When the debate on this Bill was adjourned yesterday, I had indicated that this side of the House intended supporting this Bill at its Second Reading but that we hoped to be able to improve the Bill, for the benefit of the Minister, in Committee. Before indicating what improvements we believe should be made, I should like to say how glad I am to find that the Minister has taken as serious a view of dagga as a drug as he has done. I know that there is a great deal of propaganda to the effect that dagga is a harmless sort of drug. Our view is that it is not so. Our view is that it has no use medicinally and that, consequently, it is best to play safe. It would seem that there is a growing body of opinion overseas that it is nothing like as harmless as was thought. If I am to believe certain reports made available to me by people who have been studying drug addiction in the Johannesburg area, then it is quite definite that it is a much more serious problem than we were led to believe. There are those who are inclined to liken it to alcohol. While alcohol is a serious matter, it does not necessarily lead to drug addiction, whereas all the evidence that has been made available to me would indicate that dagga provides a springboard to drug addiction of a more serious kind. So, it was good to see the word “dagga” in the Bill and I do hope that this Bill in its final form will include in the schedules the trade as well as the pharmaceutical names of the various drugs. As it is, certain highly qualified people on this side of the House find it quite impossible to identify a number of the drugs listed in this schedule.

It is quite obvious that the objective of this Bill must be preventative as well as curative or rehabilitatory. One of the means of prevention is to make drugs less easily available. With that objective in view there shall have to be penalties which will have to be harsh. These will have to be harsh because we cannot take chances with the future of our youth, and furthermore, the trade is so profitable that the big dealers stop at virtually nothing to make their profits. I am well aware of the fact that harsh penalties may do harm to the ordinary dependant who is to be pitied rather than punished and helped to rehabilitate himself. What we have to do is to weigh up the good that will be done as against the minimum harm that will be done.

The question of penalties raises certain problems. One finds that despite the severe penalties in dagga cases—fines up to R1 000 or five years’ imprisonment—dagga peddling is still increasing apace. I believe that last year something like 5 000 000 lbs. was confiscated to the value of approximately R20 500 000. The rewards in fact are so large that the big people are prepared to take big chances. The consequences are that other countries have imposed very severe penalties. Penalties for trafficking include the death penalty in at least five countries that I now of—Russia, Aghanistan, Iran, Turkey and one other. Even in the United States of America fines of up to 20 000 dollars and imprisonment of up to 40 years are accepted penalties. In New York State, I believe, the penalty is imprisonment for life. In France there is a sentence of imprisonment of up to 25 years. Even in the United Kingdom, perhaps one of the most permissive societies in the world, there are penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

I am afraid that the problem is so serious that it is essential to be tough not only for deterrent purposes but also for remedial purposes. For the dealer we have no sympathy whatsoever. We must, however, be careful that in our attempts to catch him we do not place the ordinary user who, as I have said before, is more to be pitied than condemned, in an impossible position when it comes to establishing his innocence on a charge of dealing. The pedlar, the dealer, is a man whose position in my opinion is sui generis.

At this stage I want to say that, although we on this side of the House do not like minimum sentences, we feel that the pedlar, the dealer in drugs, is so like a murderer that we are prepared to see minimum sentences applied to him. For murder, Sir, the death penalty is mandatory in South Africa, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances. Here too we have a minimum sentence and I fail to see any reason whatsoever why a minimum sentence should not be prescribed for the dealer. For that reason we have no objection to the high penalties prescribed in this Bill for the dealer as identified in this Bill.

I know there is going to be trouble in respect of two classes of people—firstly, the “dagga-boere”, the dagga farmers whom one comes across in the Bantu Reserves and for whom this has become something of a way of life. Here I would plead for a very intensive campaign to inform these people of the penalties involved and what this means before the law is enforced amongst them. There is the other type of person who, I notice, the Grobler Committee also feels should receive special treatment, and that is the person who deals in or keeps drugs because he himself is a dependant and, consequently, keeps them and deals in them to supply his own needs. Despite the harm he does he is really in need of treatment. I am happy to note that under this Bill his position is covered by clause 62, which proposes a new section 341 to the Criminal Procedure Act whereby, if it appears to the judicial officer who is presiding at the trial, that the accused is probably such a person as described in clause 29 (1) of this Bill, namely that he is an addict or a dependant himself, then the judicial officer may, with the consent of the prosecutor—this I want to emphasize— with the consent of the prosecutor suspend the trial and order an inquiry under clause 29 (1) and for treatment of the accused in terms of the same clause.

Now this means that even if convicted, the sentence will be null and void, and the addict or dependant will be treated at a rehabilitation centre. I think this is a good provision, but I do not see why the consent of the prosecutor should be necessary. Surely it is adequate if the judicial officer, after consultation with the social welfare officer, comes to the conclusion that there is something wrong and arranges for an investigation under clause 29. You know, Sir, some prosecutors fight for a verdict. It would be a pity if this attitude were to be brought into the handling of a case of this kind. I would also like to say that I believe that this procedure should be one which it could be possible for the accused to apply for, in the discretion of the judicial officer. Now, while minimum sentences are laid down also for users and possessors in terms of clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill in respect of prohibited dependence-producing drugs and dangerous dependence-producing drugs, clause 7 gives the court a discretion in dealing with those cases if there are circumstances to justify the imposition of lighter sentences than are prescribed. That we find satisfactory.

Then I come to clause 6, read with clause 10 (6), which the Minister dealt with very fully and which I believe places a very heavy burden of proof indeed upon the owner or occupier or manager, etc., of a place of entertainment. Here I feel that this is a clause that we will have to look at very closely in the Committee Stage. I fully appreciate the Minister's problem. It is at these sort of places of entertainment, the night clubs, that most of the peddling is done and most of the indulging takes place, and it is there that so many people pick up bad habits. I may say that there are members on this side of the House who have made it their business to go with the police to visit places of that kind, and they have given me a very fair idea of the sort of problem with which the Minister is faced. Nevertheless, my impression is that under the provisions of these two clauses read together, naive people, innocent people, stupid people, if you like, who are too believing, may very easily land in very serious trouble. They might even in some cases see their homes forfeited if they loan them to some organization which they believe to be harmless and trafficking went on or indulging in drugs went on and they, not having the knowledge, did not take such precautions as could reasonably have been expected of them. My feeling here is that perhaps these clauses should be amended, or that in cases of convictions under these clauses the court should have a discretion as to sentence. I think perhaps these clauses could be brought in under the umbrella of an extension of clause 7, which allows the court the discretion to impose something less than the minimum sentence. Someone accustomed to dealing with drug cases and knowing the evil may very easily have higher standards of what a reasonable man would do than the ordinary, inexperienced and naive person. Also, I wonder whether in these cases we should not have a provision that nobody should be prosecuted without a certificate from the Attorney General.

This really raises the whole question of the advisability of leaving the control of cases for offences specified in this Bill under the jurisdiction of the lower courts, that is the courts of the magistrates and additional magistrates, of the Bantu Commissioners and Assistant Bantu Commissioners, and people of that kind. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment the power of sentence of imprisonment of an ordinary magistrate is about six months and of a regional magistrate, if I remember rightly, round about three years. To expect people of that limited experience to take over cases in which sentences of up to 25 years can be imposed and in which forfeitures of what may be very big sums of money and valuable property are involved, seems to me to be courting dissater. I know I shall be told that there is an automatic review by the Supreme Court; I know I shall be told that there is an appeal to the Supreme Court Sir, nobody who has practised as an advocate in our courts is unaware of how often you find yourself in the position that there is an appeal which you think should succeed but you fail because the judge says, “I did not see the witnesses; the magistrate had the benefit of seeing the witnesses; he must be the man as to judge to credibility; I am not prepared to overrule his findings;” Mr. Speaker, we do not want that sort of thing to be happening when such heavy sentences are involved in such very serious cases. I think that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I want to suggest to the Minister that these cases involving, as they do, interpretation of so many presumptions as are set out in clause 10, very serious presumptions calling for a very great nicety of interpretation, should go to the Supreme Court for summary trial, as they normally would do because of the penalty involved and that only those cases in which the prosecutors are asking for penalties normally within the powers of a magistrate, who would be a regional magistrate, should go to the magistrate’s courts, I know that one of the problems is delay, but delay in the magistrate’s courts at the present time is almost as bad as in the Supreme Court. Sir, if you arrange for summary trials by the Supreme Court, I believe that we could have these cases before the courts with just as much speed and we would have a very much more satisfactory situation. I want to say that we on this side of the House will make proposals to that effect in the Committee Stage.

There is one other provision, which is not a penal provision, but which has attracted a lot of attention. That is clause 13 which provides for detention for interrogation. The hon. the Minister has himself admitted that this is a power generally resorted to only in times of national crisis where the security of the State is at stake. He pleads the abuse of drugs on a national scale and points to the methods used by illegal drug traffickers and the difficulty of getting information which can lead him to the men behind the scenes, the people who manipulate the trade. I would add another category, namely those responsible for blackmailing many of the pushers who very often have been blackmailed into doing these jobs because they themselves have become addicts. Sir, I see the hon. the Minister’s difficulties, and there is nobody more anxious to get at the people behind this trade than I and members on this side of the House. At the same time, Sir, I do not like this clause. There is no provision here for information to be given on oath. Surely it should be given on oath. Then there is something else, Sir. Who decides when the questions have been satisfactorily answered or whether it will serve any useful purpose to detain the man further? Is it the magistrate who decides, or does he merely inquire from the prosecutor, who then reports to him? I do not think this is satisfactory. I think that we want further control; I believe that that would safeguard the situation. I feel that we should arrange some machinery for an appeal to a Judge in chambers or a Judge sitting in camera, to ensure that the appeal would be private, where the case for the detainee could be reported to the Judge and the Judge would have the right to call the detainee himself, if necessary.

So much then. Sir, for the penal provisions of this Bill. Fortunately, its major objective is a rehabilitative one, and while welcoming the machinery, in general terms, which has been set up, I feel that there are perhaps certain criticisms. The first one I have is that the Bill should provide in a greater degree for preventive and rehabilitative measures concerning children. The Minister will know that the Grobler Committee of inquiry drew special attention to the inherent dangers of drug abuse amongst children. It also indicated that cases had been brought to its notice concerning the neglect of parents in supervising their children with regard to drug usage. The parents have given their children no information. They do not take care to see that their children are not indulging in drugs. How many parents do not go out for the evening leaving their children at home to have a party with their friends? These are matters which, I feel, we should look at again. There is the suggestion from the Grobler Committee that section 19, which deals with corruption of children, should be amended to include lack of proper supervision by parents of their children in this regard.

It already is in the Children’s Act. I put it in there myself.

No, I do not think it is. I beg to differ from the hon. the Prime Minister. If that is the case, the Grobler Committee is entirely at fault in its findings, which I do not believe to be the case.

There is another matter as far as the Children’s Act is concerned. This Act has been the children’s charter for their protection since 1937. It makes special provision for the manner in which children should be dealt with when they are found to be in need of care. There are many social workers connected with child welfare, who have come across an increasing number of children under 18—and the hon. the Minister spoke about them himself—who are becoming addicted to strong drugs as well as being dagga smokers. They consider it desirable that these children should be regarded as children in need of care and should come under the provisions of the Children’s Act. This would enable them to be committed for treatment and rehabilitation to a special children’s home or institution. The hon. the Minister knows that, under the 1963 Rehabilitation Centres Act, children under 18 years of age were subsequently precluded from being sent to rehabilitation centres. This legislation does not include the same provision. It seems to me that welfare workers have a point when they feel it would be better to deal with children under 18 years of age in terms of the Children’s Act so that, on their release on probation from a children’s home, there will be a very much greater possibility of child welfare agencies keeping contact with the children.

I come to the proposed National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters, which we welcome. That replaces the National Advisory Board on Alcoholism, which existed in terms of the 1963 Act, The indications are that the Advisory Board on Alcoholism has not reported frequently and consequently it has been difficult for us to assess the work of that board in view of the fact that reports do not appear to have been laid on the Table in this House as was previously done in respect of the Work Colonies Act. We believe that there should be annual reports from this board and that there should be provision to that effect in the Bill. We have a new type of board in which there are tremendous powers given to the director and to the secretary. We believe that there should be an appeal from decisions of the director and the secretary to the Minister. This could be included under clause 26. We believe that this board should play an active part in the promotion of preventive measures for drug-dependent persons. We believe it could do invaluable research into the whole question of rehabilitation and treatment, because the only experience the past board had consisted in combating the problem of alcoholism and not in dealing with drug addicts. We furthermore believe that it could be used to give real impetus and encouragement to the welfare organizations prepared to undertake welfare work in connection with the whole problem of drug dependency. It could also encourage rehabilitation centres being established by welfare organizations which give special treatment for drug addicts. There are reports of some of these organizations giving special treatment which has been of great advantage and has had very good results.

This Bill provides for detention in a rehabilitation centre initially for a period of 12 months and a report to be given, to the director thereafter. I wonder whether that report should not be given after six months and whether there should not be an automatic review after three years.

There is also the position in respect of voluntary addicts. The voluntary addict submits himself to treatment in a rehabilitation centre, but cannot be kept for longer than six months. I think this fact should be publicized. Many addicts are afraid to come forward voluntarily, because they believe that once in a rehabilitation centre, they may never be released again. It seems to me that we should take 1he trouble to publicize the fact that these people can only be detained for six months and that it should be made known through the Press and the radio. Those people, also, I believe, should be treated in separate clinics or hospitals so that it does not have the taint of the punitive idea which has unfortunately been attached to rehabilitation centres in the past.

Then you have the problem of a man who is so serious an addict that he requires to be detoxified before he can be treated. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s ideas are in this respect. Will he be detoxified under care of special medical teams in the rehabilitation centres? Is it not possible to make provision for them to be hospitalized and detoxified under care of special medical teams before going to the rehabilitation centres?

One other problem which the Grobler Committee was faced with, was the lack of accurate statistics concerning drug dependency and the incidence of what I call this disease. I wonder whether we must not make provision for computerization of all information connected with this problem, such as convictions, the nature of convictions, the record of drug dependency, the quantities of illegal drugs which have been confiscated or which enter the country illegally, so that the department will have proper statistics to deal with.

Another problem which is raised by the Grobler Committee which is not dealt with here, is the whole question of the large percentage of young drug abusers who have taken up these malpractices through ignorance. They believe these young people require to be educated and they say, in the first place, it is the duty of the parents, but one finds the sad situation that the parents are unable to provide the education because they and their children have ceased to communicate. They suggest that the responsibility be placed on the shoulders of some other authorities, but they ask what the content of that education should be. It would seem that this advisory board should give very careful attention to what that content should be and how it can be made available.

The hon. the Minister has told us that abuses which arise from carelessness and perhaps addiction among members of the medical and nursing professions, will be dealt with under separate circumstances. It is a pity that we cannot have everything bound up in one Bill to deal with this problem. I think an appeal should go out from this House to all members of the medical profession, to all hospitals and to all those dealing with drugs, to be extremely careful in the manner in which they guard and check drugs so that they do not get into the wrong hands and so as to ensure there is no possibility of that happening. I regard this as one of the most important pieces of legislation which has been before this House for many sessions. Through it. I think, we as South Africans, the Government and the Opposition, have given notice to the outside world that we are determined to fight this evil which is threatening our young people, with all the power at our disposal. I think we have made it dear that we do not want the dissoluteness, the degeneracy, the destruction which is inevitably bound up with the abuse of drugs of this kind for our young people. For our young people we are looking for decent behaviour, lack of permissiveness, discipline and proper development both in mind and in body. Through this legislation we have given the drug dealers notice that we are prepared to fight them with every weapon at our disposal and without any mercy at all.

The Bill alone is unfortunately not going to ensure us of victory. We will not win if we only concentrate on one section of the community. So far the Grobler Committee has dealt only with the White section of the community and itself has called for research into the evil amongst non-Whites. The hon. the Minister will know that 68 per cent of all convictions on dagga charges are amongst the Bantu people. We require that research; that must be done and it must be put in train very soon. This must be done because we will never stamp out this evil in South Africa while it continues to exist amongst one section of the community. I do not know how wise we are in leaving the rehabilitation work in this sector to the Coloured community alone without setting an adequate example. Nor do I believe that we are going to achieve success with legislative action alone. I am afraid, as other countries have found, that it is going to be necessary to get public opinion on our side through the proper use of the mass media of communication. We must do what apparently has been done in other countries and that is to engender a national revulsion against this abuse. We must see to it that society plays its part by mobilizing the parents, the educationists, the churches and the social workers. In this sphere permissiveness must go and it must be replaced by a national pride and the discipline it engenders must take its place. We will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in connection with the extremely important legislation that is receiving the attention of us all. One immediately wants to say, of course, that no legislation is perfect in its making. Experience has taught us that there are many aspects that can be changed, improved and supplemented. All of us would, of course, like to see that this legislation, which is before us, is the best, clause for clause, that this House is able to furnish. That is why I think that many of the matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could very profitably be discussed in the Committee Stage.

We all have to admit, too, and we are grateful for the fact, that the Government did the country a very great service by taking this courageous step and tabling legislation such as this with all the heavy penalties and such-like measures that must help combat this tremendous evil. When one thinks of the evil we are faced with, everyone is agreed that we are dealing with an appalling manifestation. When one tries to determine the scope of the evil, one finds that it is very difficult to do this for several reasons. Firstly, as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions stated in its study report in 1970, and I quote (translation)—

The commission’s report, on which this legislation is based, makes the same admission (translation)—

If we then ask why it is not possible to determine the scope of the problem, one of the reasons mentioned is that a great deal more intensive research will have to be done in this sphere than has been done up to now. We shall have to collect many more facts relating to this problem before we can determine its scope. Another reason why it is so difficult to determine the scope of the problem, and to obtain the facts, is the shyness of the victims to come forward and to testify. As one psychiatrist put it, according to the report: “These people do not want themselves to get known, because society looks down upon them.” There are, however, sufficient facts, which we can obtain from this report and other reports, to prove to us that this evil is a phenomenon relating to all levels of society, not only to the well-endowed individuals, but even to the poorest of individuals. In addition, it also manifests itself in all spheres, from universities and schools down to the humblest and simplest labour yard and workshop. It occurs in such a way that we cannot fail to recognize the problem.

