like baboons who came through with their tails intact. They retained their tails in the process, and now they want everybody who goes through this process, to try to retain his tail as well. That is what they are trying to do. I do not want to come out for or against Latin as a subject. I just want to say that I concur with the view held by the Secretary for Justice. Latin is a handy subject. If it were a general requirement for matriculation, i.e. a basic subject, just as Arithmetic is a basic subject, then I would say that there is a point in such an argument. But to say that one has to know Latin in order to practise in the magistrate’s court, or to become an advocate, is to my mind not quite correct. I know better than that, and I myself have Latin I, although I did not go further. I have never had any need for it. I readily agree with the hon. member for Potchefstroom where he said that he had never had any need for it. It was said that a knowledge of Latin was essential because of the Latin expressions one encountered in the legal profession. But one can simply learn such expressions and their meanings by heart. Let the researchers, the professors and such people study Latin. The hon. member for Durban (North) has Latin, and he is a senior advocate. I now ask him to read out to me a legal source in Latin.

I merely said that I had an open mind in regard to this question of Latin.

I am sorry. I beg the hon. member’s pardon. In that case I say this to the hon. member for Waterkloof, and to those hon. members who supported his view. The little Latin one knows when one has taken Latin I at university, and it is easier to obtain a pass at one university than it is at another, is so slight that it is of absolutely no value or use to one. However, it is no use our arguing about that matter, because it is after all the universities which lay down the requirements for degrees. In the Act we lay down the following requirement for a practising advocate: The B.A. LL.B, degree. But the universities lay down what. is required for a B.A. LL.B. degree. It would be a bad day for us if we had to force the universities by way of legislation to award a degree which we lay down here for a certain profession. I do not think that we should do it. But I think Professor Joubert of the University of South Africa has commented in this regard, and his arguments are very much in the same direction. By and large he supports the views held by the Secretary for Justice. All that is needed, is for one university to say that they no longer lay down Latin as a requirement for the LL.B, degree, for then the others will be obliged to follow this example. Only one of them must have the courage to do so. As regards the B.Juris degree, which is a legal degree too, I think that there are at present four universities which offer this degree without laying down Latin as a prerequisite. I believe that it is merely a question of time before the universities themselves will decide to make Latin optional. Those who want to make a thorough study and wish to study the original sources, will be able to take Latin. But I do not think we should dictate to the universities that they should do this; this must originate voluntarily with the universities themselves.

In that case, is the Minister prepared to amend the 1964 legislation so that Latin will not be compulsory, so that, if a university were to decide that it will no longer lay down Latin for degree purposes, there would be no legislation obstructing such a step?

I would rather not give the hon. member a reply to that at this stage. I would rather look it up first.

The hon. member for Durban (North) referred once again to the position in terms of which magistrates have to serve for nine years before they receive their maximum salary of R4,200. The question of remuneration is unfortunately, as I have already explained, a matter for the Minister of the Interior and the Public Service Commission. I have pleaded where I could do so, and in the case of the Attorneys-General we managed to effect an improvement, but one has to maintain a balance among the various services.

What about the magistrates who go to the Bench?

I am pleased that the hon. member has mentioned that. At this stage I have no firm conviction one way or the other. I just want to tell the hon. member that there are magistrates who have B.A. LL.B. degrees, regional magistrates with years of experience, who compare very well with newly appointed Judges. I say that I am not committing myself one way or the other, but we must not think that because a person is a magistrate and because he has been on the Bench in the magistrate’s court, he is incapable of going further. There is another matter as well. We have the Attorneys-General who have been practising for years and years. Where could one find a better criminal Judge than an Attorney-General. The ordinary, average advocate, or even the senior advocate, really has less experience of criminal work than the Attorney-General has.

But what experience has the Attorney-General of defending anybody?

From the nature of the case he does, of course, not have that experience, but I have an open mind as regards these things. I am not going to come out against it immediately. We have the case of two of our most outstanding Judges. One of them is the present Chief Justice and the other is Mr. Justice Botha, people who did not follow the normal course, but who are nevertheless outstanding jurists, who have given judgments which have become absolutely famous. We must not be obsessed with the practical side only, but further than that I should not like to go at this stage.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom mentioned cases of attacks by dogs. This is a matter which is a source of concern to the Department and myself. We ourselves are concerned about the various reports one receives about this matter. We had people who lodged complaints with us about this matter, and when we went into the matter, we found that it had been taken completely out of the hands of the Department of Justice. I think I have a note in regard to this matter. The legislative power in respect of the control over dogs has been entrusted to the respective provincial councils in terms of Item 1 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, Act No. 38 of 1945, read together with section 4 of the Financial Relations Amendment Act of 1956, Act No. 70 of 1956. They are therefore exercising the control, and now we find that the various provincial councils have in turn entrusted this matter to the local authorities, but where there are no local authorities, as is the case in extra-urban areas, they still exercise such control. My Department took steps in regard to this matter. These cases occurred in the Transvaal, in Pretoria, and we approached the Administrator and drew his attention to this and asked for strict action, and, since there is more or less uniformity in this regard, we asked whether the Administrations of the other provinces would do the same, i.e. as regards the penal measure relating to criminal prosecution in respect of dog bite. The hon. member for Durban (North) knows what the civil procedure is, and in this respect I must once again make use of and display my terribly involved knowledge of Latin. In terms of the actio de pauperie and the Lex Aquilia …

How can you explain it briefly in English or in Afrikaans?

