Mr. Speaker, I move—

To add the following subsection at the end of clause 13:

1. (6) For the purposes of this section “magistrate” includes an additional magistrate.

Agreed to.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move-

In terms of Standing Order No. 68 I intimate that the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill will be extended to three hours, excluding the reply of the Minister in charge.

The United Party, Sir, will support the Third Reading of this Bill. Our Leader during the Second Reading of this Bill, made it dear what the attitude of this party was to the Bill. He indicated that we would endeavour to improve it during the Committee Stage by moving certain amendments. Well, this we did and certain of them were accepted. We consider that the Bill in its present form is an improvement on the Bill which was placed before the House originally.

We consider that there is a serious situation developing in South Africa in so far as drug abuse is concerned and, consequently, we deem it essential that the State ought to have power to deal with it. We can consider this Bill in the light of three aspects: Firstly, the illegal drug traffic and usage; secondly, the legal and legitimate use and consumption of drugs; and, thirdly, the rehabilitation of addicts.

As regards the illegal use of drugs, we have two distinct problems. There is the question of imported drugs—ranging from heroin to hallucinogenic drugs like LSD; then there is the local aspect where we have primarily a very great problem, a problem to which our leader has already referred, i.e. the question of dagga or marijuana. In this connection I want to say that we welcome the suggestion of the Grobler Committee that a committee be appointed to investigate the question of dagga and we hope the Minister will not drag his feet over this recommendation. We know that the previous committee reported in 1952, almost 20 years ago, and that there have been many developments in the field of drug addiction and abuse since then. To those who advocate that dagga be legalized. I should like to say that the World Youth Assembly had something positive and specific to say during the 25th anniversary of the United Nations in July last year. That organization rejected a motion for the legalization of dagga and decided—

There are people who adopt a more permissive attitude towards dagga. For instance, they claim that it is not a hard drug and reference is made to the report of the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence of November, 1968. In the light of the many developments which have been taking place in the field of dagga abuse one could almost claim that this report is partly out of date. However, what one cannot ignore is that that report admitted that there was a grave and urgent need for further expert study. This is the position in the United Kingdom with a sophisticated society without the problem which we have here in that they are importers and not producers of dagga, I submit with a large degree of certainty that we in South Africa are probably the biggest potential producers of dagga in the world, a fact which requires that we give this matter our serious consideration.

But we are not alone in our concern. In the United States there are people who are also desperately concerned and here I should like publicly to pay tribute to a man who last year was listening to the debates in this very Chamber, Dr. Monroe Trout, a distinguished American who has conducted research and made a special study of the pharmacological, legal and spiritual aspects. He is very concerned about dagga, and so I believe is the majority of those who have taken a serious interest in dagga in America. All of them seem to think that this question has not been adequately studied, that there are too many questions still to be answered. As far as drugs as a whole and dagga in particular are concerned, we in South Africa have adopted a very sensible approach. In 1954 a potentially harmful drug schedule was promulgated and certain drugs were listed. The experts who decided that those drugs be included in the schedule did so on the premise that a drug should remain guilty until it is proved innocent. I think this was a wise step we took in 1954 because it is very true today, particularly so of dagga. The very fact that we have this enormous list of complicated organic chemicals has made it administratively difficult for the professions handling it. Furthermore, it has been extremely frustrating to them. However, I still believe that this is the correct approach and that dagga should remain guilty until the world has proved its innocence. In the present circumstances therefore we should regard it as a “guilty” drug.