Of particular importance is the fact that it is recognized, by everyone dealing with this problem, to be revealing an indisputably growing trend. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions’ study report states, inter alia, the following (translation)—

And the report before us also supports this statement when it comments (translation) —

A psychiatrist at one of the important hospitals in Durban testifies as follows: “What I have noticed was that since the beginning of 1970 I have seen more drug addicts at the hospital than I recall seeing before.” It cannot, therefore, be denied for a moment that we are dealing here with a problem which needs our attention and that, although we apparently cannot define its scope exactly, there is clearly an increase in the scope of the problem as time passes. That is also why one of the findings of the report, on which this legislation is based, reads as follows (translation)—

If one now asks for the causes of this phenomenon that is causing so much misery and destruction, we have to say that there are, of course, as mentioned in the report, a large variety of causes that vary from person to person. Some are inherent in the person himself and others result from the environment in which the person finds himself. When we consider the internal causes, the one that is given the strongest emphasis and attention is the phenomenon of the immaturity of the personality of the person who becomes a victim to these drugs. The characteristics of such an immature personality can be summed up as follows: They are lacking in human relationships; they are unable to combat frustration and counteract problems; there is a lack of willpower and discipline; and there is an inability to be critical about themselves and their deviating conduct.

It has been found that many of these characteristics are innate, temperamental characteristics; but to a very large extent this is the result of poor parent-child relationships. Many of these people draw a feeling of strength from these drugs that they use because they themselves are not strong. Many of these persons are so susceptible to these drugs that they develop a dependence and eventually total addiction. The easy availability of these drugs is, therefore, one of the reasons why we are faced with this problem today. In society there are, of course, numerous causes that can be indicated, such as the superficial attitude of society towards these drugs. When society does not adopt a strong attitude of censure, one finds that these things are winked at, and that the people who fall victim to those drugs make increasing use of them. But in addition there is also the suggestive influence of the mass media that we are faced with, city life, the Press, the radio and all such phenomena. But I think that one of the foremost causes in society is that which is described by authorities as the confusion and uncertainty of youth, who grow up in a materialistic world where all the emphasis is placed on development and technique, and on achievements that must be furnished, and where there are agitators who are increasingly discrediting the established values of society and of the individual. The rapid tempo of life makes it impossible to properly digest and assimilate the knowledge one gains. The tendency among parents is simply to let children go their own way and to say, “Well, it will probably all come right sooner or later." All of this confuses the minds of youth, because parental authority can no longer guide them with the utmost clarity in the values that must be preserved in their lives.

The time has come for strong action against this dangerous evil. Apart from the physiological effects on the nervous system of these people, we also find a loss of adaptability. A person no longer has it in him to meet the challenges and frustrations, etc., of life in a dignified manner and to overcome them; he seeks his solution in these drugs that are so easily obtainable. That dependence brings about greater resistance, and therefore larger doses that are necessary to have the same effects as before. In society that person is misplaced and unpopular. He is someone, as psychiatrists testify, who feds that others look down on him. As a child he is a source of concern to his parents. When he is older, he is a source of grief and misery to his family. It is found that even the school achievements of pupils with I.Q.s of up to 140 are affected to such an extent that they become of no use to their school and to themselves any longer. As far as the country's economy is concerned, we find that these people become increasingly work-shy; they stay away from work and there are many lost man-hours that very seriously affect the country's economy. Those persons working in dangerous surroundings become a danger to the person with whom they are working, and the costs of their rehabilitation would be a very large sum that could be much more usefully applied if this evil did not exist. But above all, there is the pain and destruction into which the person is flung which, if there is no other way, could result in his being compelled to commit an act of desperation to terminate his life.

If we now ask what means we have for combating the evil, the most obvious one and the one of prime importance that we have is this Bill before us today, because this Bill makes it much more difficult to obtain the drugs which these people so easily clutch at when they find themselves in times of need. But apart from the restrictions the Bill places on the obtaining of these drugs, it always has the function of educating public opinion and the public conscience so that we shall increasingly censure the use of drugs. This Bill, as drafted at present, has the praiseworthy characteristic that it does not simply break down, pass judgment and advocate negative measures, but that it specifically evokes sympathy in society and reaches out a hand to try to help and rehabilitate that individual, and grants the funds for seeking the best advice in this sphere.

Another important result of this Bill is that it encourages everyone who, in one way or another, is trying to combat this evil. It is incidentally also the important year in which S.A.N.C.A. launched its S.O.S. campaign, and the theme of the campaign is S.O.S. against the abuse of drugs. It stands for: Save our boys and girls from the pain and destruction of drug dependence. The Bill is therefore important and also timely. But in addition, the problem we are faced with here cannot only be solved by law. The Bill has a message for the bodies that can, in fact, do so, because the underlying problem is basically a personality problem. That is why we say that the Bill has a message for our society. It is a clarion call to every family in the Republic of South Africa to make family life and the relationships between parents and children such that one can send a happy and balanced boy or girl out into life. But it is also a clarion call to schools and educationists. I agree with the educationists who said, according to this report, that in future we must think along much broader lines about our education than merely the aspects of training, mental development and technical dexterity, I agree with that because, as one great educationist put it, we have developed far technologically since the days of Ruth; we have improved a great deal on Ruth’s sickle, but have we ever improved upon her character? But it is also a clarion call to the churches and religious bodies to warn against the evil with much greater seriousness and to carry the message of religion to the very individual. All psychologists recognize the value of religion for the personality’s growth to maturity. I can think of one outstanding man who could speak with the utmost authority about personality structure and development; he said that no mature personality exists that does not have a comprehensive philosophy, and he says that we get that comprehensive philosophy in religion. While cheap stimulants excite a person, religion offers him inspiration that motivates him; while cheap tranquillizers calm a person, religion offers acquiescence and peace that surpasses all understanding. Religion brings the human being, the victim, into contact with a source of power able to break his bonds That is why we are grateful for the Bill. The Bill has a message and fulfills an important function in our time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Kimberley South will excuse me if I do not follow his line of reasoning. I have quite a lot to say and not much time in which to say it. Sir, a great deal of publicity has been given in the last year or two to the drug menace in South Africa. It seems to be generally accepted that there is a problem, that it is a serious problem and that it is a growing problem. I think that the use of dependence-producing drugs is a matter of concern to all of us, and there is no doubt that everybody is in favour of better control of the use of drugs. There is also no doubt, I think, that the existing legislation does need tightening up, particularly with regard to drug peddling and that the present methods of dealing with and of treating drug users are inadequate and need considerable changes. I am in favour of these aims and I would gladly have supported legislation which simply introduced such improvements and legislation which imposed heavy penalties on drug pedlars. Unfortunately, however, I do not believe that the Bill which the hon. the Minister has brought to the House fulfils the aims in a manner which I am able to support.

Interestingly enough. Sir, I believe that the Bill apart from anything else, is premature. We do have existing legislation to deal with abuse of drugs and it would have sufficed until a Bill could have been drawn up with more care and until the investigations of the Grobler Committee had been broadened. As it is, Sir, there is no doubt that the Grobler Committee itself is unable to give us any really positive facts about the extent of drug abuse in South Africa. In paragraph 562 the Grobler Committee stated that it found throughout that very little was known about the actual extent of drug abuse, the geographical distribution of drug abuse and the incidence according to sex, age, social status, etc. It complains that proper statistics were not kept, it excluded an investigation of the dagga problem from its terms of reference and of course, it confined itself only to examining the overall situation as far as White persons are concerned. I feel therefore. Sir, that the investigations of the Grobler Committee are very incomplete, and in view of the obvious shortcomings, it seems to me that we should not have rushed into legislation without waiting for some further statistical evidence on which to base overall changes in the law.

Apart from the fact that I believe that the law itself should have waited until we had further information, I want to ask what the reason was for the great haste with which this particular Bill was introduced into the House. I do not feel that we are facing a national emergency, and yet that is the atmosphere which has been created by the hasty introduction of this Bill and the very precipitate manner in which it has been introduced into the House. It verges almost on the hysterical. It was placed on our desks yesterday for the first time; the Second Reading was introduced yesterday afternoon by the hon. the Minister and the debate is taking place today. I cannot remember any parallel in the time that I have been in this House, where a Bill of this kind appears on our desks one day, the Second Reading debate is started the same afternoon and is continued the following afternoon. I might add at this stage, Sir, that I was not amongst the favoured few who were allowed to see the flimsy of the Bill, which was apparently ready a few days ago.

Nor did I see it.

That hon. member does not happen to be the leader of a party nor a front bencher.

Whom are you leading?

What, Sir is the great emergency? Is it the magnitude of the problem which is confronting South Africa? Or is it the Minister’s imminent departure overseas? I suggest it is the latter. That is a pity because this Bill bears every sign of having been extremely hastily drawn up. The Bill we are discussing today goes well beyond a careful and well-considered attempt to effect such improvements as are necessary to existing legislation for the control of drugs. It contains a number of highly undesirable provisions. It is heavily weighted on the punitive side and will, I believe, turn hundreds of young people who are going through a stage of adolescent experiment, into criminals, into gaol-birds, with a life-long stigma attaching to them.

You have not read the Bill.

Yes, I have; I have studied it very carefully in the time at my disposal.

Then you misread it.

Let me say that “There by the Grace of God go our own sons and daughters”, because anybody’s sons or daughters can fall victim to the present vogue which is sweeping the world among young people. And when I say “anybody’s sons and daughters” I include members of Parliament.

The hon. the Minister passed over the question of whether dagga, or cannabis as it is known, should or should not be included under the treatment of drugs here, the punitive treatment of drugs. He only said that there was no doubt that it led to hard-line stuff. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition followed the same line. He appears to be sure in his own mind that dagga is as serious a drug as the hard-line drugs and says the evidence to prove it is there. Well, I can produce evidence as well; for instance, I can produce the report of the British Government’s Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, and the report on Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts, reports which do not come to any such conclusion at all. I can also produce reports of commissions of inquiry in America. But the real point is that there is no decision on this. In fact, there is widespread controversy throughout the world among the experts about the use of dagga. Generally it is agreed that dagga should not be made legal; that is generally accepted. However, what is also generally accepted is that the heavy penalties that are imposed for the use of dagga should be reduced. I have here the report of the British Government’s Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, a recent report on cannabis. It states—

I am very worried about the fact that the penalties which are introduced by this Bill include cannabis or dagga on the same basis as hard drugs, because that may very well lead to the goaling of hundreds of young people in South Africa, Many thousands of young people, perhaps tens of thousands of them, try dagga once or twice and then never again. Of these only a very small proportion will take it regularly over a long period and of these only a few will go on to hard drugs. Those who do become seriously habituated or addicted are in any case psychiatrically ill, and for these gaol won’t help. What they need is treatment.

You have not read the Bill.

I have; I can assure the hon. the Minister that I am still coining to clause 7; I know all about it, as I do about clause 62. These are discretionary as far as magistrates are concerned. But I am still coming to that. The hon. the Minister must not assume that I have not studied the Bill, although he gave me very little opportunity to do so. If the occasional or experimental user, usually an adolescent, is gaoled, the perpetration of what is really a minor misdemeanour becomes, in fact, a crime.

It is opportune for me to make clear at this stage, although I should think it is already clear, that for various reasons I am not going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I intend to move an amendment which will set out my reasons. I accordingly wish to move—

1. (1) it interferes with the discretion of the courts of law;
2. (2) it will result in large numbers of young drug users going to gaol,
3. (3) it introduces presumptions which greatly increase the onus of proof on the accused; and
4. (4) it infringes the rule of law and diminishes civil rights.”.

In support of this amendment, I want to point out that clauses 2, 6 and 8 contain minimum penalties, to which I object in principle. I think that we should by all means increase the maximum penalty, particularly where it applies to drug pushers or drug pedlars. I think that we should make those penalties harsh. I am all in favour of maximum prison penalties being imposed for drug pushers. Harsh penalties may well act as a deterrent. But I believe it should be left to the discretion of the courts as to what sentence should be imposed; more particularly so, as a later clause in this Bill, the presumptions clause or onus of proof clause, brings into the category of “dealer” all sorts of people who may in fact not be dealers as such.

Clause 2 deals with prohibited dependence-producing drugs. It lays down minimum sentences on drug dealers or pedlars and on users, but of course draws a distinction between the minimum sentences for drug pedlars and drug users. A minimum sentence is laid down for each. It is true that there is a saving clause as far as drug users are concerned, namely clause 7, which allows for mitigating circumstances. I want to suggest that, in the first instance, the decision that there are mitigating circumstances and that therefore no minimum penalty need be imposed should have been left to the courts themselves. There are also provisions in later clauses of the Bill that allow for the conversion of a trial into an investigation or inquiry in the case of users. Thereafter clause 29 can, of course, be invoked and the accused can be sent to a rehabilitation centre. Although clause 7 allows magistrates to take a more sympathetic attitude, which some undoubtedly will take, some of the magistrates by the same token will not adopt a more sympathetic attitude. There is absolutely no guarantee that the magistrate will use this provision as to these mitigating circumstances. The Grobler Committee suggested that a distinction should be made between dealers, and people who deal in order to obtain more drugs for their own use. Young children are misled and deal in drugs, as I have said, to supply for their own use. People should remember that young dealers are not excluded from this clause and that the normal protection that is extended to children under the Children’s Act and under the Criminal Procedure Act do not apply to this clause as I read it, by virtue of the fact that the clause is preceded by the sentence: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained …” The hon. the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong in this respect, but that is how I read it and it is certainly how it appears in the Bill. As I say, I am in favour of increasing maximum prison sentences against pushers. I think, the existing law is much too lenient. Under that law a maximum sentence of five years and a fine of R1 000 could be imposed. I believe it is the duty of this House to give guide-lines to the courts and not to overrule their discretionary powers by setting minimum penalties. We should be giving guide-lines by setting maximum penalties. That is what I think the Bill does not do. The Grobler Committee does not recommend minimum penalties, not even for drug pushers. The Grobler Committee recommends maximum penalties. It recommends a maximum penalty of 15 years for drug pedlars. It says that drug pedlars should be dealt with mercilessly. Yet it does not recommend minimum sentences. It recommends a maximum sentence.

Clauses 6 and 8 also impose minimum sentences. Therefore I will object to them in certain respects. I might say that clause 6 is of course objectionable in other ways. It introduces a new category of criminal offence, namely failure to report suspicion. I wonder if there is any other country in the world which has drug legislation that contains a provision like that. How is a person to discharge the onus of proof that he does not in fact entertain such suspicions? This onus of proof is placed on him by clause 10 (6). It means compulsory imprisonment for such people, it can mean the cancellation of a licence and it can also mean the compulsory forfeiture of property. All these are new principles as far as I can see. Certainly the forfeiture of property is a new principle introduced into our laws.

Clause 8 also introduces a completely new concept, namely the confiscation of fixed property and, on second conviction, the confiscation of cash, bonds, savings etc. Of anyone dealing in prohibited dependence-producing or dangerous dependence-producing drugs. This is a most extraordinary clause. It has a sort of mediaeval flavour. I can well understand that drug pushers are sent to jail for long periods and I can certainly understand that they should be made to pay heavy fines. But there may be portions of their property which have nothing whatever to do with drug dealing. The forfeiture of property, bonds and cash seems to me a very new category of legislation in South Africa.

All the presumptions in clause 10 and the onus of proof that is placed on the accused can, I believe, be badly misinterpreted in terms of the law. I do not want to go into any detail in this regard. I have a great deal more to say. However, I will go into this in more detail during the Committee Stage. I merely want to point out at this stage that the first part of this clause turns possession into dealing. The second part of it does not even define how much of a drug a person has to have in his possession before he can be charged with dealing. It defines the quantity of dagga, but it does not define the quantity of any prohibited dependence-producing drug. It turns farmers into dealers. If there is dagga being grown on their property and they do not seem to know about it, the onus of proof is on them to prove that they did not know it was there. Otherwise they can be deemed dealers.

Why not?

Well, hon. members will find out how difficult it is to prove that you do not know something. It is something extremely difficult to do.

That is the case today.

That may be so, but if one wants to draft a new law, I suggest such provisions should be improved on or omitted. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me whether paragraph (c), which could refer to any householder’s medicine chest, is contained in the existing law. I call this the medicine chest clause. It seems to me that every householder will have to go through his medicine chest regularly to make sure that he does not have any of these drugs in his medicine chest 30 days after the doctor gave it to him on prescription. One could go right through this clause and find out how very heavy these penalties can be. Perhaps the most extraordinary of all is clause 10 (3) whereby one is assumed to be in possession of a dependence-producing drug or a plant from which such a drug can be manufactured, if such drug or plant is found in the immediate vicinity of one. Is that in the existing law, too? It is most extraordinary. All I can say is the moral of this is that one must not fall asleep on a park bench, not even one marked “For Whites only”, because who knows what one will find next to one on a park bench when one wakes up. Then the onus of proof is on the person concerned to prove that he did not in fact place that parcel of dagga or whatever it is, on the bench next to him. This seems to me a very far-reaching clause indeed.

Now I come to clause 13, to which the third leg of my amendment refers. This clause I consider to be the most offensive clause of all, apart from being the one which worries me most. I am concerned about the effect this law is going to have on the experimental young drug-user. By the experimental young drug-user I mean a chap who takes dagga for “kicks" once and then finds himself in trouble and who finds himself before a magistrate who is not prepared to use his discretionary right which is provided for in clause 7. If he is then sentenced to imprisonment he will have a stigma which will cling to him for the rest of his life. Clause 13 is another detention without trial clause which is being added to our Statute Book.

So what?

The hon. member says “So what?”. Well, I object; that is what is what. I object to this, as will anybody who has any respect whatsoever for the rule of law. This is what Judge Hiemstra has said. Perhaps the hon. member for Springs will say “So what?” to Judge Hiemstra. Judge Hiemstra only the other day said that there should never be an infringement of the freedom of the individual without mediation of the courts. That comes from Judge Hiemstra and not from me. Nevertheless, whether Judge Hiemstra has or has not said that, I take the same consistent line that I have taken in this House with every single measure that introduces detention without trial. I believe that this is an abrogation of the rule of law and therefore I object to it most strongly. It may not be as bad as the 90-day Act, and it may not be as far reaching as section 6 of the Terrorism Act, but it goes pretty far all the same, and it certainly cannot be linked with the security of the State in any way. It is true that a public prosecutor has to get a warrant from the magistrate for the arrest of a person and for the detention of somebody who is suspected of withholding information relating to any offence under paragraph (a) or (c) of clause 2 concerning those who deal with drugs, or clause 3 (a), which is also a dealer’s clause, or clause 6, which I call the suspicion clause. Here a person who knows something about drug manufacturing on his premises, but has not reported his suspicion, can be arrested. It is also true that the detainee has to appear before a magistrate within 60 hours of arrest, and thereafter not less than once every fortnight. The magistrate is supposed to satisfy himself that the detainee has answered the interrogation and then he can order his release. I do not know from whom he inquiries, but it is presumably from the policeman who brings the detainee along. I believe that subsections (4) and (5) of clause 13 have some of the worst features of existing laws which are already on the Statute Book and which allow for detention without trial. I think it is simply appalling that such a law is placed on our Statute Book to deal with drug abuse. Surely it is possible for our police, like the police in every other country of the Western world, to be able to track down and bring to justice drug pedlars, and, for that matter, drug users, without South Africa having to go right beyond all normal practices of the rule of law and all normal civil liberties. I take the very strongest exception to this.