Yes, that is my difficulty. You must remember that I am a Latin I student, and if I refer to the Lex Aquilia I know what its provisions are, but if I have to translate them, it is a different matter. The best I can do, is to say that it is a law that was passed by Aquilia.

And that is also quite correct.

If I have to translate the phrase actio de pauperie, I must say that it is an action instituted on account of dog-bite. This merely goes to show what a limited knowledge of Latin one really has, but one does at least know what it is about. I therefore want to tell the hon. member for Potchefstroom that this is a question which is no longer in our hands, and should be raised with the provincial councils so that stricter control in respect of dogs may be exercised.

The hon. member for Transkei asked once again that caution should be exercised as regards the siting of off-sales premises. I want to give him the assurance that the Board is paying close attention to this matter. I grant the final approval, and in future I shall also pay attention to this particular aspect. I am sorry that this particular case slipped through. I hope this is the only one in regard to which there is really cause for complaint.

In conclusion he wanted to know what I had meant when I referred to political prisoners. Broadly speaking these are people who committed offences in respect of national security; these are all matters arising out of the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act, such as banned organizations and everything that allegedly results from any national security measures taken by the Government. These are in point of fact the people to whom hon. members opposite usually refer as “political prisoners”, and in that pamphlet as well. People who have been charged with such offences are entitled to full representation.

Can they choose their own advocates or attorneys?

Oh yes, they can, but we know what happened before. At that time they always chose one who was appointed by Defence and Aid, and whenever they were offered the services of another advocate or attorney, they refused them.

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? During the past 10 or 12 years this side of the House made a point of dealing extensively and prominently with the questions that have arisen in relation to pneumoconiosis on the mines, and I must say that over these years the changes that have taken place in our legislation have often been initiated from this side of the House. I know now that the hon. the Minister does intend to introduce a Bill for better benefits for pneumoconiosis sufferers and I am grateful for that. I have no intention this afternoon of going into details about pneumoconiosis. We will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter when the Bill comes before us. However, I am perturbed about one matter that stands in direct relationship to pneumoconiosis, and I wish to bring this to the notice of the Minister because I think it is very important. This is an extract from a meeting of the Federation of Mining Unions and the extract I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the opinion expressed by one of the high officials of the Federation. In the course of his report the writer said that he felt that much research—he was dealing with pneumoconiosis research units—was being dodged simply because research into certain aspects of mining might reveal that additional complaints in the mining industry would be compensable, and consequently there was no desire on the part of the Chamber of Mines’ representative to pursue anything of this nature. Now, if that is what is happening, I would urge the Minister to go into this matter immediately and to see whether there is any obstruction on the part of anybody or of any group of persons in regard to further research into pneumoconiosis. I do not know what the facts are. I came across this as I was reading the report, but I feel that it is so important that I have to bring it to the notice of the Minister to make sure that the matter will be investigated.

Which report is it?

This is the secretary’s report of the 5th Annual General Meeting of the Federation of Mining Unions. It is dated January. 1968; so it is fairly recent. I should like the hon. the Minister please to look into this matter to see whether this is factual.

Sir, it is just a year since the new monthly pay system was introduced on the mines. When it was brought in it was felt that it should be given a fair chance in the hope both that the miner would be able to earn a fair salary and that the productivity on the mines would be increased. A year has passed, and to my dismay I now find that there are certain expressions of opinion which point to the fact that all is not well under this system. The Minister will know about this and I would like him, if he is able to do so, to explain whether there are difficulties which cannot be ironed out. I have been told that there are certain mine managements which have not been enthusiastic about this scheme, and this might have militated against the smooth running and implementation of the scheme. And if that is so, I feel that there is something lacking in the liaison between the authorities and mine managements. I am certain that that can be rectified. I feel that it would be a pity if at this stage we were faced with any disruption whatsoever in the smooth running of the mines. I think it would be a great pity if this monthly pay system, with its possibility of increased productivity, were scrapped at this stage, because it would injure the economy of South Africa. A spokesman of the Amalgamated Engineers’ Union, for instance, has said that there are anomalies in the agreement which have not been ironed out and that there has been unnecessary procrastination which has also delayed final settlement. I would like the Minister, if possible, to tell the Committee if this is true. If it is and there are difficulties, would he together with the Minister of Labour try his utmost to have these matters settled as soon as possible? I have also read in the Press that the Federation is going to ask for the introduction of an industrial council. If that is going to take place, I do hone that it will not cause any disruption in the smooth relationship which is starting to come into being between the gold producers and the Mineworkers’ Union. I want to point out that if we are going to have a disruption in the productivity of the mines at this stage …

Why talk about a disruption of productivity?