This Bill places a heavy burden on this hon. Minister, because the Bill takes very far-reaching powers. But I venture to say that the powers in this Bill will not solve altogether the drug abuse problem in South Africa. You see, Sir, the Grobler Committee report highlighted the need to mobilize the forces of South Africa and it mentioned particularly certain State departments like the Departments of Social Welfare, of Health, Justice, Police, Customs, Foreign Affairs and National Education. In addition, it suggested that various statutory bodies should play their part in the struggle, and also voluntary organizations, and finally individuals themselves. The question-mark that I find hanging over this Bill is: How well equipped are these State departments to deal with this disturbing situation? Let us take the Police. In the report of the Grobler Committee, Recommendation 672 urged that the State launch an active campaign to combat the illicit supply of drugs and the suggestion was that the S.A. Police, the Railways Police and the Customs officials should coordinate a plan to deal with this problem. But all these bodies enter the campaign very badly handicapped. Take the Police, for example, and I here refer to the White establishment only, and to figures supplied in February of this year. How can we go into this campaign with confidence when we know that there are 773 White warrant officers, 574 sergeants and over 230 constables short, and that our Police establishment in White personnel is 10 per cent below strength? It is a cause for concern.

We know that this Bill will place a greater burden on the Police, and I want to say, to their eternal credit, that despite the manpower shortage they have acted and they have produced results, I think notable results. You sec, Sir, the Police were only given power by legislation in 1969 whereby the illegal possession of potentially harmful drugs became a punishable offence. The Police rapidly used that power, with the result that in the same year, 1969, according to the Grobler report, they managed to obtain 186 convictions in Johannesburg alone, and they were able to seize ½ million tablets. One is tempted to ask what results the Police would have achieved in this fight if they were up to full strength.

Then the committee also made certain positive recommendations. The suggestion was and I hope the hon. the Minister will use his influence to see that this is implemented—that women police should be appointed to deal primarily with the drug menace and also particularly with our youth. Then Chapter VI of the report is headed: “Measures for the Prevention, Combating and Treatment of the Problem”, and it says that measures to prevent entry of drugs at borders, airports and seaports should be taken. They are the narcotic gateways to South Africa, and some of them are very important. The committee said that they had given considerable attention to this particular aspect. They referred to the question of immigrants and tourists. They said that these people themselves could sometimes be importers of some of the more dangerous drugs and that detection in this respect was an extremely difficult task. The committee went on to highlight that there was a need for trained women officers to be stationed at various customs posts in order that women immigrants could be searched to satisfy the authorities that this particular avenue for drugs entering South Africa was being kept under control. The committee also said that customs officers were not specifically trained. They emphasized, too, that no laboratory facilities for analysis at airports and seaports were available. I ask whether this Bill provides for that sort of thing. I believe it provides for the powers of the personnel, but does it provide for a new development in science, a drug-testing kit which can quickly and accurately decide on the identity of the various drugs? I believe that it might be necessary, if such a kit were placed in use at strategic points, to have some legislative powers to justify the use of this kit and to provide for it.

Then, Sir, reference was made to seamen from the East as a source of supply. The Committee said—

The Committee went on to say that in accordance with their terms of reference they visited various ports and (1 quote)-

They said that there were three reasons for this: the lack of staff, inadequate knowledge on the part of the customs officials and the lack of customs check points, Sir, what is the actual position in regard to these preventive measures which are in fact in force at present? I am glad to say that I believe that as a result of my highlighting the question of the shortage of customs staff in the harbour areas, the position has improved. But there are no grounds for complacency, because in March there were 49 vacancies in the four ports, and there were 32 vacancies in the customs staff in Durban alone, Durban which is the first port of call from the East and from whence comes opium, morphine and occasionally heroin.

This customs force must be co-ordinated with the South African Railway Police, and we find that the S.A. Railways Police is 17½ per cent below strength in the areas where they are responsible for security in the harbours. There is a shortage of 96 men on the establishment in the four major ports, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London. Sir, we know that the Department of Health has a very important and significant part to play in the implementation of certain aspects of this Bill. But what do we find, Sir? In Natal, for example, we have four inspectors on the establishment. There are eleven in the Orange Free State, and the total overall percentage of inspectors in Natal represents 7 per cent of the total establishment. Here we have a Province with a major port, a large dagga-growing area, and we have four inspectors. I do not believe that this is the way to implement the provisions of this Bill. We can ask with justification whether the Department of Health is really geared to deal adequately with the situation when out of this total staff of plus-minus 6 200, 1 900 are in temporary capacities and over 550 vacancies exist in the establishment.