I want to say, too, that the Children’s Act and the Criminal Procedure Act do not have a word to say about detention for interrogation. Both those Acts were framed before detention without trial was put on the Statute Book. Again, as I read this legislation, there is no protection for children against their being arrested for purposes of interrogation under clause 13. They can be taken away and their parents need not be informed. Furthermore nobody, including their parents, may then have any access to them. Nobody can get any information about them, and what is worst of all, is that the courts of law are completely excluded from the implementation of this clause. This applies to adults, to young people and, as I read this legislation, it also applies to children. It is true that there is to some extent the protection which a magistrate can give, since he has to see the detainee once a fortnight. Some magistrates take their duties very seriously and others do not.

[Inaudible.]

No, I do not accept that all magistrates are perfect. By no means. I am against any sort of law, anyway, which excludes the courts of law. I have cuttings here which show the severest criticism of magistrates. One of them is by the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, who criticized a magistrate who told a middle-aged woman who had been found drunk somewhere that she should throw herself into a lake. There is the magistrate in Wynberg … [Interjections.] This is a joke to some people, but unfortunately magistrates have wide powers. The hon. member for Potchefstroom might find that he has a young relative who one day casually takes dagga and who may find himself before a magistrate who will adopt exactly the same attitude. [Interjections.]

Order! These interjections merely prolong the debate and make no contribution to it at all. The hon. member may proceed.

If I may add, it was an extremely stupid interjection, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must proceed and ignore the interjections.

I wish to state unequivocally that I am against the taking of drugs and that I am against drug pedlars. I am in favour of penalties against these people but within the normal framework of the law as I understand it and as everybody else in the Western world understands it. There is another case of a magistrate in Wynberg who forced an eleven-year-old boy witness to give evidence which the prosecution wanted by threatening him that he would be whipped with a cane in the cells below the court. This is just another example of what happens. I do no say that all magistrates are like this, but some magistrates are. I do not believe that by simply having a magistrate visiting a detainee who is denied all access to legal advice and all access to his parents, friends, relatives or the courts of law, is sufficient protection in cases like these. While I am on the subject of magistrates I may add that I do not believe that they should have the wide jurisdiction which is proposed under clause 14. I will oppose this clause as well.

Now I come to the second part of the Bill, namely the so-called rehabilitative section. I want to say at once that I believe that this should have been the subject of a separate Bill altogether, I see no reason why punitive measures and the tracking down of drug pedlars and users should be dealt with in the same measure as the rehabilitation of drug users. I think it is a different subject altogether, which has always been kept separately and it should still have been kept separately. South Africa is no exception in having to deal with the drug problem. The drug problem is part of a much wider social problem. Until we regard it in this light we are not going to be able to tackle it effectively. Simply inflicting harsh penalties and greater punitive measures is not going to tackle the drug problem in South Africa. We have to view the whole matter in its context, namely that of a real social problem. The British Advisory Committee, a standing committee, many of whose documents I have studied, states the following—

Of course, this is absolutely right. Our own recent inquiry, the Grobler Committee, had a great deal to say about the influence of family life, broken homes, the poor relationship between parents or the poor relationship between parents and children, and the general social atmosphere in which the child has to live, and the bearing all these factors have on the abuse of drugs by young people.

Some of the measures that are introduced are perfectly acceptable and are quite good. A number of them have simply been taken over from the existing Retreats and Rehabitation Centres Act. There are quite a number which are exactly the same except of course for the section dealing with Coloured people. The relevant sections of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act are also incorporated here. But I must say that many of the important recommendations of the Grobler Committee have been ignored. They certainly, anyway, have not been translated into law. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can do this by regulation. It may be that he can; he will tell me if he can, but it does not seem to me that some of the most important recommendations of the Grobler Committee have in fact been translated into law.

Such as?

Well, there are whole sections which deal with treatment, with after-care, after-rehabilitation, and there are whole sections that deal with the need for clinics, out-patient care and that sort of thing. I do not see anything in the law really that introduces this rehabilitation. I would say that we are making one mistake. We are constantly referring to the people who are sent to these rehabilitation centres as “inmates”. It has a bad connotation. Let us call them patients, and not inmates. We must understand that these are sick people, people who need treatment, as the Grobler Committee itself said. The Grobler Committee also said, in paragraph 389, that institutional treatment is not by any means the final answer. All I can find here is provision for institutional treatment in rehabilitation centes, in hospitals, or in registered rehabilitation centres. [Time expired]

I want to begin my reply to the hon. member for Houghton by saying at once that I want to summarize her standpoint in regard to this legislation briefly as follows. She is opposed to the use of drugs or habit-forming medication; she wants this counteracted and she wants penalties, but within the present framework of the law. Now I am asking the hon. member just this one question. If this present law is not adequate and strong enough to come to grips fully with this problem …

I meant law, not the law.

Very well then, within the normal legal proceedures, if you want to interpret it in that way. But if the normal legal procedures do not give you the fullest power with which you are able to come to grips with this special question with its specific problems, what must you do then? Must you throw your hands up in despair and say that the normal, general law does not give me the necessary power to come to grips wih the evil, and now I am unable to come to grips with it? Is that the helpless attitude she wants to adopt? My standpoint is very clear, and it is related mainly to clause 13 and clause 10, in respect of which I shall reply more comprehensively in a moment. But my feelings on the matter are as follows. One simply has to adopt one of two standpoints. Either one can say that evil cannot be counteracted because you do not have the necessary powers; you are not prepared to take the necessary powers; and then you stand by and watch matters developing further and further in the wrong direction. Or otherwise you decide that you are going to come to grips with this problem and you take the powers you need to do so effectively. That is the standpoint of this side of the House. We realize that we are dealing here with a particular question and with specific problems and that there are specific circumstances here. That is why we need specific powers and specific legislation; and that legislation we are passing in this connection.

Sir, the hon. member asked us why we are in such a hurry; is it the scope of the problem, or what is it; why are we in such a hurry? I shall give the hon. member the answer briefly. At this very moment a few men are sitting in gaol—I do not have the right to say this, but I am going to do so nevertheless—whom I am convinced would be sitting there for 25 years if this measure had been enforced five months ago, but at the moment they are sitting there for six months because the present Act makes provision for imprisonment for six months, and nothing more. [Interjections.] No, it is not dagga; it is something stronger than dagga; it is LSD, and for that a person can only get six months’ imprisonment under the present Act. That is why this legislation is essential, now. At this very moment I have the master mind in the Cape Town area behind bars, but he is only sitting there for six months because there is no law under which I can deal with him more harshly. That is why this Act must be passed immediately. That is the specific reason for our haste and that is why this Bill has to be passed during this specific Session.

The hon. member also alleged that we want to convert drug takers—people who only possess and use drugs—into criminals; that we now want to make criminals of all our young men and women. I then said to the hon. member by way of interjection that she has not read the Bill, and she then replied that she had in fact read clauses 7 and 62. But does she realize the full implications of clause 7 and 62, read in conjunction with clauses 29 and 30? It means simply that in clause 7 a magistrate is allowed to refrain from imposing the maximum or the minimum sentence where it involves the drug taker. But where it involves the person dealing in drugs, mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into consideration. As far as unsuspecting young men and women are concerned who use drugs for “kicks”, it is very clearly stipulated that mitigating circumstances may be taken into consideration. Clause 62 also provides further that while the trial is in progress, at any stage of the proceedings, the presiding officer may decide that the accused requires rehabilitation and should not be punished. He may, in terms of clause 62, at any stage of the trial, even after conviction, stop the proceedings and immediately request an investigation, as provided in clause 30, with the aid of the doctor, the psychologist and the social worker. He may refer that person to a rehabilitation centre immediately. There is no question of these people going to gaol if they are innocent. All the necessary precautionary measures are being taken to ensure that persons who should not be punished will be sent to rehabilitation centres. But the hon. member deliberately wanted to attach a stigma to the legislation and create the impression that we are now going to throw all our young people, who are only using small quantities of these substances into gaol on a large scale. The opening which will not make it necessary to send them to gaol, is very clearly there, but I just want to tell the hon. member that for the dealer in drugs, who takes advantage of this matter, and for the hardened person who persists In their use, there will be no mercy, and for them the hon. member may plead until she turns blue in the face, but we will not and dare not relent.

Sir, the hon. member also said that she was very dissatisfied about the fact that we were regarding the use of dagga in such a serious light. In this regard I want, just for the sake of interest, to quote from a letter which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times, written by an anonymous psychologist who is of the same opinion, and who says that he takes exception to the fact that dagga is mentioned together with the others. He puts it like this—

“Put ahead.” Sir, the prohibited substances appear in alphabetical order and we were therefore unable to mention heroin before dagga (Cannabis). [Interjection.] No, I am not referring to the hon. member; I am talking about this anonymous psychiatrist who wrote such nonsense. Sir, there is every indication that the intoxicating content of South African dagga is much greater than that of American or that produced in numerous other countries in the world. South African dagga in particular is in demand at the moment, and that is why South African dagga is being exported to America, and to Europe as well, by unscrupulous persons, because the South African dagga has a more powerful intoxicating effect than the dagga from any other country in the world. That is the reason why the misuse of our dagga is such a serious matter.

Sir, there is another reason why we want to take very strict steps against the use and possession of dagga. Everything indicates —and the Grobler Committee also found this to be the case—that dagga is the precursor to stronger drugs. People begin to smoke dagga without any ulterior motives, but after a time dagga no longer satisfies them; its effect is not sufficient, and it is then that they turn to stronger substances. We are aware of the fact that our Bantu population has for many years being using dagga in South Africa, but there were no stronger substances available to which the use of dagga could lead them. That is why we have never regarded dagga in such a serious light, but now, with all the modern substances science has made available in the form of capsules, dagga is now the precursor to the abuse of stronger substances, and that is why we must protect our people in South Africa. Black and White, from dagga which is the beginning of their eventual downfall. That is why dagga should be where it is, in that specific category.

The hon. member objected to clauses 2, 6 and 8 in particular. The hon. member does not want minimum sentences. Now I want to make it very clear to the hon. member that minimum sentences are for the most part imposed specifically in the case of the dealer in drugs, not the user. Although minimum sentences are being prescribed for the user, they may be amended as a result of mitigating circumstances. As far as the dealer is concerned, for whom we are prescribing minimum sentences, I want to inform the hon. member that I am convinced that I have the whole of South Africa on my side when I impose minimum penalties for the dealer, the pedlar. I am convinced that both sides of the House, with the exception of the hon. >member, support me, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly.

The hon. member also objected to clause 6. It is supposedly such an extremely anomalous situation that the manager of a night-club or some such place should be placed in such an impossible position. What must he do now? Do you know what that manager must do7 If he suspects there is something going on, or if he has noticed suspicious circumstances in his place, he must simply lift the telephone, dial the nearest police station and say “I suspect that drugs are being smuggled here at my place tonight”. Then he is innocent and clause 6 cannot affect him. That is all he must do to get off—nothing more. Is that asking too much? That is all we are asking, and I have every right to do so. I now want to inform the hon. member that as far as this matter is concerned, she can move as many amendments to clause 6 as she wants, I will not be swayed. We must place the onus on that man. He is in command of the situation, and it is quite clear that he must see that everything is as it should be.

The hon. member mentioned clause 10. I am going to have a lot more to say about clause 10 in a moment, and I shall then deal with it fully. I am also going to deal with clause 13 in this way.

The hon. member referred specifically to clause 14, viz. the powers of the magistrates’ courts and the fact that they are now being given powers far beyond the normal. Is the hon. member aware that the ordinary magistrate’s court may at the moment impose a R1 000 fine and five years’ imprisonment for the use of dagga? There is no doubt that the ordinary magistrate’s court, which she regards at the moment as being entirely unequal to the task, may in terms of the present legislation do something like this. It is my honest standpoint that one must have the position that the magistrate, before whom these cases appear throughout the country, shall have such powers. Supreme Courts, where I can use Judges, are not to be found everywhere. In the first instance, this is a practical problem we have to cope with. But the second reason, which is closely allied to this, is very clear. These provisions, clauses 2 and 3, are so dear and are such a factual interpretation of the situation that any person who has a legal background is able to form an opinion in this way as to whether the matter, if it meets the requirements, falls under these clauses or not.

Let me in addition inform the hon. member immediately that any person who is sentenced in a magistrate’s court in terms of one of these provisions immediately has the right to appeal, by which means he has access to the Supreme Court. Surely the hon. member knows that. Surely it is stated in the Bill. Surely he may appeal immediately. The protection is very clearly there. But for practical purposes and because it is such a factual situation which we have everywhere, the magistrate’s court must have the power to deal with this matter. This is simply intended for the practical implementation of the legislation.

In conclusion the hon. member referred to the family care situation and the question of stable families. I just want to say this to the hon. member: I am convinced, and I have already said on previous occasions, that a stable, healthy family which forms a unit bound by ties of love and of authority in the social context, is the best protection against any of these substances, against any of these offences and against any attacks on it by the permissive community. That is why we have been concentrating for I do not know how long on family care. That is why regular and persistent requests and appeals have been made in regard to family care and the development of family life.

Like the migratory labour system.

Would the hon. member abolish that system as far as the mines are concerned as well? Would she tell me that?

Yes, I would.

Then she must also tell Harry Oppenheimer that he must abandon the migratory labour system on his mines. Would she perhaps persuade the supporters of her party to set the first example? I want to make it very clear that we accept that it is true that closer family ties and improved relationships are the remedy for and the prevention of this situation. All these measures can be introduced administratively. Surely there need be no special legislation for that. At the moment we have the family care commission. We have all the necessary measures. More attention could quite simply, and this will be done by way of regulation, be given to these matters. It can all be done administratively, and need not he included in the Bill. The hon. member asked for aftercare centres after the person had been rehabilitated. Clauses 23 and 24 make specific provision for after-care centres, and the rest we can arrange administratively.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking about research, but after-care. All the hon. member has to do is to take a look—it is not research, it is after-care. But these matters can all be arranged administratively.

I shall deal with clauses 10, 14 and 6 in full when I come to them.

The immediate reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to my own introductory speech yesterday was that they support the principle of the Bill. They welcome it and are grateful for it. He said that they would make proposals to improve the Bill, that there were certain provisions to which they were opposed and in respect of which they would move amendments. In conclusion he created the impression that he was disappointed that we had included so few of the recommendations of the Grobler Committee in the Bill. That was the gist of his speech yesterday. In the meantime, however, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had more time to make a more complete study of the Bill and he has subsequently found that the recommendations of the Grobler Committee are in fact included to a large extent in the Bill.

That is true—many of the recommendations of that Committee are included in the Bill; in fact, most of the recommendations of that Committee have been included. In my Second Reading speech I also said that those recommendations relating to the medical profession, the dental profession, the pharmaceutical profession, veterinarian services, nursing, hospitalization and other things, come under the health aspect and would, as such, be dealt with by my colleagues. In other words, it will be possible to discuss the recommendations of the Grobler Committee which referred to those aspects when legislation for the implementation of such recommendations is submitted to the House.

That is how I slated it this afternoon.

What must also be borne in mind is that a great many of these things are being applied administratively, i.e. without legislation. I went through the recommendations and found that I was able to apply virtually all of them administratively, under existing legislation. Thus, the recommendations of the Grobler Committee have, with a few exceptions, either been included in this Bill or will be included in legislation which my colleague will introduce, or can be applied administratively. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not concern himself about that aspect of the matter.

I support to the hilt the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that dagga should definitely be included in this category. I have already had something to say about this in reply to the hon. member for Houghton, and that is why I shall not go into this matter any further now.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also supports the minimum sentences which are being prescribed, and for that I thank him.

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a few serious misgivings in regard to the presumptions clause, clause 10. He said that we should go to a higher court, not to a magistrate's court. He said we must find a higher authority to confirm or reject these presumptions. Let me give a practical illustration of what our problems are here. In this connection I want to mention the most obvious example of all possible examples. Suppose a person who is a patient goes to a doctor and the doctor gives him a prescription for certain of these drugs. He then goes to the chemist, obtains the drag and returns home with the drug in his pocket. In other words, he is in possession of substances the possession of which, under this measure, is illegal, unless he can produce legal proof of this right to do so. Well, such a person can immediately clear himself of all suspicion, and therefore creates no problem. But a person who is actually dealing in drugs, may also have a supply in his pocket Suppose the police apprehend him, search him and find the substances on him. By way of explanation he claims that he obtained the substances on prescription. If he is asked what prescription, he replies that the onus of proof is on the police; they must prove where he got it. He claims that he had a prescription and now it is the responsibility of the State to prove the contrary. Of course it is impossible for the State to prove this because it would mean that the State would have to telephone every chemist in South Africa and only after they have all denied that they gave that particular person such substances, is the State able to act. It is therefore practically impossible to place the onus of proof on the State.

On the other hand, if the onus of proof is placed on the person himself, it ought really to be very easy for him to say where he bought it. The whole matter can in that way be disposed of in five minutes. I therefore maintain that the onus of proof should rest on the person himself and not on the State. It will not be difficult for the bona fide person to prove his bona fides. On the other hand, if the onus is placed on the State, it will be completely impossible to administer this legislation. Take the case of a forged prescription. These people will go to any lengths to get hold of these substances. Should the onus now be placed on the State to prove whether the prescription is genuine or a forgery, it means that the State will have to go through all the registers, in all provinces, in order to determine whether the prescription is genuine or not. That is a completely impossible task. But if the onus to prove that is placed on a person, he can simply accompany them to the doctor's consulting rooms and then the doctor can admit that it is his signature which appears on the prescription. To place the onus of proof on the person is far more effective and far more practical. That is why we must have these stipulations in clause 10.