Sir, I am not getting into a political argument here. I am placing facts before the Minister and I am only doing so that if there are difficulties we can try to iron them out. I am not saying that difficulties do exist.

Tell us about the disruption.

Before I was interrupted by the hon. member I was saying that if there was going to be disruption it would cause tremendous harm to our economy. We know how delicate the balance is between payability of mines and non-payability. We know that the costs of production are going un—I will come to that in a moment—and we also know that if there is dissatisfaction either on the one side or the other, it will affect the output of the mines. I would also appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it. even if it means that certain adjustments have to be made to the system which was introduced a year ago, that those adjustments, on both sides, are made as soon as possible. A trial period of a year is sufficiently long and by now we should know where the faults, if any, lie so that smooth progress can be made in future towards better working conditions for the miners and towards bigger productivity. I know, Sir, that it is only a matter of time before the price of gold will go up and I know how important it is for us to try to get every ounce of gold in our mines, especially those mines which are on the verge of being unable to mine low-grade ores. It is terribly important for us to get every ounce of gold out of the ground. Sir, when the price of gold goes up, the Minister of Finance must not forget what the mineworker is doing now, what he has done in the past and what the pensioner from the mines is entitled to get. Those are the persons, who, I think, should share in the bounty that is bound to come to this country when the price goes up. The hon. the Minister of Mines has told us what will happen if the price of gold went up. I say “when” the price of gold goes up. I was somewhat perturbed to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance say that in the event of an increase in the price of gold, the bulk of the benefit would accrue to him in the form of increased taxation: that taxation would probably increase to such an extent that there would be very little left for others.

Can I take your word for it that the price of gold is going to go up?

The hon. member can take my word for it. I would encourage everybody to think as I do. Sir, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has had talks with the hon. the Minister of Finance as regards further taxation on the mines, but I think the time has come for him to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance and draw up the new taxation plan now, so that if the price of gold suddenly goes up, we will know how we are placed and what benefits will accrue to the mineworkers and the pensioners from the increased price of gold. If there is going to be a delay in the rise of the price of gold—and there may be a long delay—then we must also make sure that taxation does not cripple some of the mines which already have difficulty in mining low-grade ore. Sir, last year I pointed out to the House how much gold would remain underground and how much uranium would remain underground. I do not intend using those figures again, but I noticed from reports that whereas in 1965 the working costs were R5.74 per ton. in 1966 they went up to R6.02 per ton and that in 1967, according to the latest report, the costs have gone un to R6 15. With these steadily rising costs it is possible that more and more Iow-grade ore will remain underground, and if that happens then there is a strong possibility that uranium, which is closely associated with the production of gold, will not be mined in sufficient quantities, and this uranium will thon lie there unmined, representing a dead loss to us. In this country we cannot separate the production of uranium from gold. Looking at the records of the various mines, it appears to me that in order to make the mines pay to-day, they are taking the best out of the mines and that the low-grade ores are remaining behind. I would like to see the reverse take place. I would like to see the low-grade ore mined together with as much uranium as possible. The price of uranium to-day, as the hon. the Minister knows, is. very high and the demand cannot be met. Countries all over the world are demanding uranium and we must see that our stocks do not dwindle so that we are able to sell on the market. Sir, more will be said about the question of uranium by another hon. member on this side; so I will not dwell on that any longer.

Now I want to deal with a matter which I touched upon a year or so ago and that is the accident rate on the mines. I am perturbed about this and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the accident figures. I think this is a problem in which we all should take an interest and see if we cannot do something to bring down the rate of accidents on the mines, because we have also found that, unfortunately, there has been quite a considerable increase in the death rate through accidents on the mines. In 1966 726 people were killed on the mines; in 1967 the figure rose to 802. That means that 2½ people were killed every day on the mines, and that is a shocking accident rate. We know that the mine managements are doing what they consider to be a good job to bring down the accidents on the mines. I am not so sure, however, that a figure of 30.677 injured people in one year is a reasonable figure.

Are you blaming the mine managements for that?

I want to know whether we cannot establish what factors cause this high accident rate. Papers have been written about it and statistics have been kept, but I wonder why this figure is still so high. Looking at the report of the Government Mining Engineer, I notice that he attributes a certain percentage of the accidents to laxity in carrying out the regulations. I want the Minister to know that the figures I have quoted here are in respect of accidents which have laid people off for 14 days or more. This excludes all the minor injuries. In arriving at the accident rate, they take into consideration the number of days which the person concerned is laid off as a result of the accident. I should like the Minister to tell us whether or not any investigation has been made into the question of fatigue, for instance. Has it been investigated whether most accidents occur at the end of shifts or at the beginning before the miner is conditioned to circumstances—Is regard being given to the physical fitness of a miner? Has it been investigated whether alcohol plays a part? Whether lighting underground plays a part? Whether conditions underground are such as to bring about fatigue easily? Whether the protective clothing of the miner is sufficient? I suggest that, in addition to what has been done already, more attention should be paid to making teams of workers conscious of the accident rate. I should like to see a bulletin being issued every week giving details of the number of people injured, the nature of the injuries, and the steps the mine managements have taken to avoid a recurrence of such accidents We also know that insecure hanging very often is the cause of accidents. In this connection I am a little bit perturbed to find in the report of the Mining Engineer comment on a disregard of the necessity of carrying out the prescribed regulations in this connection properly. I should like the Minister to go into this matter. Because my time is running out, I shall leave this matter at this point.