Sir, these departments are responsible for both illegal and legal outlets. I realize that it is impossible to assess or to quote figures in so far as illegal outlets are concerned with reference to drugs, but, Sir, let us consider the legal outlets. From a statistical point of view, we can state the number of pharmacies at 2 390, and when I talk of a “pharmacy” I am referring to hospitals, nursing homes, wholesale chemists or retail chemists and druggists, anywhere in fact where a chemist and druggist is in charge. Then, Sir, we have doctors who dispense as a legal right and in the course of their duties; the number is not officially known but it has been estimated at approximately 3 000. But these individuals are professional people under statutory control, so if the law finds them guilty of any contraventions, they have another body to answer to and the penalty can be extremely severe. I believe that by and large there is no real cause for concern there, as long as the requirements of the law are carried out. But the report of the Grobler Committee indicates in paragraph 146 that there are 20 000 outlets for the sale of medicine; that means that almost two-thirds of the outlets for the sale of medicine are operated by people not legally qualified or fully competent to deal with medicine.

Sir, if one takes this further, one finds that in paragraph 176 of the report, according to a provincial analysis of schools, about 10 per cent of the children involved in the problem admitted to taking patent medicines. Sir, my question to the hon. the Minister and to this House is this: Has the time not come to investigate the whole distribution of medicines in the interest of the public? Sir, I have referred to the schools, I think it is fair to ask when dealing with schools: What is the attitude of young people themselves towards drug-taking? I think that one could sum up by saying that their attitude is: “Alcohol and cigarettes are claimed to be dangerous, both can be fatal and both are in free supply; the use of both is actively promoted by advertisements; so what is so wrong with pot and with drugs, if this is the attitude which society as a whole adopts to two of the best known tranquilizers mankind has yet discovered?”

We cannot ignore this aspect. I believe it has a great bearing on the attitude of our youth to the abuse of dangerous drugs against which we are legislating today. May I make it quite clear that I am not suggesting any form of banning, but I believe that the time has come to have a good, long look at the methods adopted for the promotion of both alcohol and tobacco in our country. Other countries have taken steps in this regard. They may say that their results have been disappointing, but at least the consciences of their legislators are clear, because they have seen what harm can be done as a result of these two substances and they have tried to control the use of them at least in respect of their youth. What is significant to me in this Bill is that, for the first time as far as I am aware, alcohol is specifically mentioned in this Bill as a dependence-producing substance. The committee itself indicated that, except for necessary incidental references, alcohol and dagga would not be included in its present inquiry. Despite that remark, in no fewer than six paragraphs reference is specifically made to alcohol. In several instances it is coupled with drug-dependency, because the two do not mix. Alcohol and drugs together form a combination which can have very serious effects. I believe that two of the references should be brought to the notice of this House. I refer to paragraph 207 of the report, which said—

“They” are the field services of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In paragraph 208 the report says with regard to State retreats, that in two years— and they are including the figures from four institutions—there were almost 3 000 cases of alcoholism and drug dependence, but drug dependence only made up 6,3 per cent of the total number of admissions.

There is another aspect which I believe one must consider in its broadest possible sense. The committee also comments on it and quoted a Swedish authority in paragraph 351. We have always regarded Sweden as being a country with a slightly permissive tendency, but here we have a quote from an authority in Sweden—

Mr. Speaker, alcohol C2H5OH is a chemical and it is also a dependence-producing substance.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister and ask him whether his attitude has not undergone some change in this respect now that he has been responsible for passing this Bill through the House. I ask this because in 1969 I asked the hon. the Minister what his attitude was to the unlimited, uncontrolled, high-pressure advertising of alcohol directed at youth. The hon. the Minister’s reply, which appears in Hansard, was—

I know that the hon. the Minister was in this House when the Drugs Control Act was passed. This Act took specific powers to deal with advertising of drugs in general and amendments have been made to strengthen those powers. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is going to be the “other” man in this instance. Is he going to help to try to limit the number of broken hearts caused by an excessive consumption of a dependence-producing substance?