I want to furnish another example. Take the case where we confiscate 2 000 tablets, which all look alike, from someone. The State will have a reasonable sample of those tablets—five to ten tablets—analysed. If it is found that they are LSD tablets, this clause provides that we may accept that the other 1 900 tablets are also LSD tablets. The onus then rests on the person to prove that the other 1 900 tablets are not LSD tablets. Surely that is the easiest way. Must we, on the contrary, test every tablet before we can determine the person’s guilt or sentence? The use of presumptions is simply essential to make the legislation practicable. If we cannot go to work in this way, we cannot enfore the Act. I know that these powers we are taking are very drastic, but our argument is that it should be possible to implement this Act in practice, and for that reason we must have those powers. For this reason I think the situation is so simple that I cannot, in all honesty, believe that we should make the matter more difficult by stipulating that it should in fact be the Supreme Court which deals with these cases, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested. For practical reasons I think ordinary magistrates are able to deal with these cases. These are factual cases which he can, in my opinion deal with easily. In the Committee Stage hon. members can introduce amendments and then I shall listen to them.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? What happens if another person places a packet of dagga in someone’s pocket and the person in question is not aware of it?

In the first instance, we have specified that if a man has less than 115 grams, which is more or less equal to four ounces, of dagga in his possession, he is a user who simply has his necessary supply on him. In such a case steps can be taken against him in a certain way in terms of the measures applying to users. If he is found in possession of more than 115 grams of dagga. he is dealing in dagga, unless he can prove that this is not the case. Let us then take the example that someone places an eight or ten ounce packet of dagga in your pocket. Precisely how the court is going to interpret this case, is one matter, but if the suspicion exists that the man in question is dealing in such dagga, the onus is simply on Him to explain what he was doing with that 8 ounces of dagga. We shall not simply impose such a presumption on a person, for that is not necessary. But the man must after all have a reason for having the dagga on him. He ought to be able to explain it immediately. According to law he may not be in possession of dagga at all. He must explain how he came by that dagga. Two pounds of dagga, for example, is a lot of dagga. He can furnish an explanation or set out the facts by way of a sworn statement. All that he can say is that it was intended for his own use. He may not, after all be in possession of or deal in such dagga. The best thing for him to say is that he uses it himself. Then he only has to explain why he has such a large quantity of dagga on him; or he must say that he knows nothing whatsoever about that dagga. In that case the courts must investigate the matter and decide whether or not it is going to believe him.

That is precisely the difficulty.

Yes, I quite understand that. But I want to tell the hon. member in all honesty that if that loophole is not dosed we will have a greater problem on our hands. If the hon. Leader can suggest a way of overcoming this problem. I am prepared to listen to it in the Committee Stage.

I come now to clause 13. The hon. member suggested that it should not be a magistrate who is able to detain a person without trial, but a judge.

He should have the right of appeal to a judge after he has been detained.

I just want to inform the hon. member that our first problem in practice is that we are dealing here with a situation which occurs throughout the country. It could occur in small towns and under all circumstances. Dagga is transported from one corner of the country to the other. The crime may take place anywhere in the country, and wherever it occurs steps must be taken. Judges and even regional magistrates, are not everywhere available. But there is at least a magistrate in more or less every town, or otherwise there is one not too far away. To make the legislation enforceable in practice and capable of being administered, we decided that the magistrate should be in charge of the trial. In addition the hon. member suggested that a suspect’s information should be stated under oath, before he is detained. I am prepared to accent such an amendment if hon. members will move it during the Committee Stage. I think it is a reasonable one and that having the suspect state his information under oath is an improvement on the situation That simply means that the policeman or public prosecutor will have to be very sure of his facts before he allows a man to be detained without trial. I do not think it is asking too much to have him state his information under oath. I think that that is in order. I shall accept such an amendment if hon. members move one.

Then we come to clause 13. What is the actual position and why do we need this clause? The hon. member for Houghton maintains that we should deal with the matter within the existing framework of the law. What are the facts? When one is dealing with this network of drug pushers with a master mind behind it all and a lot of people under him, it is an almost impossible task to deal with them. One has an idea, a suspicion about the network. One later begins to finds indications here and there. However, you cannot get at the master mind. That is the man you want to get hold of. To destroy his agents does not help at all. New agents take their place. One can get hold of these people by catching them redhanded. They are guilty. But then what happens in practice? If you do not have this right, it simply means that that person consults his legal representative or else someone comes to him, perhaps even the master mind himself, or someone acting on his behalf, and simply says to the man: See to it that you do not say a word. If you talk, we will kill you when you get out. You keep your mouth shut. Then you are left with that person but you are completely powerless to expose the network. You are completely powerless to get any further information because your hands are tied in this way. This relates solely to drug traffic; it has nothing to do with drug taking. The hon. member should have realized this. It is only in a case where the police have reason to believe that it is really a serious case. We will not apply it in every case. The explanation then is that they have to apply to a magistrate to specify that such a person may be detained for a period without being able to come into contact with other people. In the second instance, it is very clearly provided that this person must be brought before a magistrate within 60 hours after having been detained. He would then be able to tell the magistrate that a mistake has been made and that he is certainly not the person they think he is. He can give the magistrate proof and present him with reasons. He will be able to state his case as to why his detention is illegal or unreasonable. According to these provisions the magistrate may, after he has been convinced that the man is innocent, release him immediately or arrange for him to be charged. That is within his power. Such a person receives his first hearing before a magistrate within 60 hours. After that he must appear before a magistrate every fourteen days. It is impossible that he may be forgoten. Every 14 days he must appear before the magistrate. If he has given evidence or made a statement he can at any time after the commencement of his detention make representations in writing to the magistrate. He does so in writing. In other words, he has all these precautionary measures, one after the other, to protect himself and to ensure that no injustice is done to him. But if that person is one link in a chain of people and you are able to obtain the necessary information from him which could enable one to locate the entire chain, the hardships the few have to suffer is fully justified if one takes into account the benefits for the many who will be spared hardships as a result of that. No matter how hard and how cruel it is, I think it is necessary that it should be framed in this way. With that I have, as far as I am concerned. now dealt with clause 13. We shall probably have a lot more to argue about in regard to clause 13 during the Committee Stage. I just want to inform the hon. member that the specific reason for the inclusion of clause 13 is that we want to get at these people and the blackmailers behind them.

Do hon. members realize how these things sometimes work? I want to mention an example. The master mind behind it all contacts his agent, who deals in drugs for him only, once. That is when he recruits him. That is the only time. This could happen inconspicuously in a café or a bar or somewhere in a hotel lounge. All the arrangements are then made. And afterwards? Fixed arrangements are made between the two that the one will place the necessary money in a certain place every Wednesday night, in a post box, or anywhere else for that matter. The other one has a key to the same place. Those two never see one another. Every Wednesday night the one man places his money in it, while the other man does his rounds from place to place and leaves the tablets there. In that way such a person does a flourishing business. Everything is on a cash basis. The money is in his pocket and he never sees his agents again. This is a diabolic practice which is beginning to develop here. One therefore needs specific particular powers and authority to get hold of these people. You cannot get at them through the normal legislation and the normal legal system. He exceeds all limits and breaks all bounds through what he does. That is why I say it is very clear that we do in fact need these powers in this legislation. We shall take them too, for without them we cannot enforce it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a few matters in regard to the general situation and the question of children as such. The hon. the Leader spoke of childrens’ centres, etc. I want to refer the hon. the Leader to clause 34 (5) of this Bill which reads as follows—

This makes the provision the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for. Provision is also being made in clauses 38 and 39 for the transfer of persons from a rehabilitation centre to other institutions.

The hon. the Prime Minister, by way of interjection, referred the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the Children’s Act of 1960. Section 25 of the Children’s Act provides what the hon. the Leader had in mind there.

No.

I understand what the hon. the Leader means. It deals with sentences, as such, but the protection is in fact there. We shall take a thorough look at it. This section reads as follows—

It goes on:

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he himself had been responsible for the inclusion of that provision in that Act, and that is quite correct. Now I honestly want to admit that, in my experience as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, this section is very rarely applied in our courts. I want to ask our courts to reconsider that section and keep in mind the provisions of that section when children encounter these problems as a result of poor discipline, poor protection and poor conduct at home. I think it is necessary for us to make an appeal to the courts to apply this section more frequently when it is necessary to do so.

It should be inserted in this Bill.

Yes, we can consider that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked that we lay reports of the Board upon the Table. Clause 16 (II) provides that the Board shall in fact report twice during its period of office. It is further provided that the Minister may instruct that this be done more frequently, in other words the Minister may require that Board to report annually. Clause 16 (11) (b) provides that that report shall in fact be laid upon the Table. In other words, what the hon. the Leader has asked for, is in fact being specified in this Bill.

The hon. the Leader then went on to discuss the question of people whom we detain in these centres for excessive periods of time. He referred to the fact that they may be detained for up to 12 months, and that it should only be six months. In terms of this Bill the Minister may at any time direct the discharge of such a person. It may even happen within a week, if that is necessary. This has specifically been inserted in this way because we want to eliminate altogether the idea of punishment in regard to the rehabilitation centres. It is not a place of punishment, it is a place of rehabilitation. That is why the whole idea of a person being sent there for three, two years or one year has been eliminated from this Bill. There is no sign of that. This is for us a rehabilitation centre and the person is sent there for the specific purpose of being immediately given the normal exemption once he has been cured of his problem. This could happen within a week or two weeks or within any period of time. That authority is in the hands of the Director and the Minister. In regard to those persons who present themselves voluntarily for rehabilitation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that those persons should not be kept in those rehabilitation centres for longer than six months. I want to inform the hon. the Leader that it is not even for six months. If a person presents himself voluntarily for treatment he may, as soon as he has been cured or rehabilitated, be discharged even if it is within two months. There is no reason why he should have to go to such a centre for 12 months. This is the position at the moment as the legislation stands.

He may only be detained for six months, but I should like to have this brought to his attention.

That we can do; that is no problem. I just want to say in addition to that that the other improvement which I think is being effected here is this. Suppose a man is an alcoholic and his wife would like him to be rehabilitated and admitted to a centre, but he refuses to go voluntarily. As the position stands at the moment, she must then start proceedings against him. Usually they are not very keen to do that. Then he can only be admitted after an inquiry. This legislation now eliminates all that. Clause 30 provides that when a member of the family makes a request to this effect, an inquiry in camera by the psychiatrist and the necessary officials is ordered. Then he can go, without his case being thrashed out in public. I think that doing it in this way is a vast improvement on the previous position.

In regard to the question of detoxification, this will be arranged in such a way that it is done specially by doctors in hospitals, or wherever it may be. This will not be done in the centres. The hon. member asked in conclusion whether we should compress everything into one law. That was the ideal situation. But the position is such that the medical profession has up to now, for more than 40 years, had its own law. Act No. 13 of 1928. Under that law they have arranged and handled their own affairs. The general feeling was that those provisions which are under their authority should be controlled by their own medical council, and that we should accept the code of honour of the medical profession and that they should act in accordance with it. But I want to make it very clear that they are only protected in respect of this legislation in so far as they are acting in their professional capacity. As soon as they venture beyond their professional activities and go beyond (heir professional protection, or the rights they have Under the existing law, they are dealt with in terms of this law as any other citizen would. That is very clear. There is no difference on that score.

Lastly, there was the question of clause 62. The hon. member asked why the consent of the prosecutor was necessary before a case could be withdrawn and an inquiry ordered. The reason is very clear, i.e. that only the prosecutor at that stage, the initial stages, is fully conversant with the evidence which he has at his disposal and is able to determine how serious this charge is. He is at that stage the only man who knows that. The magistrate does not know it, the social welfare officer does not know it, the doctor does not know it, but the prosecutor does. That is why the prosecutor must, in my opinion, agree to the withdrawal of the case, because he can say that this case appears on the surface to be an innocent one, but that he still has at his disposal all kinds of information, which is available, and which could cause them to change their minds if they had the facts before them. That is why I feel that the prosecutor must be consulted in this matter and his consent must be obtained before the case can be converted into an inquiry instead of a court case.

I want to conclude with a few general remarks. Now, I do not want to create any unnecessary problems, because there is peace and quiet in the House at the moment, but there is one thing which worries me in regard to the standpoint of the Opposition in regard to this legislation. It is of course far more so in the case of the hon. member for Houghton, but what worries me about the Opposition is that they say “yes, we are with you, and we want to improve the law, but .. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to make a political issue of this matter. I simply want to say that this is the position as we find it now. It is “yes, but …” There is al ways a “but” added. I would have felt so much happier if the Opposition had on this occasion joined us in stating frankly: We stand by you; we are going to give all those measures our full support. [Interjections]

May we not try to improve it?

I am looking forward to the Committee Stage, when I should like to have improvements, I am just saying that I would simply have liked a much stronger acceptance of the principle and of all the measures. Then we would all have known precisely where we stood and then everyone who has to deal with the matter, would know precisely where we stand, viz. that there is unconditional support for the principles, but that the matter can be analysed further in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.]

I am not going into this matter any further. I am grateful for the standpoint which has in fact been adopted and I just want to say that I am looking forward with great expectations to the Committee Stage. I want to say in advance to the hon. members now that amendments in the Committee Stage which are aimed at improving the Act, making it more efficient, making it easier to administer in practice and making it more enforcible, I shall welcome and shall listen to very eagerly, hut amendments which are aimed at watering-down this legislation or making it powerless or emasculating it, I shall not consider and I shall not accept. That is our standpoint. This legislation has been introduced and we shall proceed with it. I shall gladly listen to arguments in the Committee Stage, and I am looking forward to that.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I was saying that up to this stage members of the United Party had confined themselves in this debate largely to those things which disturbed them, more specifically to the number of generals, corporals and brigadiers, something about which the hon. member for North Rand was so dissatisfied and unhappy. Sir, I want to come back to another large group of our Defence Force in whom this side of the House takes a special interest, and that group is the very large number of privates and noncommissioned officers, the thousands of privates and non-commissioned officers who make it possible for our Supreme Command to execute the tasks expected of it.

Sir, we are fully aware of the ambitious attempts of the hon. the Minister of Defence to supplement the housing shortage in the Defence Force for Permanent Force members. Hon. members on this side of the House as well as members of the Permanent Force, deeply appreciate what the hon. the Minister is personally doing in this connection. But because of the rapid growth of our Permanent Force, the present position is, however, that there is a very large need of especially single quarters for other ranks. It is for these other ranks, who serve our Permanent Force very loyally on all levels, that I want to address an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister today to give absolute priority in the coming financial year to the establishment of fine accommodation for these young members of the Permanent Force, whose services we should very much like to retain. Sir, the same applies to unmarried non-commissioned officers, and in respect of newly married non-commissioned officers, and officers, who cannot qualify as yet in terms of the points system for Government quarters or for 100 per cent housing scheme loans, I want to plead for rent subsidies to be paid to them under certain conditions. Sir, the members of this staff are transferred very often from one place to another where they experience housing problems, and I think that under certain circumstances a very strong case can be made out for accommodating them by means of a fringe benefit of this nature.

Sir, the second matter I should like to raise is that our Defence Force, under the rigorous leadership of the hon. the Minister of Defence and our Commandant-General, is, in fact, becoming a national army. But in some respects it seems as though the nation as a whole does not fully realize its responsibility towards the national servicemen, either on the borders, or at training units. These young men are performing a national service in the true sense of the word. Most of these national servicemen are fresh out of school when they commence their military service. All at once they have to exchange their protecting parental homes for the discipline of the parade ground, and especially the first few months in the training unit require major adjustments on the part of these young men. Some of them are performing their military service at places far removed from their parental homes and home towns, and when they get their first weekend pass and are free for the week-end, they are indeed strangers in a strange place. Some of them do not have any difficulties in this regard in that they can go to stay with relations whom they happen to have in that area, and at times junior leaders arrange planned outings and interesting tours for themselves as national servicemen. The chaplain’s corps and other officers also do their best to help but it is nevertheless a fact that the vast majority of these boys would welcome spending a pleasant afternoon or an evening in a family circle, even if it is with strangers This means a great deal to their morale. My appeal is directed especially at our Afrikaans cultural organizations in urban areas, in which there are large numbers of military training units, to invite young national servicemen in consultation with commanding officers for week-ends or even for afternoons. I have experience of this. In our family we derive nothing but joy from receiving national servicemen for a week-end so that they may make themselves at home there. Mrs. Hiemstra, the wife of the Commandant-General, and the wives of members of the Defence Force are doing a wonderful job of work through the Brandwag-fonds to strengthen the morale of our boys on the border. Let our communities on the homefront do their duty in this regard as well.

Then I find that the national servicemen from the Transvaal who are doing their military service in the Cape miss their daily Transvaal newspapers, English or Afrikaans. Similarly, the young men from the Cape Province miss their newspapers in the reading rooms of units in the Transvaal. I should like to ask the Defence Force to make a sufficient number of newspapers of the most important centres available to units in other provinces. They may possibly provide one copy for every 20 national servicemen. The national servicemen like to follow reports of sporting events in their home towns, and I think this will be a very important factor in the promotion of their morale.

Next, and in conclusion, I should like to refer to the large role the Defence Force will play in the main Republic Festival in Cape Town. Without the participation of the Defence Force there would probably not have been as many highlights as there are going to be, and we are looking forward in particular to the highlight which they will provide on 31st May. On that occasion the hon. member for North Rand and the hon. member for Durban Point will probably hang their heads in shame for the attacks made by them on our Defence Force in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, included the last few remarks in his address to this Committee. They were quite unnecessary and unfounded in the light of the comments which were made by the hon. members to whom he referred.

I also look forward to the parade which the hon. member has just mentioned and which we will have during the Republican celebrations, because I believe the Scottish Regiments will have a very prominent part to play in that parade.