During the time still available to me, I should like to raise the question of the production of iron ore in this country. It has been said that Japan is to-day our largest purchaser of iron ore. As a matter of fact, 4.6 per cent of her requirements she buys from us. But if a certain report I have read is correct, she would buy far more than she is buying to-day. Certain statements have been made in this connection giving reasons for the drop in the sale of iron ore to Japan. I bring this report to the notice of the Minister so that he can tell us whether it is correct or not. According to this report, the entire production of iron ore m the Postmasburg area last year, i.e. 1.4 million tons, was exported to Japan. Every ounce of it was sold to Japan. This year, however, only 700,000 tons have been sold. This means a sharp drop in comparison with the previous year. Who is blamed? Here they bring in the Minister of Transport and allege that railage and harbour charges on iron ore are the highest in the world. Well, if that is correct, and if we want to stimulate the production and sale of our iron ore, then we have to tackle the Minister of Transport immediately to see whether freight rates on iron ore cannot be reduced. It is also being stated that our harbours are too small to berth the large ships required to convey iron ore to Japan. In addition, they say that loading is slow and that it is not on a 24-hour basis as it is in other parts of the world. The allegation is that at our harbours to-day not more than 14 hours are worked out of the 24. The ships are such that there is a delay in the loading into these ships. They also say that we must make provision to berth ships which can hold 80,000 tons of ore. Perhaps the Minister will be able to inform the House as to his ideas of getting a better sale for our iron ore, so that there will be no accumulation in any of our iron mines.

I just want to say one word now about sinkholes. I have not visited this area, and so am taking this information as it is given to me. I cannot confirm it without going there. I take it this is in the Carletonville area. I am told that—

Who is saying that?

This is a private letter I received—

This person telegraphed me to-day and he said that we must try and avoid another Aberfan disaster in the West Rand. This is rather frightening. I do not want it to be publicized, because I do not know what value there is in this statement. But I do say that investigation is necessary. There is equipment, I understand, which the Minister may know about, and it is being said that this equipment will be able to measure the diffusion of the probe they are making. The whole of the sinkhole area can be planned and by using this apparatus they can also find out, not only where the fissures are, but also the size of the cavities. More important, it can be shown that the fissures, the cracks through the overburden dribbles, can be stopped at strategic points or bends. Then, no matter what the state of the water table beneath, or the porousness above, the ground will be safe. I am going to give these documents to the Minister, and I would like him to go through them. He can, perhaps, tell me at a later date whether he is having this matter investigated.

Finally, I would, before I sit down, ask the Minister if he would be good enough to take the country into his confidence and tell us what progress has been made in the prospecting for oil. I understand full well that he cannot give us details about it. I am sure that the whole country is very keen on knowing what the position is in regard to oil, and whether we have had any success, or whether we are likely to have success in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, I am not getting up to reply to that hon. member. I am sure that other hon. members still have various matters which they want to raise, new matters as well as matters which may possibly be connected with the ones raised by that hon. member. However, I am just getting up to inform the House in regard to two interrelated matters. The first is the negotiations in regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which took place here in Cape Town last week, on 27th and 28th May. Hon. members have noted the speeches made by South Africa’s permanent representative at UNO and also the detailed exposition given by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have nothing to add to these, but as far as the Department of Mines is concerned, I just want to assure hon. members, and the country as well that in these talks the Department, and specifically the Atomic Energy Board, played a full part in the interests of the uranium industry and in the interests of nuclear power in general for South Africa. I shall not mention the names of the persons who took part, but they are persons who are in the very top positions in South Africa in regard to our nuclear power. The object of the talks was to try to obtain clarity for South Africa in regard to the scope and implications of the proposed treaty. It was particularly necessary to determine to what extent the pact would affect the interests of South Africa as regards its uranium industry and its generation of nuclear power. I am just mentioning this matter at this stage because I think it might be wise for us not to refer to it in this debate. The matter is still under consideration by both the international organization and South Africa. I want to content myself with saying, by way of summary, that through the Atomic Energy Board we are playing a full part in the interests of South Africa and will continue to do so in the future and, secondly, that South Africa, as one of the largest producers of uranium, has, as always, followed the policy and is still following the policy of marketing this strategic product under the conditions which will ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In the second place—and this is a matter which is to a certain extent connected with this—I feel that I owe it to this House to inform you about the report of the Atomic Energy Board about the possible utilization of nuclear power in the Republic. Hon. members have possibly seen in the Press that Dr. Roux of the Atomic Energy Board indicated that the report had been handed to me. This is the position, and the report is in my possession at present. I just want to inform hon. members briefly in regard to this report. The whole of the report, I may say in passing, deals with the peaceful utilization of nuclear power. One of the findings arrived at by the Atomic Energy Board in its report about the possible utilization of nuclear power in South Africa, is that nuclear power will become an economic undertaking in the Republic of South Africa by 1978. Perhaps I may just refresh the memories of hon. members by saying that this report was compiled by a committee of the Atomic Energy Board under the chairmanship of Dr. H. J. van Eck, and on which Dr. A. J. A. Roux, Dr. W. L. Grant, Mr. J. R. Colley, and also Dr. E. M. K. de Villiers and Mr. N. I van der Walt of the Electricity Supply Commission, Mr. W. A. Murray of the Department of Water Affairs and Mr. C. Rezelman of the South African Railways served.