If the hon. the Minister does not do it, who can? Most of the public bodies and societies are prohibited by their own constitutions from doing something in this respect. I should like to quote from the constitution of the South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It reads as follows—

Therefore, I say that in this particular respect, the hon. the Minister has a responsibility to his fellows. I hope he will exercise it with the maximum force at his disposal. It has been aptly said that when we come to the question of drug abuse and the extent of drug abuse, we are only aware of the tip of the iceberg. I believe this to be essentially true. This is mainly because we suffer from a serious lack of statistics. Statistics are not always available in the form in which a breakdown will show a specific indication in regard to drugs and other habit-producing substances. I welcome the suggestion and the recommendation in the Grobler Report that greater attention should be paid to the collection, the analysis and the formulation of statistics, because I believe that until we know the extent of the abuse of these substances, it is really difficult to get down to prevention.

Take the question of the armed forces. Questions have been asked in this House in regard to the extent of the abuse of drugs in the armed forces. I must say that l have found the answer to be contradictory. The Grobler Committee report is contradicted in this particular respect. A specific paragraph of this report deals with drug abuse in the Navy, evidence having been given by a psychiatrist. Yet this information has been contradicted by the hon. the Minister of Defence himself. It would seem that we are not really aware of the extent of drug abuse in the armed forces.

Take the question of the prisons. One hears often that dagga is smuggled into prisons and that many habitual users of dagga are still able to get their supplies. There are devious ways of getting these supplies into the prisons. However, I could find no mention of this particular question in the report of the Grobler Committee. A question was put to the hon. the Minister of Police in regard to this matter. He indicated that it was a slight problem and that dagga was the main drug. I think if we accept that, we are bluffing ourselves. I think that this matter needs much closer examination. I believe the information given by a social worker to the Grobler Committee in Durban, would lead us to believe that this position is not as happy as it may appear on the surface.

Then we have the question of the schools. Figures have been given of the percentage of schoolchildren estimated to be involved in this problem. I say in all seriousness that I believe the position in schools has been gravely underestimated. We do not know the extent of the problem with which we are dealing in our schools. I know that the hon. the Minister of National Education's predecessor indicated some years ago when I raised this matter with him, that he would give every cooperation to use the Department of National Education in fighting drug abuse. While I know that specific recommendations will be made to the Department of National Education, I believe that it is fitting in this House to address an appeal to the parents of the children of South Africa. I say to the parents of South Africa that it is time for them to act. It will take a little time for educational programmes to get off the ground. We can understand that, but parents can act now. I believe that they must take a more cautious approach to the use of drugs and medicines themselves. I do not think they set a very good example themselves on occasions. They must take more interest in their own children. They must watch their habits, their companions; they must know their activities. They must be aware of their whereabouts. If they did there would be fewer addicts and there would be less need for the rehabilitation centres for which this Bill makes provision.

I want now to come to the rehabilitation centres, and refer to claues 18. Clause 18 (1) reads: “The Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament” supply funds for the establishment and maintenance of rehabilitation centres. I can find no details in the Estimates indicating that there is an intended extension of the facilities envisaged in this new Bill. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us, if he is able to do so, what programme of extension he has. A similar Bill in the United States detailed the expenditure under this particular heading. “Rehabilitation Centres”, for the ensuing five years. In the fiscal year 1968-1971 half a billion dollars was expended on drug abuse prevention measures in the United States. This fiscal year an amount of 135 million dollars will be allocated for this purpose. Therefore I think that this House is entitled to get some details at some stage of this session of what the Minister’s plans are in this regard. We should get some details because we cannot fight this problem just with determined words. We must go into it fully equipped if we want to achieve the maximum results in the minimum of time.

Mr. Speaker, I think one can sum up what the hon. member for Berea said by stating that the major portion of his speech dealt with problems and that a much smaller part was devoted to the means for rehabilitation. The hon. member again pointed to the abuse of dagga and he again advocated strong measures. I shall not argue with him about that, because we are agreed in that respect. Then the hon. member said that a particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of this Minister, as in the case of quite a few Government departments. He asked whether the Government departments were properly equipped to carry out their task. At this stage there may perhaps still be shortcomings, but I believe that this Bill places a great responsibility on the Government departments, and that steps will have to be taken so that many of the loopholes can be eliminated. It will be our task to try to ease the work of these bodies by formulating positive suggestions to assist them in their job.