I want to revert to the question of uniforms. I do not want to discuss the difficulties of Highland regiments in procuring their kilts from their own funds and I do not want to discuss the uniforms we were discussing last evening during the course of this debate. However, I do want to say how pleased I was when I got home last night to be able to see in the newspaper a description and photo of a new uniform which is going to be introduced for the military forces. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and those responsible for those uniforms. From the point of view of a mere male, I want to say that I am sure that that uniform is going to make more attractive an attractive arm of the Services, that is the military nursing service. I want to say that it might even make the sergeant-majors in that arm more attractive. However, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that lead-swinging aimed at hospitalization is probably going to become a little more prevalent in the Armed Services,

During the time available to me I want to deal briefly with some aspects of civil defence. We recall that Major-General Retief was appointed the Director of Civil Defence in 1968 and he immediately assumed his duties. Since then one has had through local authorities and other civilian organizations, some indication of the planning that is taking place. However, when one looks at the Budget one finds that but for one item, i.e. tuition fees, first-aid societies, municipalities as well as educationalists connected with classes in civil defence services, there is no indication in the Budget before us as to what amounts are involved in the organization of civil defence. I believe it would be interesting and advisable that some indication of the cost of civil defence be made available to this Committee. When Major-General Retief was appointed it became evident that the planning was very comprehensive. A circular was issued in January, 1969, to interested bodies, like local authorities and so on, which indicated the broad basis on which civil defence would be organized. For example, it indicated the six major aspects which would receive attention, namely fire-fighting, medical treatment and the care of the sick and injured, emergency housing, food and clothing, the maintenance of water and power supplies as well as sanitary facilities, emergency transport and lastly, teams of trained first-aid helpers. There is no indication in the Budget of what amounts are being spent on other than the tuition fees and I believe it will be advisable, although I appreciate that there may be some accounting difficulties, to show what amount is actually being spent and in what direction to further civil defence. One has the feeling that there is not enough public involvement with civil defence. It is very true that admirable broadcasts have been made by Gen. Fraser and Gen. Retief, but these broadcasts and circulars alone will not achieve the results we would like them to have. The hon. the Minister will agree with me. If we can have some progess reports regularly I am sure that public interest would then be developed. Civil defence is not a security matter. It is as much needed in times of catastrophe in peace as in times of hostilities. We have had disasters such as the floods at Port Elizabeth and East London and also the problems arising as a result of the drought. Fortunately, in these instances of emergencies the Army was available to step in and act. Those are the very aspects of work which would be required to be attended to by civil defence when the Army is otherwise engaged. I agree that although there is a degree of public indifference, which is inevitable when trying to keep emergency services going, there could be more publicity. One must of course always be careful not to create an emergency psychosis amongst the members of the general public. When I mentioned that more public involvement must be animated, it would be interesting to know to what extent the detailed staff planning has been proceeded with. It would also be reassuring to know that in the case of an emergency mobilization can be prompt. That means that there are certain key personnel and key organizations involved in this scheme which can be brought into operation in the event of an emergency.

Then I would like to pass on to three specific matters which I believe are important in regard to defence, and not only military defence, but also civil defence, which I have the impression have not been given sufficient thought. I am not only thinking of the hon. the Minister’s department, but generally of the whole planning of the activities of our State as such. I want to refer to certain aspects like the physical siting of oil and petrol storage depots, for example. Each depot should be sited conveniently for economic and trade purposes, but some are highly questionable when it comes to their security or defence siting. One must also look at the siting of power stations. We will soon be involved with power stations of a far greater importance than the ones we have at present. We will have one station responsible for the electricity supply of the whole country when we get to atomic power stations. One wonders if sufficient attention has been given to both the civil and military defence aspects of the siting of these installations. One frequently finds that development takes place in areas surrounding vital railway junctions, near arterial roads and main highways where their defence against any form of sabotage or terrorism would be extremely difficult for the Armed Services as well as civil defence organizations.

Another matter which comes under this heading of Planning, which I would loosely call “Physical Planning”, is the physical siting of installations. I believe that more thought is required on the subject of the provision and siting of civilian or of municipal aerodromes. I believe, here again, that there is too much uncertainty and undetermined aspects, which need more consideration in so far as the authorities are concerned. I personally would like to see that the Defence Department takes over the responsibility of providing for what are now loosely called “municipal aerodromes for civil aviation clubs”. Clubs have considerable difficulty in founding these clubs. Some municipalities are interested; others are not. But the vital importance of having these aerodromes, which can become emergency aerodromes in times of hostilities, cannot be over-emphasized. I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to taking an active part in finalizing, for instance, here in Cape Town, where the Civil Aviation Club is to have its new headquarters so that they can get settled and get on with their activities.

The second point I want to mention is a matter which I raised in another context in this House. It is a strange position to me that the Department of Defence does not have a permanent member on the National Transport Commission. It is true that the commission is able to co-opt a representative of the Department of Defence, but he has no vote; he has a say, but he has no vote as a full member of that commission. [Time expired.]

The fact that one member of the Opposition takes an interest in the weal and woe of South Africa and raised the question of civil defence and other matters which do concern the improvement of the defence and well-being of South Africa, indeed came as a fresh breeze towards the end of the Defence debate following, as it did, the bits of gossip of the hon. member for Durban Point and all the processes of denigration of the hon. member for North Rand. One need not necessarily agree with him in what he said, but the fact that he did discuss these matters, is reason for gratitude. That is what one has been missing in the whole of this Defence debate up to now from the side of the hon. the Opposition. Because of that I should actually like to thank the hon. member for Green Point. As regards the hon. member for Durban Point, it is, unfortunately, not possible for me to do so.

Now I should first like to settle a small matter or two with the hon. member for North Rand. Here from my bench I heard him say—and I should like to quote to him what I heard and I want him to tell me whether he did make the following statement yesterday evening: “There are many on this side of the House whom we can trust.” The hon. member was advocating the appointment of a Defence committee consisting of members from both sides of this House, and he then said: “There are many on this side of the House whom we can trust.” Did the hon. member say that?

Continue with your speech.

I am asking the hon. member a question. Did he say that? To me the mere fact that he does not want to reply is an admission of the fact that he did say that. Now, does he want to suggest thereby that not all members on the opposite side of this House can be trusted as far as the defence of South Africa is concerned?

You make deductions too readily, old chap.

I asked the hon. member whether he had said it. He told me to continue with my speech, and that is exactly what I am doing. I am continuing with my speech. He did not tell me that he had not said it.

See who is also sitting on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Simonstown understands parliamentary language. I leave the matter at that. However, does the hon. member really want a joint Defence committee to be established while he himself does not even trust all the hon. members on the opposite side? Are we to trust them now?

He was speaking of both sides, and you know it.

I did not put the question to the hon. member for Durban Point. I put the question to the member for North Rand. If I did not express myself clearly, I shall repeat the question.

Where do you find blokes like this?

I leave the question at that. I think the particulars speak for themselves. The hon. member continued his process of denigration by constantly referring to the topheavy organization of our Defence Force. He told us we had too many generals, too many lieutenant-generals, major-generals, etc. But surely the hon. member, with his military background, ought to have known better. Surely he ought to have known that in times of peace one builds up a framework for one’s Defence Force, a framework which need only be supplemented in times of difficulty. But now I should like to put a question to the hon. member and I want him, to use the phraseology of the clergyman, to give a genuine reply to it. My question is: “How many marshalls did you have and how many do we have?” [Interjections.] You see, Sir, it is very easy and very nice to play politics, here, with great ado, like the Bull of Bashan.

The hon. member should not make such a display of his ignorance.

I think that hon. member is somewhat immodest. If he wants to know about ignorance he need only look in the mirror.

You are ignorant if you say South Africa has had a field-marshal.

Order! The hon. the Whip must please stop interjecting.

The temptation is too great, Mr. Chairman.

There are a few other small matters on which I should like to touch. I notice from the Estimates that approximately R1½ million is being voted for Voortrekkerhoogte, which is situated within my constituency, of which amount R500 000 is for housing. For that I want to thank the hon. the Minister. Although I am satisfied with the points system for the allocation of houses, there are men who do not feel happy about the fact that they, unlike others who did get houses, have not been able to obtain houses as yet. The degree of unhappiness which does exist in this regard, can be eliminated by building more houses.

Another small matter to which I want to refer, one which was already raised by the hon. member for Algoa yesterday evening, is the imminent arrival of our first submarine. This fact makes us happy, as well as the fact that it is named after the wife of Jan van Riebeeck, the first woman to have set foot on South African soil. The qualities which were to be found in Maria van Riebeeck are qualities which were later to be found in the people on the eastern border and still later in the people of the Great Trek and the subsequent Anglo-Boer Wars—qualities which enable a country to be developed and a nation to be built. Unfortunately I cannot say the same of Jan van Riebeeck. He, of course, was never happy at the Cape, and he had hardly been here for a month or two before letters were pouring into the Lords Seventeen in which he requested to be taken from here. He was a very unpatriotic man as far as South Africa is concerned. In fact, he reminds me very strongly of the United Party. What is more, he was the first integrationist here. In the circumstances I feel I am perfectly entitled to say that if there had been a United Party here at that time he would have been a supporter of that party.

In any event, I wish the Maria van Riebeeck every success in the future in the service of our country, South Africa, and in the service of its people.

Another matter I want to mention is that this year, of course, we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Republic of South Africa. I should like to mention here, however, that there is another matter which is also ten years old, and which, as it is, may have been overlooked. Some Afrikaans newspapers, i.e. Hoofstad and Die Vaderland, gave it a great deal of attention and specially sent a man to see what the present position was in Mozambique and Angola. In this connection I also want to mention the Cape Argus and the periodical Scope. The revolts which started in these areas ten years ago are well under control at the moment. In Mozambique the Portuguese have even taken the initiative. In my opinion, however, an unfortunate state of affairs has arisen north of the Zambesi River in that there are a whole number of terrorist camps in Zambia. It reminds me of a limerick which we often heard in the thirties, namely—

Now one wonders whether it is not Zambia that is inside the tiger. The question is for how long one can tolerate a state of affairs of a modern pestilence such as this: Of people sitting opposite our borders and crossing the borders in their numbers and in their time when it suits them to do so, in order to sow destruction in countries bordering on ours and even in out country itself. I wonder whether there is no solution to that, just as they found a solution in the past in, for example, Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps volunteers may tackle a matter such as this, and see what they can do in this connection. To return to South Africa, we find in our history that there has always been very close and intimate co-operation between the Defence Force and the Afrikaans-speaking population. I think our English-speaking fellow-countrymen will understand why I am specifically speaking of the history of the Afrikaners. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to certain matters which were dealt with earlier in this debate after the little diversion we have just had from the gallant brigadier or general—I am not sure what rank he holds or what service he has had—the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not think I need take any notice of anything he said or that I need reply to any of it.

Well, carry on, corporall

Yes, I was a corpora) too, which is much more than that hon. member was or most of the hon. members on his side were.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister’s manoeuvres of last night. He went out on a political manoeuvre. He set up some sham targets and fired at them with blanks. There were plenty of thunder crackers and plenty of blanks, which made a lot of noise and were aimed. I suspect at the gallery. However, it did little to further the cause of serious debate with regard to the issues we raised on this side of the House. I want to say that I believe that the defence of South Africa deserves better than the exhibition we had from the hon. the Minister last night. The hon. the Minister blows his top at the slightest opportunity. He just has to be scratched with the tip of a pin and he blows his top, gets excited, starts waving his arms and rants at this side of the House. What we want at the top of defence is cool and calm responsibility which will deal with matters on their merits.

Let me give a few examples of what I mean. Last night the hon. the Minister attacked me because I had dared to question the control of stores. He said that approximately 300 inspections had been carried out, of which only two brought unsatisfactory features to light. I want to quote from page 15 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report from which the hon. the Minister also quoted. The report reads as follows:

The hon. the Minister omitted something:

But why did the hon. the Minister not read sub-paragraph (a) of the same paragraph? This sub-paragraph reads—

It says that only small survey and test checks were carried out by the Controller and Auditor-General. And why did the hon. the Minister leave out sub-paragraph (c)? He read the one in between. In paragraph (c) the report states—

And what did the hon. the Minister say last night? He said that everything in the garden was rosy, that they had made improvements and that they had settled everything. But what does the Controller and Auditor-General find? He concludes

That is the report for this year out of which the hon. the Minister quoted one paragraph, left out the paragraphs before and after it as well as the final conclusion and said that he was perfectly satisfied with the situation. We say that we are not satisfied when the Controller and Auditor-General makes reports of this nature on a Budget on which we are being asked to vote R316 million.

Another of the sham targets the hon. the Minister put up last night was on the question of conscientious objectors. He tried to make out that we on this side of the House stood for the exemption of conscientious objectors.

No.

Yes, the hon. the Minister kept on saying ‘’vrystelling”. I kept on interjecting: “Not vrystelling— who asked for vrystelling”? We have not asked for exemption. We have in fact asked that double the period of duty be given to a person who makes such a claim.

But we will leave the hon. the Minister. He is the one who is made to look ridiculous. We would like to turn this …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, not after what you said last night. [Interjections.] All-right, I will answer his question.

Do you want the conscientious objectors in civvies or in uniform?

To be honest, I would sooner have them out of my army because I know and we have had experience of what it is to have people in the Army whose heart was not in the Army and who were not prepared to fight and defend their country, I would sooner have those people out than have them with me in the line and never know when my back was going to be stabbed.

Do you want them in civvies or in uniform?

No, the hon. member has asked his question. I like to know that my back is safe. If a man cannot be trusted to stand with me and to be with me in my fight for my country, then I would sooner have him scrubbing floors in a hospital. We made no plea for exemption. Obviously I have not the time to do it but I can quote country after country who have taken the line that it is no use having this sort of person weakening your forces.

And so it went on issue after issue. There was the question of uniforms on which the hon. the Minister got so excited. Then there was a question of accidents about which the hon. the Minister made lots of excuses. He however ignored the proposals made for consultation with road safety authorities, the bringing in of drivers instructors, skidpans and other positive proposals to try and improve road safety. The Minister just said no, I am satisfied; we are quite happy. Then when I complained because a letter written in Afrikaans, from an Afrikaans unit, had 16 grammatical mistakes in it, I am accused by the Minister of beating the English-speaking drum. That was the impression he gave. Sir, if anything, I was criticizing misuse and abuse of the Afrikaans language. I was saying that if an officer in command could sent out a circular in which he referred contemptuously to people who speak English, when he can not even write in his own language, that is not the sort of thing that engenders racial harmony. I have checked my Hansard, and on three separate occasions I pleaded for respect for both languages. I did not appeal for compulsory bilingualism, or to have one language forced down the throats of people. I did not ask which officers had not passed their language tests, or which officers failed their language tests four or five or six times before they could get promotion, I was not dealing with that sort of thing. I was pleading for mutual respect. That is all, and I say to the Minister he can play politics all he likes with it. We as South Africans want mutual respect exercised and carried out. A man does not have to be fluent or perfect in both languages, as long as he respects the language of his fellow-citizens, which is different from his own.

Then the hon. the Minister turned my plea for respect for each other’s languages into an issue of promotion. I did not deal with it in the context of promotion at all. I merely appealed for the avoidance of any atmosphere being created in the Force which could sow suspicion or dissatisfaction and thereby lead to a weakening of morale. So I can go on. On the question of the period of service, last year we said that until trainees could be fully occupied, we suggested a shortening of the period; and we also said there was a lack of contact between units and their men with camps being held only every third year. We appealed for that period to be made shorter. [Time expired.]

I do not think the hon. member for Durban Point can accuse the Minister of not having spoken coolly and calmly and of not having shown responsibility when he dealt with this matter yesterday, When we have accusations of the kind levelled by the hon. members for Durban Point and for North Rand yesterday, I think the Minister would have had every justification if he did get slightly hot under the collar. And when the hon. the Minister hits hard and gives the actual facts, hon. members should not regard that as getting hot under the collar on the part of the Minister. I think he had every reason to be angry, but we did not take it up like that. I think the Minister handled this matter with great responsibility yesterday. Now the hon. member for Durban Point has tried to run away from what he said here yesterday with regard to training. Yesterday his words were, “Training in this country is virtually unilingual.”

In the Defence Force. I was not speaking of the Air Force.

In the Defence Force. In that case, let us take it as such. I was not speaking of the Air Force either. The hon. member said that Army training was virtually unilingual. I want to ask the hon. member what he meant by that. Was he insinuating that training was being given only in one language, and that that language was the Afrikaans language? This is what the hon. member insinuated. Sir, this National Party need not apologize as regards the maintenance of bilingualism in this country, nor as far as the maintenance of bilingualism in the training of our Defence Force is concerned. I want to congratulate the Minister, the staff, the Chief of the Defence Force and everybody working with him, on the way bilingualism is being maintained in the training given in the Defence Force.

Quote what I said.

Sir, if there are people to whom a finger may be pointed in respect of not maintaining bilingualism properly when they were in power, they are the people of that United Party. I do not even want to talk about the years prior to 1948. It is a shameful record to which one does not even want to refer. But I want to point out things which happened recently. Simply look at what is happening in Natal where they are governing; simply look at what is happening in the City Council of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about. When the hon. member for Turffontejn was still wet behind the ears we were already fighting about these matters. Sir, we had to pass an ordinance in the Transvaal so as to take the Johannesburg City Council by the scruff of the neck and force them to apply bilingualism there under the United Party. Very recently, the National Party in the City Council of Johannesburg had to submit a petition to the Administrator in order to force that city council to ensure the maintenance of bilingualism in that council. Sir, these are the people who make sanctimonious pretences here about the question of bilingualism. What about the City Council of Durban? The hon. member for Durban Point is a resident of Durban. I want to ask him whether he is satisfied that bilingualism is being applied properly in that city council? When their own Executive Committee has to conduct interviews with Afrikaans-speaking members of the public, an interpreter has to be present in order to explain to them what is happening. In spite of this, hon. members opposite come forward here with accusations of this nature. Sir, for the rest, I shall leave the hon. member to the hon. the Minister.

I want to mention two other matters. The first is the Lenz camp in my constituency. Today I want to speak very highly and with appreciation of the work being done there with the young men. This afternoon, with a feeling of reverence, I also want to pay tribute here to one of the officers, the person who was second in charge there, Commandant Loubser, who died in the tragic train accident near Kimberley. Commandant Loubser performed very fine work there. He was an excellent officer and we learnt of that accident with deep sorrow. We in this House want to pay tribute to him and also express our sympathy towards his next-of-kin.

There is another matter which is very close to my heart and which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the authorities, and that is the giving of lifts to members of the Defence Force on the roads. I think this matter can be handled in a very nice way. I am not opposed to members of the Defence Force standing along the roads and trying to get someone to give them a lift. I should like to say that in this regard we should follow the example of a country such as Israel. What happens there, is that specific places are indicated along the major roads, close to the large training centres, where military police are on duty and members of the units may stand if they want a lift. When the tourist drives past those places, he knows he may stop and give those people a lift. I think the time has arrived for us to bring the system to the attention of our public. We know that when these young men are off duty during weekends, cheap train tickets are made available to them. We know that these boys experience transport problems especially in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand complex. They are able to travel by train to a certain station, but it is very expensive and it takes a great deal of time to reach their homes from that point. I think the public would co-operate well if we were to make an appeal that these trainees should be given lifts. We may be able to form a club which would be allowed to give lifts to these trainees. I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Perhaps we may exchange ideas about this in private at a later stage. I have quite a few ideas in this regard. I feel we should see whether we cannot do something in this direction. At Voortrekker-hoogte I have seen trainees standing along the road and being drenched by rain on weekends they have free. These people have lots of free time. Why can a shelter not be erected for them there where they may sit and wait? I think the trainees sitting and waiting at such places, would soon be given lifts and taken to the places where they want to be. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his consideration to these few matters I have brought to his attention.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the hon. the member for Langlaagte for the last portion of his speech. I think he made some constructive suggestions. I would, however, not commend him for the first portion of his speech. I think we must regard the Defence Force of South Africa, the Army, Navy and Air Force, as above this issue of bilingualism. I believe that we have achieved very high standards of bilingualism in each one of those arms of the service.