The report is a result of a request which my predecessor in the Ministry of Mining, Minister Haak, addressed to the Atomic Energy Board in June, 1965, to investigate the possible utilization of nuclear power in South Africa. I want to add here that, in view of the enormous extent and the complexity of this matter, I really think that this report redounds to the credit of this committee. After the short period of three years, and this is short for this kind of thing, we now have this report before us which gives definite answers on several points which are important to South Africa. In the report, which will be issued on 1st July, the conclusion is reached that a nuclear power station with a capacity of between 200,000 and 350,000 kilowatts will be economic in its first year of operation in the Western Cape if it is put into full operation between 1978 and 1980. If no further expansion of the transmission system to the Western Cape is undertaken after 1978, additional nuclear power reactor units of the same size will have to be erected every two years to meet the increase in the demand for power in this region. If this additional provision has to be made by means of thermal power, it will be much more expensive than in the case of nuclear power. The report also states that in the foreseeable future it will not be possible to use nuclear power on an economic basis anywhere else in the country, except in Natal, where the position will be reviewed in the early seventies.

The introduction of nuclear power for the sole purpose of generating electrical power rests with the Electricity Supply Commission. As hon. members know, this is provided by law. The establishment of such a nuclear power-station would, however, take place under the Nuclear Installations Act and in consultation with the Atomic Energy Board. I am mentioning this because, in the first instance, it is a matter for the Electricity Supply Commission to decide upon, and after that it has to approach the Atomic Energy Board and, of course, the Government. Only nuclear power reactors which can be operated on natural uranium were considered in this investigation because South Africa does not have an enrichment plant and there is no sufficient guarantee at present that enriched uranium from overseas sources will be available at all times. Of all the natural uranium power reactors, the heavy water retarded and cooled type is at present regarded as the most suitable and economic under South African conditions. The enriched uranium reactor systems, which are so attractive from the capital cost point of view, will, however, be the subject of further study in the event of uncertainties in connection with a guaranteed supply of enriched uranium falling away in due course. I want to emphasize the words “fall away”, further to the remark I made about the uncertainty that enriched uranium will be available at all times at present. Although South Africa has large reserves of coal, they are, nevertheless, not inexhaustible, and the utilization of nuclear power will cause the life of the reserves mentioned to be prolonged. The Department of Planning is, in fact, undertaking a comprehensive investigation in this connection. I may tell hon. members that this investigation has reached an advanced stage and that I have already received a very brief interim report. I hope to make an announcement in this connection as soon as possible, but, unfortunately, I cannot release the report. The conservation of domestic water supplies required for cooling purposes at power-stations does not play an important part as regards the consideration of utilizing nuclear power. If the present experiments with “dry” cooling towers prove to be successful, as is in fact expected, the water supplies for the Eastern Transvaal power-station complex ought to be sufficient until the end of this century. The report also states that South African industries—and this is important—will be capable of providing approximately two-thirds of the content of even the first nuclear power-station, and that their contributions in respect of subsequent stations will increase steadily. No problems will be experienced in manufacturing nuclear fuel elements locally. A nuclear power station will be equipped with a suitable waste material treatment plant and radio-active waste material will be disposed of in such a way that no danger to the public will arise. Although atmospheric pollution is a problem which has not yet assumed serious proportions in South Africa, nuclear power will, nevertheless, contribute towards keeping this problem in check. It is estimated that the first nuclear power-station can be put into full operation approximately ten years after it is decided in principle to proceed with the project. This means that the first steps will have to be taken before the end of 1968. In this programme, sufficient time is allowed for the specialized training of personnel and other preparatory work. The possibility of using nuclear power for the desalination of sea water has also been investigated. It is clear, however, that on the basis of the nuclear desalination costs foreseen at the moment, there is no region in South Africa where fresh water obtained by this method can at present or will in the next decade, be able to compete with the price of water derived from natural sources. Improvements in the technology which will result in substantial reductions in costs may, however, advance the date on which nuclear desalination of sea water will become a paying proposition. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for having afforded me the opportunity of informing the Committee in this regard, because I felt that I should do so as early in the discussion as possible.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall refer to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. We are very grateful for the information the hon. the Minister gave us just now. However, I do not want to deal at length with nuclear power at this stage This is a major development which will mean a great deal to the future of this country.