We?

I talk as a South African just as I hope you speak as a South African. I believe that every encouragement must be given at every level of all three arms of the service to foster bilingualism to every possible degree.

Now, I want to deal with the question of admission to the Navy. I said last year that I thought it was advisable that, where possible, preference should be given to the young men from the coastal towns to join the Navy. I think there has been an element of misunderstanding about this. I believe that preference should indeed be given to those people. But I believe there should be a priority rating for those from up country who are members of the sea scouts or sea cadet movements or who belong to families with seafaring traditions. I believe that those people should have a form of priority in admission to the Navy. My reason for saying this is that I come across a lot of these young men from all over South Africa who are doing their service in the Navy. I find that some of them have not even expressed a wish to serve in the Navy whereas I find that others who approach me to try to be admitted to the Navy, have been drafted to the Army although they have expressed a very strong wish and desire because of their interest in the sea to enter service in the Navy. I feel that there can be greater accommodation for people in those categories.

The second point that I wish to deal with is also one that I mentioned last year, namely the question of service in the Navy. At the moment you have the strange situation in the Navy that a man can join the Navy and can in fact leave the Navy when it suits him, but not necessarily the Navy. The hon. the Minister will know that he can purchase his discharge. I think that this is wrong and that it must be investigated at the highest level. Then I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister what is a complete abuse of the present system, namely the young men who join the Permanent Force for one year to avoid further service under the Citizen Force. At the end of the year these young men purchase their discharge. When they join the Permanent Force, they do not have the slightest intention of staying there. They merely use this as a means of evading further service in the Citizen Force. Then you have the situation of the naval officers. The officers are not able to purchase their discharge, as far as I know, but they are enabled to resign at their own behest. This I do not think is a satisfactory situation. I should like to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Defence with the suggestion that there should be definite contract periods of service laid down for the Navy, the arm of the service that I know most about, and possibly for the others. There should be contract periods of service. At the end of those contract periods of service there should be a substantial re-engagement bonus. This, I think, is the situation in other forces overseas and I believe it would help considerably in improving the position which exists at the moment.

Now I want to move on to housing. The hon. the Minister is aware of the need for better housing. I want to make the suggestion that where there is a shortage of housing in any service unit, the rents of those servicemen, who have to find private accommodation should be subsidized by the Defence Force until such time as service housing becomes available to them.

Then I want to deal briefly with sport facilities. Of all the services, I think the Navy is certainly the worst off when it comes to adequate sporting and recreational facilities. This is something which I cannot emphasize strongly enough. I know these young men who serve down at the seaside. In the summer months it is not so bad. Then they can go down to the beaches to swim. In the winter months there is very little for them to do. There are very few places of entertainment for these young men who are doing their service in the Navy. The recreational and sporting facilities are absolutely inadequate in the Navy. Once again I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention. I know he has said that the Navy must take its place in the queue, but I think it is time that the Navy was given a higher priority in this particular queue.

Lastly, I want to refer to the inadequate bus services. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to the restoration of the “service” bus system, more particularly from Da Gama Park to Simonstown. Now I want to refer to the question of general transport facilities. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has not reached the stage where he can grant, particularly the voting trainees, some form of railway concession. These boys who travel from Simonstown to Cape Town have to pay 49 cents—and that is a whole day’s pay—when they want a return ticket from Simonstown to Cape Town. They have to go to Cape Town to seek any decent form of entertainment, because they cannot get it in Simonstown. I do earnestly commend to him this as being a sensible suggestion.

Here I have one or two things to show the Minister. Here I have a set of service stripes. In this case there are three stripes. This is what the stripes look like before they have been washed, and these are the same stripes after they have been washed once. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this, because the quality of some of the insignia to uniforms which are being used in the Navy are not of a sufficiently high standard. Here I have a cap. This one I used during the week-end when I worked in my garden. I have had complaints from the young chaps that these caps are completely unsuitable. In my own experience, after I have worn it for half an hour, I must admit that it is not suitable. First of all, it has a plastic top, which does not breathe at all. It is as hot as anything. Secondly, there is a form of plastic leather inside that does not absorb the sweat. Lastly, there are various other aspects of this cap which the hon. the Minister, if he examines them, will find are really not up to standard. It is cheap and shoddy handiwork. I want to ask him to go into this matter to see whether this form of cap cannot be improved in the new uniforms to be worn by the Navy. I think these are constructive suggestions and I ask the hon. the Minister to give them his consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few moments at my disposal, therefore I shall not react to the previous hon. speaker. I shall not react to the complaint concerning the principle of bilingualism either. I think the hon. the Minister will deal with them in that sphere. I should like to deal with a small point which, in my opinion, has not been sufficiently emphasized in this debate. Hon. members know that the United Party has said on occasion that this Government has done nothing as yet to protect our sea routes around the Cape coast. I think the time has arrived for this House, as well as the South African people, to express their thanks and appreciation to this hon. Minister and the Government for what they have done to make the Western world aware of the importance of the sea route around the Cape.

†Many years ago Lenin said that the road to Paris and London lay through Africa. It is common knowledge that the freedom and independence of the countries of Western Europe are not only being decided in Europe, but also in Africa. For many years our Government and our hon. Minister of Defence have stressed and stated the fact that the South Atlantic and the western part of the Indian Ocean are critical areas. The communists have realized for many years how important South Africa is in relation to this vital Cape sea route. It took many years of discussion and debating to make the Western world realize the importance of the Republic to the West, and that the Republic was the only country which could provide a secure and effective base for any major initiative aimed at containing communism on land in Africa or at sea in the Western Indian Ocean. I want to congratulate this Government and especially the hon. the Minister of Defence with their success in proving to the Western world that South Africa is not merely a port of call on the long route between East and West, but that it has become a bastion connecting Western sea and air power in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans against the Soviet threat from the Middle East and East Africa. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have declared on many occasions that South Africa is the gateway to the East and that South Africa will hold this in trust for the free world even if we have to fight alone on our own behalf or on behalf of the rest of the world.

*I want to content myself with this. I think the time has arrived for this House, the South African people, and the hon. the Opposition, too, to start acknowledging that this hon. Minister with his Supreme Command struck an important blow, not only for South Africa but also for the Western world by opening their eyes and drawing the attention to the importance of this sea route around our coast. Without this sea route even the Western world and we, too, would have no future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the hon. members for Worcester, Langlaagte and Pretoria West for their words of support. I am sure that these words are appreciated by all the officers who listened to them. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred here to Lenz. I just want to say that Lenz has an unfortunate location, and that this is a matter which is receiving our attention at the moment. I cannot give any final reply on that matter now. It is possible that at a later stage steps will be taken in regard to Lenz so as to move it to a more suitable place. We know that good work is being done there, but the army division of Lenz is situated wrongly.

The hon. member for Cradock referred to the civil defence college at George, and I want to thank him for his friendly words in that regard. The hon. member for Simonstown raised the question of caps and insignia of rank and the poor quality of the material used. When the new uniforms are put into service, they will probably be better.

They will still be wearing the same kind of caps.

We shall improve the caps as well. The hon. member, as did other hon. members, spoke about the question of housing. I think the hon. member for Pretoria District also mentioned it. This is one of the major problems. It can be attributed mainly to the growth of the Defence Force, the backlog that existed and the old bases which we had to occupy. Unfortunately it is true today that there are still bases which are not a credit to our Defence Force. I admit that openly. For that reason it is being planned to renew quite a number of bases. We were fortunate enough to obtain certain good bases. As far as moving the Army Gymnasium from Voorlrekkerhoogte to Heidelberg is concerned, we have moved into good buildings there. As regards placing the young women at George for their training in civil defence, we have also moved into good buildings. Furthermore, quite a number of improvements have already been effected at the Danie Theron Combat School, although the base is an old one. But there are numerous bases with quarters which really are unsatisfactory. However, in this regard I just want to say that in this year’s Estimates an amount of R6 500 000 was voted for large and small works through the Department of Public Works alone. In addition, an amount of R 3 900 000 is being voted by the Department of Community Development for our department. We hope that a start will be made with the construction of an additional 436 houses, and single-quarters for an additional 1 027. Therefore, the position is being improved gradually. At the moment we do already have bases which, when one visits them, makes one feel happy about the fine sight they already present. Therefore things are changing gradually. We have been giving a great deal of attention to these things, but we, on our part, may not ask for all sorts of things without taking the other needs of the State into account.

But is it not possible to subsidize rentals in the meantime?

There are various schemes for which the State is making provision and of which members of the Defence Force can avail themselves for housing purposes. The question of subsidies is a very dangerous matter if one were to single out one department only. All the privileges granted by the National Housing Commission to State employees, are available to members of the Defence Force as well. The Government has accepted the principle of 100 per cent housing for the Defence Force. We are aiming at that, but they can also avail themselves of other privileges under the Housing Act.

†The hon. member has stressed the necessity, and used the word “re-negotiation”, of the Simonstown Agreement on account of existing uncertainties. Now, I take it that the hon. member did not actually mean to use the word “re-negotiation”, because that means something quite different from what we have in mind. Perhaps it would have been better had he used the word “re-clarification” instead of “re-negotiation”. Because no matter how much I agree with the hon. member on the question of re-negotiation or re-clarification, I personally think it will not be wise on my part to speak in public about it. I do not think I must do that. The present British Government accepted certain responsibilities to which they, in accordance with their own views, are legally bound. I do not want to harm the better spirit at present existing between the two Governments and I also keep in mind possible future co-operation. I do not think this is the opportune time to express myself in public.

Then the hon. member made another point. He said that under certain conditions, where the Republic of South Africa is neutral, the South African Navy, in terms of the agreement, will have to vacate Simonstown, That is as he reads the agreement. Well, he is not entirely correct. I want to remind the hon. member that I made a statement in this House on 2nd February. 1967 (Hansard, col, 511) in which I said—

This is the statement I made in 1967. On the 22nd February, 1967, I addressed a graduation ceremony at the University of Stellenbosch and on that occasion I said that we were proceeding with steps to increase the state of security of our coasts. I then referred to the discussions there had been recently resulting from the intention of the British Government to withdraw its navy personnel and the flagship that were doing service here and added—

I do not want to go further today than merely repeating this. In other words, the position is not exactly as the hon. member stated it last night.

*Furthermore, the hon. member, along with the hon. member for Pretoria District, pleaded for more interest to be taken in national servicemen by the public, and asked whether our people, whereas we could arrange large-scale receptions for the crews of visiting ships, could not do something for young people in our South African Defence Force as well. I am pleased that they raised this matter.

It does not concern national servicemen only.

I said all the young people serving in our Defence Force. Whenever a visiting ship docks here, the people of Cape Town fall over one another in an attempt to entertain the crew. Of course, I have no objection to that. But no attention is being paid to our own young men, our own boys, who are far from their homes. I have already made appeals to the public in public, and ladies who are associated with the Defence Force along with us, have also done so. For instance, my own wife has on occasion made such appeals in public. After such appeals, we may perhaps find matters brightening up sporadically in some town or other, and then the position reverts to what it was before. In the meantime we have time for many other things; but we do not have the time to make these young people feel that a real interest is being taken in them. We leave them to their own devices, to saunter about in the streets, whilst there are so many organizations which could make a small gesture of friendship towards them, organizations which usually do more talking than work. If they would only include this matter on their programmes, they would already be doing good work. I am grateful to the hon. members for having raised these matters.

But then the hon. member for Simonstown did something I did not like. In passing he tried to have a dig at one of my predecessors, who is no longer with us. Can we not leave him in peace? Why must we carry on the struggle against him? He died a long time ago, but it seems as though we cannot restrain ourselves from disparaging his name in these debates. It hurts. Advocate Erasmus was not as weak as some hon. members want to suggest. If there is one thing which will always remain associated with his name, it is the take-over of Simonstown and the establishment of our Navy. Nobody has done more than he did to make South Africa navy-conscious. Therefore, let us leave him in peace. He has been dead for a long time. Let us therefore stop saying unpleasant things about him. He was my friend, and for that reason I am defending his memory. I want to tell the hon. member that when Simonstown was taken over, we paid R1,5 million for it, apart from the other costs which the British Government had also incurred, inter alia, in finding another residence for their representative here. But we paid R1.5 million, and if we had to establish such a base today. it would have cost approximately R50 million, if not much more. I am therefore of the opinion that the take-over of Simonstown was in the interests of South Africa.

I did not object to that. *

No, but I am only stating the facts. You referred very sneeringly to the Minister who tried to take over Simonstown for political reasons only. But what he did, was a good thing for South Africa.

†The hon. member for Durban Point raised two matters yesterday afternoon, to which I have not replied yet. I wish to reply to them now. I am not going to reply to the points raised by the hon. member later this afternoon because I have replied amply to them. I have given him ail the particulars. I have given him the particulars about the NATO system we are introducing. I told him that we have better control than ever before. I told him that we have a shortage of manpower and we are trying to solve that problem. I cannot do more. If the hon. member wants to go on creating the impression that the public's money is not safe in the Defence Force, he may do so.

I said the situation was not satisfactory.

Or course not, but the hon. member is not satisfactory either as a member.

*He is not perfect. None of us are perfect as we stand here. Are we now to make the Defence Force a heaven on earth? Of course, it does have its faults, but these faults are being remedied.

But the Minister is making mistakes.

I do not hold inspections. I suppose the hon. member for King William’s Town wants me to hold these inspections. I shall hire him to hold certain inspections.

† I want to come back to the more important questions. The hon. member referred to the threats we are facing, but at the same time warned that we must not create a war psychosis. Of course, that is correct. Nobody is trying to create a war psychosis in South Africa. Some time ago we called some members of Parliament, of both parties, and some businessmen together at Saldanha, at Langebaan, in conference, where we presented to them the picture as we saw it. But that does not mean that we are trying to create a war psychosis.

I am talking about public statements.

Nobody is making any public statements to the effect that we have war on our doorstep, but we are being threatened. We are threatened by unconventional warfare, sometimes more and sometimes less, but we are being threatened by an eventual conventional conflict. In this connection I want to give my reasons for saving so.

*In the first place, we have in Africa open interference on the part of Russia in the Sudan. We have Russian influence in Libya and Somalia. In regard to the Tanzam railway line we see that Chinese specialists are being imported. The question that arises to an increasing extent, is whether Russia is not making more and more use of Yugoslavia in order to intensify communist influence in Africa. In this regard I just want to remind the hon. member of what was said in this regard by Prof. Wyanofsky, who is the Africa expert of the Russian Government; he said (translation)—

In other words, there is a threat; nobody wants to create a war psychosis. We just do not want our people to be so fast asleep that, when that day comes, they will be running about panic-stricken; they must enable us now to take precautionary measures, not only in the military sphere, but also in other spheres. Sir, what is the position in the Indian Ocean? At first we stood alone, as the hon. member for Worcester said, when we warned against the power vacuum developing in the Indian Ocean. At the moment there are favourable signs that more and more Western countries are waking up. One consequence of this gradual awakening, is the creation of facilities at a place such as Diego-Garcia and a better British attitude towards South Africa. Meanwhile Russia has also intensified its efforts. It has at its disposal naval facilities around the Horn of Africa; it has such facilities at Mogadishu, Zanzibar, Dar-es-Salaam and several other mooring-bouys in the Indian Ocean. Sir, Russian penetration in the Indian Ocean should be viewed in conjunction with the large-scale attempts at penetration in North-East Africa. This is not only of a military nature; it is also of a political and psychological nature, since it has become aware of the power it is given by a naval force to influence nations. I do not want to go into too much detail about reports that Western powers have been taking steps by taking facilities at places such as Diego-Garcia and others with a view to communications and control, etc. To my mind these are not matters which we should discuss here, but in spite of that Simonstown—and this is the point I want to make —remains of the utmost importance to the Western countries in the free world, and in this regard we must go on making our voice heard. Sir, I am saying this because Simonstown is a developed naval base with repair facilities, linked to a modern submarine base, the most modern submarine base in the entire Southern Hemisphere. I notice that the statement was made in the British Parliament the other day that only two ships could moor at Simonstown. We are engaged in planning and constructing a larger tidal basin, and Simonstown is not only important in itself; Simonstown should also be viewed in regard to another project, i.e. the maritime headquarters which we are constructing here at Lakeside, which will have its connection with the advanced base —as from next year, it is hoped—at Salisbury Island and at Walyis Bay, another advanced base. It will be possible for these maritime headquarters, together with Simonstown, to make a tremendous contribution in regard to shipping control and in regard to disseminating and securing intelligence, and these headquarters will be able to render a service.

In this regard the hon. member asked me what role was being played by Saldanha. We are interested in Saldanha. We want to establish the crash-boat base there. It is being planned. At the moment we are also planning a new naval gymnasium for Saldanha. We know that during the last World War Saldanha made a tremendous contribution to the protection of convoys, and it is in that light that we view Saldanha.

There is an additional factor, i.e. the installation of the Decca navigation system, which is being installed all along our coastline. The installation of that system has reached quite an advanced stage. I hope to officiate soon at the official opening of one of these chains. The Decca navigation system is going to make a tremendous contribution towards putting South Africa and Simonstown in an even better position to protect this sea route. In conjunction with that there is another point we must bear in mind, i.e. that we are responsible for a particular maritime area which forms part of a strategic area, for which our country and Britain accepted joint responsibility in terms of the agreement for protecting the sea route. A particular maritime area was allocated to us and is under the command of the Chief of our Navy. That is why I say that Simonstown should be viewed against the background of great industrial capacity, landing facilities, fly-over rights and port facilities, which the Republic can provide. Simonstown should also be viewed in another light, i.e. in the light of what may still be done by hostile forces in the Antarctic. It is important for us to take the matters into account without shouting, “Wolf, wolf!’’ However, it is no use for us to turn a blind eye to these things. Three or four years ago South Africa sounded a warning against the power vacuum that had developed, but we were not believed by anybody, except in certain military circles, unofficially. At present the Western world is waking up in this regard, and we must go on drawing attention to these potential dangers. I agree with the hon. member that this should be done with self-restraint.

†Then the hon. member raised the question of a proposed joint parliamentary committee to give the Opposition a share in the deliberations …

The knowledge.

Yes, and the knowledge. Let me deal with this question. Firstly, I never introduce legislation on defence matters without consulting the Opposition. I think that must be granted. Secondly, I always invite Opposition members to exercises and other important occasions of a confidential nature. We have never yet excluded them.

I agree. In fact, I have thanked you for it.

I do not want to be thanked, I am only stating facts. Thirdly, I am, as I have been in the past, prepared to discuss either with the Leader of the Opposition or one or two members designated by him, defence matters of a confidential nature. That can be arranged provided that these discussions are and remain of a confidential nature. That is an offer that I am now making, I have done it in the past and the hon. member knows that I have already had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition in the past. He also knows that I have had discussions with him. I now extend this invitation in public again. But let me stress that certain responsibilities and certain knowledge I can only share with my Cabinet colleagues and with the State Security Council and not with any other member. I think that it will be agreed that that is correct. Then, lastly, in a well-run defence force there must be ministerial authority, which cannot be shared by a committee, and there must be the authority of the commanding general. Unless one has that, one has no discipline. I think that the hon. member will grant me that too.

*I should like to make a brief announcement in order to satisfy the hon. member for North Rand. I want to make another top-structure announcement. This holds good for the Citizen Force as well as the Commandos. It has been felt for a long time that something must be done to give impetus to our officers in the Citizen Force and the Commandos and to give them a share in the Defence Force as a whole. They must feel that they are not separate from the Permanent Force, but that they form part of the greater Defence Force as a whole. They are, in actual fact, our Defence Force. For that reason I have decided, after very thorough consideration, to change the rank of Commando group commanders, each of whom is in command of a number of commandos, from Chief Commandant to Colonel. There are 32 such posts. We have been experiencing difficulties in regard to the form of address as well as the insignia of rank. I think it is best to convert them into colonels.

As a result of the expansion of the army and the organizational improvements, posts have already been created for one brigadier and 36 colonels in the Citizen Force. If mobilization were to become necessary, a considerably larger number of Citizen Force officers would have to be appointed to higher posts virtually immediately. In recognition of the large number of Citizen Force officers who have voluntarily been sacrificing a large part of their lives to service in the Defence Force as well as the necessity of preparing them for higher appointments in peacetime already, it has been decided to create another brigadier post and a reasonable number of additional colonel posts in the combat organization of the Citizen Force. This will result in the military career prospects of Citizen Force officers being improved considerably. This is another addition to the top structure.

The hon. member for Pretoria District also raised the question of reading matter. We are trying to distribute the reading mat-matter through our organizations in such a way that the young men will at least have one newspaper or a few newspapers to read. I cannot ask money for everything. We are already asking for a great deal of money. After all, the Treasury should also have a little money left for the other departments.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to civil defence. I am glad that he spoke about it. To my mind a success cannot be made of civil defence by creating a mass psychosis in that regard. I think it is wrong to conduct evening classes on a large scale and to arouse enthusiasm in people only to find that they have cooled off the next day. It was for that reason that we changed the whole system. As you know. Sir, the civil defence division has been integrated with the Army. The Army has accepted certain responsibilities for it. In peacetime national servicemen in the Citizen Force will be used for that purpose. If civil defence services have to be rendered in times of war, the Commandos will, to my mind, have to play a much greater role in that regard. That is why our Commandos are being trained in this sphere. At every command we have an officer, under the control of the commander of that command, who works with the Commandos but who is also responsible for civil defence services. We have now decided to bring in local authorities, because we feel that in any town the local authority should be the centre of civil defence services, for in most cases the local authority already has many of the facilities that are necessary for civil defence services. I hope that we shall reach the stage where an official of the local authority will be the representative of civil defence in that area, an official with whom an officer of a command may get into touch, with whom the Commando may get into touch and with whom the local first-aid organization may get into touch. That is how we are trying to organize it. It is for that reason that we are also training young women at George now, the idea being that they will be absorbed into these first-aid organizations as leaders. There are, for instance, the Noodhulpliga. Red Cross and the St. John’s Ambulance organizations. They are to provide these organizations with leadership qualities. Furthermore, we are paying subsidies amounting to several thousands of rands, as will be seen in the Budget, to the various organizations. We hope to increase those subsidies, if the money is available. For the present, I think, we are already subsidizing them to a large extent. Some of the amounts which are directly concerned with civil defence, are spread under other Votes and sub-heads and are voted there. Then there is the question of salaries. There is the question of fire-fighting services, in respect of which an amount of R154 000 is being voted. Hon. members are aware that we are also training servicemen as firemen. Then there is the assistance we granted to certain municipalities in the past in order that they might acquire fire-engines. We also granted assistance in regard to sirens. Much more can still be done, but the point I want to make, is that it seems to me that we should do so in a much more co-ordinated and planned manner, rather than trying to create a large-scale mass psychosis.

I think I have now replied to all the speeches made by those hon. members who took part in this debate. If there are any points which have not yet been replied to, we shall look into them and send replies to the hon. members concerned by letter.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

When this Vote was under discussion last year, I was fairly critical towards the hon. the Minister of Tourism in regard to his handling of this Vote. He took it amiss of me. I do not want to repeat it this year. I just want to say that I am filled with sympathy for the hon. the Minister.

Why?

I have no option in the matter, because I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister of Tourism regards the question of tourism as being so insignificant that he has to reduce his Budget this year. I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister does not realize the value of tourism to South Africa, not only in regard to the foreign exchange it can earn for the country, but also in regard to the image of the country it projects to the Western countries in particular, an image which must create better relations between this country and the West. The irony of the matter is that we have just dealt with a Vote which involved an amount of more than R300 million, and that is now followed by a Vote involving an amount of R2 million. I shall come back to this later. I think it would mean a great deal to the protection of our security if we were to attract more people from the civilized Western countries to visit South Africa and to take back with them the image of the peace prevailing in South Africa. I repeat. I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister is adopting such a careless attitude towards this source, not only of foreign exchange entering the country, but also of information on South Africa, by which means our image may be projected abroad. It is better than all the South African Foundations, or whatever Foundations—because one is concerned here with a mass of people projecting the image, and not merely the few who come here by invitation. I am sure the hon. the Minister must have discussed this matter I am raising, with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Information, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He must have discussed with them the value which large numbers of tourists visiting our country have for us.

Let us now deal with the situation as far as the Budget is concerned. Apart from salaries and wages, which show a considerable increase, there is a decrease of R99 300 in the grants-in-aid. Most of these grants-in-aid go to Satour. Advertising and publicity, too, show a decrease of R29 200. The overall decrease in this Vote is R96 000. In regard to the Loan Vote, there is a decrease of R200 000 in respect of the hotel trade.

I am asking myself, and every hon. member should do the same, where we are standing as far as tourism is concerned. We should establish for ourselves what sort of progress is being made. Are we making progress at the rate we wish to make progress, and if we are not doing so, in other words, if we do not have the increase in the number of tourists we should like to have, what can we do so as to rectify the matter? We find that the number of tourists visiting South Africa increased by 9 per cent to 328 000. Of this number of 328 000, no fewer than 119 000 came from states to the north of us, mainly from Rhodesia. They do not visit us so much from the other countries. Only 93 000 tourists came from Europe. These are last year’s figures. In order to give hon. members an indication of the fact that they came from neighbouring states, I may just mention that 127 000 came to South Africa by motorcar, while 18 000 came by train. In other words, this is a clear indication that the vast majority of our tourists came from our neighbouring states. I have already mentioned the number of tourists who came from Europe. Far fewer came from the United States. To be specific, 22 000 American tourists came to South Africa and 11 000 tourists from Australia. These figures virtually make up all the tourists mentioned here in the report.

One does not always want to draw comparisons and I shall not even attempt to draw comparisons with European countries. I shall not even try to draw comparisons with Spain. Austria and other European countries. Where countries are situated so closely together, they necessarily have many tourists from the neighbouring countries. I do not want to mention them at all, but I want to speak of another country, which experiences as many problems as we do in attracting tourists. This country is situated as far south in the Southern hemisphere as we are, or even further south. I am referring to Australia. Last year there was a 20 per cent increase in Australia. They attract many more tourists than we do. From where do Australia’s tourists have to come? It does not have a neighbouring state as we have in the case of Rhodesia. Therefore it is obvious that their tourists have to come from far away. Their tourists, too, come mainly from Europe and from the United States, A small country such as Kenya had a 12 per cent Increase in the number of tourists and it attracted approximately 300 000 tourists last year, I ask myself, just as other hon. members should do, what is wrong with the attraction our tourist system has? What is wrong with the attraction our country has? I want to put it differently. What is wrong with our publicity methods? What is wrong with our research? What is wrong with these means which should help us attract tourists, especially from our Western countries of origin and from Europe? Surely we should gallantly admit that there is some shortcoming somewhere and that there must be something wrong somewhere. The situation of the country showing a 9 percent increase only, cannot remain unchanged, Other countries show an increase of 12 per cent, 20 per cent and more.

The advisory committee of the hon. the Prime Minister stated that we should set ourselves a target of 7½ per cent as far as the growth of our tourism was concerned. I simply cannot understand why they should want us to set ourselves a target of only 7½ per cent. If we were to set ourselves a target of 20 per cent, and reached a target of 15 per cent, we would be doing much better than if we had set ourselves a target of 7½ per cent and had reached only 9 per cent. We find ourselves in the same position in which we found ourselves last year and in the years prior to that in that we have a debit balance in regard to tourism. The amount of R15 million by which the amount spent by South African tourists abroad exceeded the amount spent by tourists in South Africa, has increased. This is not something strange, and happens in other countries as well. I have done research in regard to the position in Canada, where the debit balance in this regard amounts to much more than it does here. The number of tourists they attract, however, is much larger, it runs into millions. But there are other countries in the Southern hemisphere which have credit balances as far as tourism is concerned. At present South Africa is one of the countries in the Southern hemisphere which has the largest number of international flights of any other country in this hemisphere. In fact, we have more flights from overseas than Australia has, and also many more than New Zealand or the Argentine has. In spite of our wonderful transport facilities which can bring many passengers to this country, South Africa is lagging behind other countries as far as tourists are concerned. One must ask oneself why this is happening.

Today I want to repeat what we on this side of the House suggested in the past, and that is that more research should be done in this regard. More funds should also be made available. What is also of primary importance is that there should be an advisory board, that there should be co-ordinated planning and liaison with other establishments concerned with tourism and travel in general. All these aspects are being dealt with by the advisory committee established by the hon. the Prime Minister, The hon. the Minister will possibly say that he had to await the report before he could introduce any changes and before he could accept its recommendations. I am of the opinion, however, that the hon. the Minister could have said long ago that he needed an advisory board to advise him on how our tourist industry could be extended. He could have said long ago that he wanted better co-ordination with other travel agencies and tourist organizations and that he wanted a blanket advisory board to deal with all these matters. I should like to have replies from the hon. the Minister in this regard. He may have one or two ideas in this connection. Does he regard Tourism as being such an unimportant Vote that he has allowed a reduction in the amount to be voted for Tourism? Or does the hon. the Minister think that Tourism is not of sufficient importance for him to do his utmost to have the funds increased which he has at his disposal for promoting tourism, because at the moment he cannot spread his wings as wide as he should like to do? Surely one of the two must be the reason. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply in this regard and, of course, I know that he will reply.

I should like to go into certain aspects of this report, and consequently I shall start with the first recommendation. The time has long been overdue for the hon. the Minister to make a statement of policy in regard to tourism. He must give us his views on the extent of tourism and the functioning thereof. How does he see tourism as a section of the national economy which ought to earn us more foreign exchange, but which has the primary function of projecting our country's image abroad? To me this is the primary and most important function of tourism at this stage. I have said this before. Can we not have a better method and develop another method by means of which we can project the image of the country more effectively by attracting tourists here from our countries of origin, as I have already said, so that they may go back and tell the true story? All the tourists who came here and then go back overseas, have that effect. The citizens of Holland and of France who come here and spend a month in this country, if they can afford to stay that long, see for themselves what is being done here. Let us gallantly admit that the tourists who come to this country, are very often prejudiced. How many of them have we not met abroad who think that if they were to come here, they would see brutal treatment of certain sections of the population, the poorest housing on earth and atrocities. But when they come here, they are surprised to see that this is a peaceful country in which everyone is living together happily. I maintain this is the best sort of publicity we can create for our country. I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister is not strong enough or that he does not see the matter as we do. For that reason I am saying that it is time the Minister made a statement in this connection. I do not know whether he wants more time to study the commission’s report. I assume he finished his study of the report a long time ago and that he is ready at this stage to make a statement and to say how he sees the whole matter of tourism.

We should be grateful if the Minister were to include in his statement his views on non-White tourists. We wonder what the Government’s policy is as far as non-White tourists are concerned. Surely the time will arrive, for example, if a Mexican or a Brazilian wanted to undertake a tour in this country, when the Government would have to lay down a policy concerning how he would be treated and whether be would be welcome. I think the time is long overdue for the Minister to tell us in what light he sees the non White tourist in this country, where he fits in and whether he would be welcome to come to this country. We are inclined to remain completely silent on the question of the non-White tourist. I think the time has arrived for us to have a clear statement in this regard.

The second recommendation contained in the commission’s report is that we should attract the tourists who are able to pay, in other words, the more well-to-do tourists from the European countries. It is all very well for us to try to attract them, but they do not go to make up the numbers. If we bear in mind what I have already said is the most important aspect of tourism, and we do want large numbers, we must make it possible, as it has become possible as a result of the low fares of the South African Airways and other international airways, over tourist periods, for the man who does not necessarily have so much money to spend in this country, and who does not spend so much money either, to come to this country. Later I shall discuss precisely what possibilities there are of accommodating him here as well. The time has arrived for us to attract larger numbers of tourists, and not only the more well-to-do tourists from the civilized Western countries, as the report of the commission indicates here.

The commission went on to recommend that Satour as such was to become part of the department now. Let me say at once that the Minister should not seek the support of the Opposition in this regard. We shall be completely opposed to that. There is a close enough association between Satour and the Department of Tourism without Satour having to be incorporated with the Department of Tourism. I will admit that the recommendation is that it should be done gradually, possibly only in a few years’ time. Sir, we do not even want matters lo develop in that direction. We want to retain Satour as an independent body with its offices, wherever they may be distributed, and we want to make more money available to it so that it may promote tourism in the way it has been doing in the past. If Satour had more funds available to it, if it could open more offices abroad and if it could set about the task—one it has been performing and for which we want to give it great credit—on a larger scale, I would maintain that the incorporation of Satour with the department, would be the last thing we want. I do not believe it would be a good thing. We on this side do not believe for a moment that it would be a good thing. Sir, we have studied the report, and this is the last thing we should like to have.

Sir, the commission recommended conferences or congresses to be held by all interests concerned in tourism. Sir, this is a wonderful idea and I should like to support it very strongly. The best way of promoting tourism would, of course, be to bring together all interests concerned in tourism in South Africa at a conference at which we could discuss matters together. I am referring here to all our travel agencies and the tourism organizations we have. We wholeheartedly agree with that proposal. Furthermore, it is recommended in this report that a general advisory committee consisting of representatives of all interests concerned in tourism should be established. Such a committee could advise the Minister in regard to the promotion of tourism. I cannot imagine a better method of promoting tourism than having such a general committee. It need not necessarily be a committee which falls under Satour. Furthermore, it is recommended here that the board of Satour should be extended, with more representation. In my opinion this is an important recommendation, but I think it is even more important to have a general committee which could gather information from all quarters in regard to the promotion of tourism.

Sir, I have already dealt with research as well as the question of liaison with other interests concerned in tourism. Furthermore, it is recommended that a committee be appointed consisting of representatives of State departments and of other official bodies concerned in tourism, as well as representatives of private undertakings concerned in this industry. It is recommended that this committee should have the following functions: To act as controlling body of the South African Tourist Corporation; to co-ordinate the activities of this body and of the Department of Tourism ever more closely with a view to the eventual amalgamation of these two bodies into a single State department.

Order! I want to refer the hon. member to Standing Order No. 211, which reads as follows—

Oh!

Order! It has come to my notice now that that report is marked “Confidential", and the hon. member is therefore prohibited from quoting from it any further.

Sir, my copy is not marked “Confidential”, but I submit to your ruling. The report has been tabled and is available to everyone. *

Order! Where did the hon. member obtain that copy? I again draw the hon. member’s attention to the Standing Order. He must obey the Standing Order.

I submit to your ruling, Sir. I should now like to refer to the question of the accommodation which is to be provided for the Bantu when he tours this country, and the question of co-ordination between the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the tourist bureaux in this regard. I have already told the hon. the Minister that I would be grateful if he would give us a statement of policy in connection with non-White tourists. I am referring to Bantu tourists in this country or wherever. I would suggest that the time has arrived for us to create more facilities for them here in the Republic of South Africa and in their own areas. We can do this by means of caravan parks, camping grounds, etc. I think it is essential that we create these facilities for them.

On one of the occasions when I was overseas, I could obtain no accommodation whatsoever in Amsterdam. We found there that a register is kept of private homes where one can board. The register is circulated among the porters of the hotels. If one cannot obtain accommodation, the porter of the hotel will tell one at what private home one can inquire after accommodation. I would suggest that this is an excellent idea, especially since we are faced with a shortage of hotel accommodation here. In certain cases it is not only inadequate, but also too expensive. I would therefore suggest that it would be an excellent idea if we could make use of that kind of method. It is done in many foreign countries.

Last year we urged that a technical course be introduced for people who want to be trained in tourism. I have here a letter from the Department of Tourism in this regard which indicates that a diploma course in tourism has been introduced at the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education. I should just like to express our joy at this course which has eventually been introduced and at the fact that students will be afforded the opportunity of qualifying themselves for the tourist industry. Furthermore, a comprehensive prospectus dealing with the whole matter is attached here. In my opinion this is one of the best things we can do in order to promote tourism.

Before concluding, I want to express our thanks to the hon. the Minister for having invited us to an exhibition of films held in the Colosseum, where we saw six films. I should very much tike to know from the Minister whether he regards all those films as suitable for the promotion of tourism.

No. They cover all the Departments of Sport. Tourism and Indian Affairs.

Oh, but the Department of Tourism extended the invitation.

No, they merely sent it on my behalf.

That puts a different complexion on the matter, because as far as I am concerned, some of those films have no value for tourism as such.

They were not intended for that.

Then I shall leave that point.

There is another item I want to discuss. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to international airports and tourists who come here and do not necessarily want to disembark at Jan Smuts and then continue from there. We find that in America, and even in Australia, there is more than one international airport. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would endeavour to have more than one international airport here in South Africa as well, so that both Cape Town and Durban might become international airports in the true sense of the word.

Order! This is not a matter which the hon. member may advocate here. It falls under the Vote of the Minister of Transport.

Jan, the reply is “No”. Therefore you need ask no further.