We were grateful to learn from the statement made by the hon. the Minister recently that certain benefits would be increased under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. We are glad that relief is being granted to certain categories of pensioners where assistance is most needed. In this regard we have in mind particularly the pensions received by widows and children of pneumoconiosis sufferers, and the provision made to increase pneumoconiosis compensation. We are also glad of the fact that this will not be taken into account when the means test is applied in regard to old age and civil pensions. I feel the most important point, is that provision has been made now that the position will be rectified as far as mineworkers are concerned who qualified for compensation before 1962 and who, for certain reasons, are in receipt of pensions on a lower scale. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are very grateful that this anomaly is being done away with now. It has always been the duty of the State to certify and pay out compensation in respect of pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis to persons working in a dust-filled atmosphere in controlled mines. All the Governments in South Africa since 1911 accepted this responsibility.

Order! The hon. members on my left here must stop conversing aloud.

Because this was the position it has always been easy to make a political football of this matter, but because we have always viewed this in a serious light it has always been solved outside the political arena. I want to express my appreciation towards the hon. member for Rosettenville who did not try to drag politics into this matter this afternoon. We have, therefore, found that the major legislation adopted in this House in regard to pneumoconiosis sufferers have always been agreed measures. It is interesting to note that no less than 19 Acts and amending Acts concerning this subject were dealt with in this House since 1911. To freshen the memory of the Committee I just want to say that the latest Act in connection with pneumoconiosis compensation was passed as an agreed measure in 1962. Certain amendments, which were of a more administrative nature, were passed in 1964. Apart from this legislation numerous commissions were appointed as well, and departmental investigations were instituted so that the Government could always be kept well-informed of the latest developments and the results of research carried out in this regard. As a matter of interest, I just want to say that no less than 11 select committees were appointed between 1912 and 1932. No less than five departmental and inter-departmental commissions of inquiry were appointed between 1935 and 1955 to investigate certain aspects of certifying and compensation as regards pneumoconiosis. No less than seven commissions were appointed between 1912 and 1952 for the purpose of investigating the incidence of silicosis and tuberculosis as well as other relevant matters. I mentioned these particulars to show that Governments never missed an opportunity of investigating what could be done to promote the interests of the mineworkers. Pneumoconiosis has always enjoyed the most serious attention of all the Governments in this country. This is how it should be, because pneumoconiosis is a much feared disease. It is a disease which sets in rapidly and develops mercilessly. It can be said gratifyingly, however, that the danger of pneumoconiosis has diminished considerably in recent times. In the first place, this we owe to the safer mining practices which are being applied and, in the second place, to the fact that legislation is introduced timeously as our knowledge of the disease increases and, lastly, to the strict supervision exercised over mining especially by the Department of Mines in regard to mining practices. This supervision provides, inter alia, for proper ventilation to be installed in the mines so that the dust filled atmosphere is kept to a minimum. Although the incidence of this disease has abated considerably owing to the application of these principles, certifying and compensation still remains an important task. I say this because I feel that we have not succeeded in finding a water-proof method of identifying pneumoconiosis. For this reason it should remain our object to identify in some way or other every mineworker who contracts the disease as early as possible. I want to suggest that the methods applied up till now have all been fallible. Radiological tests, the lung function tests and the relevant clinical record of the mineworker have failed to provide us with a water-proof method to identify the disease. There are still far too many cases where it is found at a post-mortem that the persons suffered from pneumoconiosis in some degree or other. In this connection I want to refer to the latest report of the Medical Buro for Mineworkers for the period of 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967. The report states that from a total of 357 post-mortems. 147 cases had pneumoconiosis with less than 20 per cent, 64 cases had pneumoconiosis with between 20 and 50 per cent. 11 cases had pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis and one only had tuberculosis. From these cases it is evident that the wrong diagnosis was made in no less than 59 per cent of the cases. I feel this percentage is too high. I quote these figures to show that the ideal certifying methods which were held up to us in the 1962 Act revealed certain shortcomings. Nearly six years have passed in which the Act had to withstand the test of time. The Minister promised us at that time that any shortcomings in the Act would be rectified. Therefore we feel that the time has probably arrived to have the operation of the 1962 Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act thoroughly investigated. In this connection I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Rosettenville said a moment ago. He said that it was also stated in the report of the Federation of Mine Unions that research was being hampered because the danger always existed that the easier it is to diagnose the disease the more compensation would have to be paid. The objection may also exist that a commission of inquiry, namely the Silke Commission, was appointed recently. But it should be borne in mind that the terms of reference of that commission were very limited. The commission had to investigate into and report upon the desirability or otherwise of a certain system which was submitted to them by the Chamber of Mines and the Federation of Trade Unions. They had to investigate the advisability of a certain system. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government for the improvement to pneumoconiosis pensions brought about by them, as reported in the Press a few days ago. I should like to confine myself to the question of the certification of pneumoconiosis, or in point of fact to the question of the implementation of such certification. I feel that this implementation does not always take place in the spirit which in my opinion was envisaged by the Act of 1962. I shall be pleased if the Minister could go into this matter so as to see whether we cannot bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs. In the definition of “pneumoconiosis”, as contained in Act No. 64 of 1962, we find the following—