Sir, this is what the hon. the Minister of Transport is like. I have not even put a question to him, and he has already given the reply. What I mean is that it would be in the interests of tourism as such. I made the statement that a tourist did not always want to disembark at a central international airport and continue his journey from there. It was for that reason that I asked the hon. the Minister to do something in that regard. I do not want to know from the hon. the Minister of Transport whether the reply is “Yes” or “No”. I should like to know from the Minister concerned, with whom I am dealing at this moment, whether he would endeavour to bring this about.

I want to conclude by saying that we were sad to see that the amount appropriated had again been reduced by R100 000 and that there was a reduction of R200 000 in respect of loan capital for the hotel trade. Other members on this side of the House will speak about the hotel trade. I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that, if he cannot do better than this, he should tell us, so that we can do something about the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who is shadow minister of the party opposite, must definitely make use of the opportunity to learn the rules for the future, because otherwise he is certainly going to land himself in trouble a few times. When the hon. member, before he sat down, told the hon. the Minister that he would have to do better, I wondered to whom this was most applicable. Last year the hon. member said just about the same thing he said this afternoon. He then also complained about too little money and about the reduction by comparison with the previous year. He also said then, as he said this afternoon, that we were falling behind. I say that we are progressing. I do not know whether the hon. member has, for example, the report of the South African Tourist Corporation. If we look at pages 12 and 13 of the report, I think that there is enough reason to believe that there is progress. The hon. member complained the whole afternoon that we are not drawing sufficient foreign tourists to South Africa. We have experienced the greatest increase ever. In 1969 there were 328 000 tourists, but the year 1970 will indicate that this has increased to 398 000. This indicates a bigger growth than we have ever had previously. I do not know where the hon. member gets his pessimism from. He also said that the number of people coming from overseas is far too small in comparison with the number of people going overseas. That may be, but time and again the hon. member spoke of South Africa’s image. The hon. member wants them to come to South Africa so that they can get to know South Africa’s image. I just want to tell the hon. member that in my time in politics, since I became interested in it, I have learnt that a country’s image is created in various ways. I also learned that South Africa's image abroad is partly created by the Press. The image is also created by what people say. This also applies to what is frequently said in this House. I wonder whether the hon. member can tell me with a clear conscience that things have not already been said here that have spoilt our image abroad. The hon. member told of a person who thought that houses here were so shabby, but when he arrived here he saw how wonderful it is. We are not the ones who have created that image abroad. We do out utmost to draw people to South Africa so that they may see for themselves what is actually going on here.

The hon. member also repeatedly referred again to the fact that research must be done. Last year he also asked for a study group. Hon. members opposite are very fond of study groups that must he representative of all the parties. That is an old story; we cannot actually pay much attention to that any more.

I should just like to mention another matter. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House must not lose sight of the fact that what is attractive to the tourist, particularly the tourists from abroad, differs from country to country. Sometimes it is also restricted. I cannot dwell on that for too long. There is too little time. In the first place it is natural scenery that draws people to a country from other areas. We have no control over that. That is creation. We can bring about improvements here and there. We can find ways to make this accessible. We can take care of travel and accommodation facilities. There are other things that draw the tourist, for example man-made structures. We believe that many tourists that will come here will be interested in seeing the Verwoerd Dam. There are also other structures. I leave the matter at that,

As I have said, there are limitations in every country. We cannot get past that. We surely cannot go and vote large sums of money to erect facilities that would prove lovely and interesting for those people. We shall have to be satisfied with this aspect of our national economy adapting to circumstances that are individual to our country. If we want to ignore that, I fear that we could perhaps wrench things out of context.

Last year the hon. member complained a great deal about hotel accommodation. Incidentally, he referred to it again. He also promised that other members would speak about that. Let them come. Let us have a brief look at what the Department of Tourism’s report has to say about accommodation on page 5. At the end of the period, covered by this report, there were 914 graded hotels. Included were four five-star hotels. At the present moment there are already six. The day before yesterday I had the privilege, in the company of a group from this side of the House, of paying a visit to one of these five-star hotels. If the hon. member does not want to believe what I say, I will go and book accommodation for him there. We can go there together and the hon. member can see what it looks like. It is an establishment that has accommodation for no less than 294 persons. That is only one of those hotels. There is a great deal of space in the hotel, and it offers the best facilities in the world. It depends, of course, on whether the person who goes there can pay. But we do not only have those fivestar hotels. At that stage there were seven four-star hotels. I believe that in the meantime this has increased quite a bit. There were also 52 three-star hotels. So I could go on. But there is something which, as far as I am concerned, is of the utmost importance. The hon. member’s speech is full of recriminations. On that same page, in paragraph 5.4, I read the following—

In paragraph 5.5 the following appears—

1. (a) President Hotel. Johannesburg.

   The State and the City Council of Johannesburg jointly furnished a guarantee in respect of 60 per cent of the cost of erecting the hotel. This guarantee covers the payment of the loan capital and the payment of interest on the loan.

2. (b) Carlton Hotel. Johannesburg.

   The State and the City Council of Johannesburg jointly furnished a guarantee on a basis similar to that mentioned in (a) above.

3. (c) Hotel at Jan Smuts Airport.

   In this case the State guaranteed repayment of the loan capital and interest payments.

Thus we can deal with one aspect after another and we shall prove to the hon. member that the dirges he sings every year, and incidentally the same dirges without variation, are really unnecessary. Last year we also pointed out that it should be remembered that South Africa cannot keep pace with a tourist explosion. We are improving. This department is a young one. The figures speak for themselves. Just look at what SATOUR holds out for us there. We are going from strength to strength, and this, as far as I am concerned, is a healthy state of affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will go along with the hon. member who has just sat down in that I believe it is in the area of the development of hotels that most progress has been made by the Department of Tourism. However, I believe there is a very considerable distance still to go until we have hotels of the standard and quantity necessary to cope with the tourist trade we should be attracting to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the report of the Department of Tourism for the three years April, 1967, to March, 1970. I have studied this report very carefully, and it leaves me wondering what purpose this Department, as presently constituted, and as at present led by the present Minister of Tourism, is actually serving. I cannot go through this report in detail, but I do suggest that any fair-minded impartial person on reading this report, must ask himself the question: What is this department of State which is charged with the planning and co-ordinating, the promoting and propagating of tourism from abroad and within the country, actually doing about it? What planning has been done? I find the word “planning” used only once in this report. And then it is used in an adjectival sense to describe a department in the head office of the Department of Tourism, whereas it should have been used as a verb to describe activity. What has happened as far as co-ordination is concerned? In the last four years, that is since the date on which this report starts, there have been four conferences at provincial level of representatives of the regional committees and one national conference of the regional committees. These conferences were held two years ago. There has been no coordination or conferences of the bodies whose livelihood it is to promote tourism. There have been no conferences including such bodies as the South African Association of Travel Agents, the South African Tour and Safari Association, the Hotel Association, local publicity associations, hoteliers, the Chambers of Commerce, Sakekamers and so forth. With all due deference to the regional committees who, I know, do a good local job in their areas, it is these associations that I have mentioned that make the tourist industry tick.

As far as promoting and propagating the tourist industry is concerned, the department has done something on a very small scale, but I do suggest, in any case, that promotion should be left, as far as promotion abroad is concerned, to SATOUR which does a jolly good job of promoting and, as far as the promotion within the country is concerned, it should be left to the local publicity associations who also do a jolly good job of local promotion. Then. Sir, I find the list of projects which have received attention, in chapter 6 of this report, very distressing. I think I have time to go through all of them, because it is not a very long list. First of all there is research. It has been decided not to proceed with research Then there is a course in tourism which is being offered at the colleges for Advanced Technical Education in Johannesburg and Pretoria. I find that no students are enrolled at the Johannesburg College this year, and that the number of students enrolled at Pretoria decreased from five in the first year to two in the second.

Then we come to brochures supplied to scholars. We all know that schoolchildren are only too keen to get hold of brochures, although they are of course not motivated by any reasons connected with tourism. Nevertheless the department has obligingly supplied sets of brochures to school libraries.

Then we have an anti-litter campaign where the department has consulted with the provincial authorities and has suggested to them that the provincial authorities should suggest to the local authorities that they should do something about this. The last project that has been completed in this three-year period deals with oil pollution. We find that the department has taken the matter up with various other State departments. Mr. Chairman, that is the complete list of projects completed.

What distresses me even more is the list of projects that are at present receiving attention. There are three of them. The first deals with information signs. The department is arranging for the various towns which have information bureaux to have signs erected at various places so that people can find their way to these bureaux.

The second project has to do with the reception of visitors from abroad. The department is busy setting up voluntary reception committees so that visitors from abroad can receive a good welcome. However, the piece de resistance of the projects at present receiving attention is the clothing of golf caddies. The question of the clothing of golf caddies has been referred to the branch offices of the department, with the request that they try to bring about some improvement. That is a summary of the projects completed or being completed by this department. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to use as an excuse for this lack of activity the fact that he has been waiting for the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. This report, as I have said, covers a four-year period, and during those four years the tourist industry has been left up in the air. It is needing, and needing very urgently …

A new Minister.

Yes, it does not only need a new Minister. It is needing a clear lead from the Government as to what the Government’s policy and intentions are in regard to tourism, I hope that this “wearing” part of the Cabinet is not wailing for the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council to make his decisions for him. It is very important that we should know what is going to be done about these recommendations, and what the policy of the department is in regard to the various aspects covered by those recommendations. We are not allowed to discuss the details of those recommendations, but I think it is in order to say that it is vital to the industry that it should have a statement of policy and a statement of intention.

Order! I want to say, before I call on the next hon. member to address the Committee, that I ruled just now, when the hon. member for East London City was discussing a certain report, that in terms of Standing Order No, 211 that report should not be quoted because it had come to my notice that it was confidential. I have now been informed that only certain copies were marked “Confidential” although it was the intention that all the copies should be marked “Confidential”. I therefore withdraw my ruling, but request hon. members not to quote from this report. I can only make an appeal to them not to use it.

The hon. member for Constantia has just said many sarcastic things about the Department of Tourism. I want to leave the matter at that. I simply want to refer to the fact that he does not agree with the hon. member for East London City as far as the question of accommodation is concerned. He said he appreciated the problem of accommodation, while the hon. member for East London City was unaware that the problem of accommodation existed. In this regard the hon. member for Constantia agreed with the hon. member for De Aar. He referred to the drive of the “regional committees which makes tourism tick". I do not quite agree with him on that score in that one so often finds with these regional committees that one person or other holds a dominant position there; he dominates the committee and sways the financial aspects of tourism in a direction which benefits his own pocket. I think the hon. the Minister would be well advised to investigate this matter because I have seen time and again that, if such a regional committee is not fair and objective both in regard to its actions and the decisions it takes, one finds the situation where it is dominated by one person who sways the committee in a direction which would serve his own interests and those of organizations in which he has an interest, I want to leave the hon. member at that.

I just want to refer to the situation in regard to accommodation for tourists in our country. I think hon. members will appreciate that we would not be able to provide comfortable accommodation to very large groups of tourists if we were to bring them to South Africa; and comfortable accommodation is essential. These people are strangers in this country and we would like them to have a favourable impression when they leave. And if one cannot provide them with comfortable accommodation—something with which the hon. member for Constantia agrees—they might get an unfavourable impression which may harm the image of South Africa. For that reason I think it is correct that the department should keep to a low growth rate, a growth rate to which it can allow the hotel industry to adjust itself and that the department allows tourism to keep pace with expansions in the hotel industry. The hon. member for East London City is shaking his head, but I wonder whether he has ever arrived at a place where there is no accommodation available. I visited a city here in South Africa the day before yesterday where the people simply told me that they would be unable to accommodate 700 tourists in their hotels all at the same time. The hon. member may accept my word for it when I say that I have been attending various international rugby matches in South Africa since I was a young boy of ten years, and my experience in the major centres where important international matches are played has always been that hotels and boarding houses were simply unable to accommodate the people. This has happened time and again. The hon. member for East London City now wants us to bring large groups of tourists to this country, but will we be able to accommodate and transport them? I know of one occasion where even the South African Airways was unable to transport both the passengers on internal flights and groups of tourists and had to call on the local transport authorities for assistance.

Sir, my actual purpose in rising was to speak about the inter-independence of countries in Southern Africa in regard to the question of tourism, and I would like to make a suggestion in this regard: As you know, there is a certain measure of inter-dependence in the field of inter-state relations. If we were able to bring about a greater measure of inter-dependence among the various states, for example the Republic of South Africa, Angola, South-West Africa, Rhodesia, Madagascar, Mozambique, as far as tourism is concerned, we would have a better insight into what the future holds and be better able to promote tourism. As a matter of fact, this idea is the same as the one voiced here by the hon. member for East London City, but what I would like to see is that we make more use of tourists to convey to the outside world the image of South Africa we would like to present. Recently it was announced that the road from Cape Town to Angola, save for a distance of 40 miles, has been tarred and that the remaining 40 miles will probably be tarred in the near future. Then of course there is also the road leading from Cape Town all along the coast up to Mozambique and further north, which can be used by tourists in respect of Malawi and Rhodesia.

The problem, of course, is crossing of the continent of Southern Africa, say, from Rhodesia to Angola and from there to South-West Africa. The idea has become more and more firmly established that we should direct tourism to those countries. The hon. member for De Aar has referred to the desire of tourists to come into contact with the scenic attractions. Sir, in this regard I want to refer to the increase in tourism in South-West Africa. In 1953 there were 4 180 tourists, in 1963 37 478 and in 1969 156 746. Tourists like to visit for example the Etosha Game Reserve and the Namib Desert where one really feels one can commune with nature and one’s Creator. These are the kind of places tourists really want to go to. If we were to have such contact between the various countries a much wider field would be opened up for tourists in Southern Africa. It would mean that the tourist concerned would be offered much more for his money. He could even undertake a tour from Cape Town to Salisbury and from there alone the Caprivi Strip to Angola and South-West Africa and finally return to Cape Town. In this way the tourist will be able to get a good idea of Southern Africa and he will be able to make contact with all the people in those areas. This contact is naturally very important. When one has contact with people, is able to speak to them, communicate and relax with them at a barbecue, one finds that we as people have much in common and in this way a pleasant relationship is created which may be of great benefit to us in other spheres. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes before the adjournment of the House, I felt I would like to reply to some of the main points that have been raised.

I must say that the hon. member for East London City treated me much more nicely this year than he did last year. Last year he said I was a useless and inept Minister, This year he is just sorry for me. The hon. member referred to the amount of money granted for this Vote and said that it was a reduction from last year. He thought that this was something terrible. We have always had the cry from hon. members on that side of the House that departments should be run economically and soundly. I was faced with the situation that there were certain moneys that I did not think were worthwhile using. There was not enough demand for the R800 000 on the Loan Account for hotels. The amount I considered to be sufficient was R600 000. I thought the hon. member would compliment me and say how pleased he was that I was following the policy of the United Party. The United Party, however, grumble at Ministers on the one hand because they spend too much and on the other hand they grumble at the Ministers because there are reductions in their Votes. There is no logic in their arguments.

The hon. member also talked of how we are falling down on tourism in South Africa. One would then have thought that the total of 328 000 tourists last year had dropped considerably. Instead, as the hon. member for De Aar said, we have never had a bigger increase in the intake of tourists in one year in the whole history of South Africa.

Only 9 per cent.

18,7 per cent. The hon. member is out of date, 9 per cent was the figure for 1969. The increase in tourism from 1968 to 1969 was 9 per cent. The increase during 1969 to 1970 is 18,7 per cent. In numbers it comes to about 70 000 additional visitors.

They come from Rhodesia.

No, the hon. member is wrong. We do not get a big percentage increase from our neighbouring territories any more. We have obtained the maximum number and I have had to look overseas for more tourists. I went to all the tourist offices in Europe and in England, the whole idea being to impress on them the idea that South Africa should get more tourists from there. I can tell the hon. member that he will be surprised at the additional number of tourists we have had from America, Britain and Germany.

Thank the Minister of Transport.

No, but the hon. member said the increase came from Rhodesia. The hon. member must not switch now. When he is caught he should admit that he has been caught out. The increase percentage from the adjoining territories was very small, I think it was about 2½ per cent or 3 per cent. There was a much bigger increase from Europe. That is what I expected and what I said last year. We will go ahead on our basis of handling tourists. I do not foresee 60 000 or 70 000 a year as the maximum. All that I regard as limiting me is the amount of amenities and facilities available. I do not want to bring 200 000 additional tourists to this country and then find that 130 000 of those cannot get accommodation and go back disgruntled. That is the worst means of publicity.

If you spread them, there will be sufficient accommodation.

We spread these 70 000 tourists—how does the hon. member think we manage to fit them into the available accommodation? We did so by spreading them over the non-season months. We could not take them all in one month, or in the summer months. That is how we plan. The hon. member says there is no planning, research or anything of that sort.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to this report. I do not want to argue with him about the size of the report and his dissatisfaction about it; but let him just look at the research that was done. He said that we were doing no research—he is quite wrong. Let him read the last paragraph

The costs of those comprehensive surveys were out of the question. I would not go on with them. We maintain our surveys, as we have always done, but not in a comprehensive form.

Now I come to the matter of hotels. I saw the hon. member for Durban Point here a little while ago. He used to be the first speaker on the Tourism Vote, but he has disappeared. Do you know why, Sir? Because I can quote him from Hansard as saying, when the Hotel Bill was introduced that it is going to be the biggest failure that this Government has ever brought in. You are going to close down 70 per cent of the hotels in this country, he said. The hon. member for Constantia and all the other hon. members know about the increase in hotel accommodation. The registration of hotels has increased apace.

Vause is ill; he will speak again.

Will he? Very well, but then he should at least reply. He said so in this House himself.

† The point is I have all the figures. I have just quoted rough figures now, but I have the figures relating to all the hotels in South Africa. Ninety per cent of them have been registered with the Hotel Board, whereas the hon. member said we would close down 70 per cent of the hotels by not registering them. I think 80 per cent of those which were registered are one and two star hotels. I think 85 per cent of the beds available are in one and two star hotels. The hon. member knows that we have to have five star hotels. I do not deny that they are very expensive—but if you want to accommodate, as we want to do, the rich people who tour, you cannot send them to a one star hotel. They want to be accommodated in a five star hotel. Money is no object to them. Therefore, you have to supply the five star hotels which will give them the proper accommodation and service that they are prepared to pay for. That is all it is. If the position were so bad and so hopeless, how could we in one year increase the number of tourists by 70 000?

But they want to come here; it is not because of you.

I did not say so. The hon. member said they would not come. They do not come to see me, I can assure him; I know that. But then he said that they would not come. He compared our unfortunate position in South Africa with the growing position in Kenya and elsewhere. Of course it is not so.