There is of course no need for me to tell the Minister what the cardio-respiratory organs are. They are, of course, the larynx, trachea, bronchial tree, lung parenchyma, pleurae, lymphatic system of the lungs, regional lymph glands, vascular system of the lungs, nerve supply of the lungs, diaphragm and nerve supply to diaphragm, heart, pericardium and large intra-thoracic bloodvessels. These are all organs which can be affected by dust. We have had a circular from the Department of Mines. I know the hon. the Minister was not responsible for the Act under discussion. Therefore I want to make out my case for a revision of this matter, and I want to commence by quoting from the memorandum on pneumoconiosis matters. Paragraph 47 of the memorandum which has been circulated reads as follows (translation)—

Paragraph 48 reads as follows (translation)—

I emphasize the last few words. Paragraph 59 reads as follows (translation)—

Paragraph 62 reads as follows (translation)—

The first few lines of paragraph 63 reads as follows (translation)—

This shows that doubt does exist in regard to the value of these tests. It is stated here that a person’s history, his exposure to dust, his medical practitioner’s recommendation and other facts should be accepted. It is stated here that, irrespective of what method has been employed, he should be accepted as a sufferer from pneumoconiosis.

I have here the case of a man who was sent by his medical practitioner to the Pneumoconiosis Bureau to be examined for the purpose of determining whether he was entitled to a benefit. This man had been working underground for more than 30 years, and the medical practitioner found that he suffered from chronic bronchitis. The medical practitioner recommended that he should go for an examination for the purpose of determining whether he was entitled to a benefit. The Bureau referred him back to the medical practitioner, and said that it could find nothing wrong with him. His medical practitioner referred him to a private radiologist, and the report of the latter reads, inter alia, as follows—

With such a report, and with the personal history, this man, in my opinion, ought to have received the benefit of the doubt. However, the following letter was addressed to him—

I feel that this man did not receive the benefit of the doubt at all, and consequently I say that the certification of such cases does not rest on a firm basis. I have referred to the evidence of electro-cardiograms. It is said that if there is any disease, whatever that disease may be, that does not necessarily mean that that disease has been caused by dust. It is said, “Yes, the man is suffering from chronic bronchitis, he is suffering from emphyzema, but people who have never worked in a mine can also contract those diseases. That does not provide conclusive proof in this case he could have contracted that disease in any event”. This is how they argue. Nobody can prove that the man contracted the disease because of the inhalation of underground dust. Consequently we shall be pleased to learn what proof is actually required. Is it not possible to be more specific about this procedure and about what proof is required?

I want to go somewhat further. Paragraph 64 of the memorandum reads as follows (translation)—

Please note, Sir this is what the hon. the Minister himself has laid down. To quote further—

Paragraph (iv) reads as follows—

How can anybody say after a post-mortem that the disection of the lungs of the deceased indicates that in life his cardio-respiratory functions would have been impaired by at least 19 per cent and not by 20 per cent? My people simply cannot understand this.

Let me quote a certain case. A widow came to me and said that her husband had died after he had worked underground for 32 years. She received a letter from the Medical Bureau for Mine-Workers which reads as follows (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the two hon. members who preceded me will forgive me if I do not follow them, but I want to react to the statement made by the hon. the Minister. I am glad of the information he has given us regarding the U.N. resolution on nuclear proliferation and we all hope that the final result will be satisfactory to South Africa. What is perhaps more important is the information given us by the Minister, that as a result of the report placed before him, it is hoped that South Africa will by 1978 move on to the use of atomic power which the Minister’s advisers have told him will be economic by that date. It is very important that we as the major uranium producing country of the world should be in the forefront of the utilization of atomic energy. If we are not, it is like the housewife saying to the visitor, “You can eat my cake, I do not like it very much.” That is why we are glad to hear from the Minister that South Africa itself, despite the coal resources in some parts of the country, is going ahead with the utilization of atomic power for normal electrical purposes. It is important that we should show the rest of the world our confidence in atomic power and that we are prepared to keep pace with what is happening in other parts of the world.

If we look at the Anglo-American Corporation report for the year 1967 we find the following on page 15—

I will talk about expansion in a moment. If we look at the Mining Survey for September, 1967, we see it also refers to this aspect. We find the following stated—

We are simply meeting this new situation, as is the rest of the world, and we are very glad to hear that this is the case. We are now faced with two challenges. The first is that we will have to give protection to the uranium sources we have. We will be able to discuss at greater length when the Minister’s Bill on assistance to marginal mines comes before the House. From the information we are getting from overseas at the moment, certain vital facts are becoming apparent. Firstly, the present reserves of uranium at low cost will be virtually exhausted by 1980. Moreover, by 1980, that is over the next 12 years, there will be a four billion dollar commercial demand for uranium concentrates. In America itself there is intense prospecting for uranium and 11 million feet were drilled in the course of uranium prospecting in 1967 in an effort to find additional deposits. At the end of 1966 there were 25 companies in the U.S.A, with active interests in uranium. To-day there are nearly 100. It is estimated that between now and 1980, 800 million dollars will be spent on finding and developing uranium deposits. By that year constructional facilities for processing uranium will be required to an extent of one billion dollars. Processes for enriching uranium will require an expenditure of 3.5 billion dollars.

We are moving into a new era as far as uranium is concerned. In reports coming from the U.S. we are told that while at the moment almost no power is being produced through nuclear generation, some 2,700 billion kilowatt-hours will be produced in 1980 through atomic power. It is a new field, it is a new era. We do not want to be caught on the wrong foot, we do not want to be like so many people who say, “If I only bought that property three years ago, how rich I would have been to-day … If I only bought those shares a few years ago, how wealthy I would have been …”. We must tackle our problem of uranium now.

The second problem regarding uranium is the question of our scientific research. It is true that one can say to-day, with the price of uranium at about five or six dollars a pound, there is not much in it for South Africa by way of profits or profitability. But the latest report from America anticipate that by 1980 the commercial price for uranium will be 15 dollars a pound, and by the turn of the century it is expected to be probably 30 dollars a pound. We have a very valuable product here. We must turn it to account. The Minister told us that in this new power station we are going to get, we would not be using enriched uranium because it is possible we might not always be able to get it. He said it might not always be available. The answer is an obvious one: What we have to do is to try to see that we ourselves will have this product available. I know the cost is enormous at the moment, but this is the beginning of an era of uranium, and whereas we know that new products cost millions to produce at their initial stages, the cost very often comes down to much lower figures later. What I want to ask the Minister to-day is whether he will see that the Government will give full support to the scientific and research side of uranium?

The answer is yes.

Good. I want to tell him what we want. We want to see that sufficient funds are made available. I know we will spend a considerable sum of money this year because we have over R2½ million on the Estimates for research. It may not be enough, it probably will not be enough. What I am mainly concerned with is that we do not have a repetition in this field of what we have had in so many other fields. This is long-term investment; we have got to see that our scientists are well paid; we have to see that their conditions of service are the best we can make them; we have to see there is no brain-drain from South Africa in the atomic or the uranium field. This issue is too important for South Africa, because we can look to a picture, 10, 12 or 15 years hence where the Minister’s problems with the gold mines can be solved by uranium. When the problem of moving over from gold production to industry, as we have to do one day, has to be resolved, we can be inestimably helped by the production of uranium. We must not be short-sighted, we must not say it is going to cost RX for the next four, six, eight years, and we are not going to show a profit, because the profit can be just over the horizon. Let us be big, let us be hold. We have had an example in this country of what South Africa can do in the scientific field. Let us follow it. Our scientists are good, the product is in the ground, and we must maintain our position as the leading uranium producer and establish ourselves as the leading uranium user per capita in the world. This is our task. It is a wonderful task for the Minister, because it is not often given to one so young, I would say to the hon. the Minister, to have this vista presented to him. I hope he will take his opportunity and make the best use of it.

Mr. Chairman, I was busy telling the Committee of the case of a widow. This widow cannot accept the fact that her husband was just under 20 per cent disabled and that another widow whose husband had worked underground for only 20 years and who only after his death appeared to have suffered from pneumoconiosis was told that her husband had been more than 20 per cent disabled. I feel that we should perhaps go back to the definition of pneumoconiosis, namely “a permanent disease of the cardiorespiratory organs (by whatever means diagnosed) …”. Here it was diagnosed after death and I want to ask the Minister whether a mistake was not made here. We know that mistakes are sometimes made. Here are the proofs. The hon. member for Virginia asked how many people had perhaps suffered from pneumoconiosis while they lived but had never been certified. I leave it to the hon. the Minister to give attention to the matter.

I just want to make a few observations about tuberculosis. Under the 1956 Act this disease was compensatable if the person concerned had worked underground for less than 10 years. He received a lump sum. If he had worked for longer than 10 years, he received both such an amount and a pension. Under the 1962 Act he receives only one amount. If he has worked less than 3,000 shifts, he receives R 1,500; otherwise he receives R2,000. Then that is the end of the mater and he receives no pension in addition. These persons who contract tuberculosis can of course be cured. But after the man has left the sanatorium, his red card is taken away from him and he is not allowed to return to his old work. He then has to seek a different type of employment. I feel it is unfair that this man should be deprived of his livelihood, and that because of something for which he is not responsible. When he received his red card, he had been declared 100 per cent fit after his medical examination. I really feel that we should return to the 1956 Act. The person who suffers from tuberculosis after completing 3,000 shifts should receive a pension and his family should also receive a pension. It may be a young man who loses his job in this way and he may have young children or even children at university. If he is found to be suffering from tuberculosis after 20 years of underground work, he has to find himself other employment, in which he may perhaps earn less than half of his former salary. I feel it would only be fair to give him a pension, as was the position under the 1956 Act. I feel that in this respect we have perhaps deprived the mine-worker of a right. In my opinion a mine-worker is more susceptible to tuberculosis than the ordinary person is. He works underground together with Bantu in an enclosed passage and if a Bantu tuberculosis sufferer coughs or expectorates there the mine-worker can contract tuberculosis of the lungs more easily than the ordinary person because of the dust and the ventilation currents which are pumped through underground. Perhaps the Minister can reconsider this matter as well so that the pension for tuberculosis sufferers may be re-introduced.