Then the hon. member referred to a question he put to the hon. the Minister in connection with liquor advertisements. The Minister then said that one man surely has the right to advertise his wares, but that another man, again, has an educating task in trying to indicate how those relevant commodities should be used. Then the hon. member said that the big educating task rested on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. We are making a terribly big mistake if we want to place the educating task on the shoulders of one person. I am glad that the hon. member also made an appeal to parents at the end of his speech in connection with their task in this particular connection. I want to add that the hon. the Minister realizes his responsibility. He realizes it, because he showed how big and important he regarded this task to be by the introduction of this particular Bill.

While I am referring to this Bill, I want to make the claim that through the years many measures have been formulated and discussed in this venerable House dealing with the security of our State and the welfare of its inhabitants. Under the pressure of circumstances, and according to the demands of the times, we have placed measures on the Statute Book in respect of our economic stability and security. Moreover, we have placed measures on the Statute Book for our military security. We adopted strong measures against those who wanted to disrupt the peace and order in South Africa and against those who threatened our security by unrest, incitement and violence from without. The Government has never hesitated to act, according to the demands of the times, when the security of South Africa and its people required such action. It made no difference where the Government saw the threat to be. This Bill is one of the most important protection measures that has probably ever been passed in South Africa. It relates to the social sphere, and thus differs a great deal from the other protection measures we have adopted in this House. I am not, however, detracting in the slightest from the importance of that. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this measure is actually the cornerstone of our protective legislation. I say this for one good reason. If we do not take this kind of action against smugglers and the drug takers, any subsequent security measure would actually be of no use. If we now simply allow the youth to go their own way and simply continue in their abuse of drugs, and if we also allow others, who would like to spend their lives in such a haze of intoxication, to do so, those people will have no interest in any other protective measure that is adopted. They will not have the will-power to make themselves viable against any corruption or against any other threat. If we do not stop it here, the body and the spirit will, in any case, be so soft and spongy that any enemy and any wind of change will find such people an easy prey.

I want to say, moreover, that this Bill arms us against a form of terrorism, a terrorism that is more dangerous than the armed terrorism we are familiar with on our country’s borders. However, the armed terrorism that the Police and the Defence Force must combat, also has the entire South African population as its combaters. Militarists regard it as necessary for the population in a particular area to support the Defence Force or the Police; otherwise they would not have much success with their combating measures. That enemy across the border is easily recognizable and identifiable. But in drug pedlars and dealers we are dealing with a very dangerous terrorist, because so many members of the population associate themselves with these people. There are so many who are prepared to buy their drugs. There are so many who specifically become the smugglers’ allies. There is consequently a larger portion of the population strengthening this terrorist’s hand. Those trafficking in drugs are not so easily identifiable. Neither are the drug takers. It is actually underground terrorism that cannot be measured by the number of dead or wounded one would pick up in its wake or by the number of burnt-down buildings or blown-up structures. It is therefore a difficult job identifying this enemy, recovering the prey it leaves in its wake and eventually giving them the correct treatment.

That is why we need an extraordinary measure, such as this legislation also is in certain respects. True to its nature, this Government again, where action was necessary for the protection of South Africa and its people, prepared this measure in the full realization of its responsibility, and we have already progressed with it to the Third Reading stage that we are now dealing with. We could have expected opposition, because there are certain extraordinary measures to be encountered in this legislation. We had opposition from the hon. member for Houghton and we learned of her standpoint. Outside this House a body such as NUSAS, for example, raised its voice and even said that this legislation is mediaeval in content and application. As I have said, we could have expected opposition. I am now referring in particular to NUSAS. If they do not want arms suppliers to furnish us with weapons, it is surely clear that they want to leave us defenceless if there were to be a physical confrontation with the enemy. Then one could expect them again to want to leave us defenceless here against the unscrupulous elements that simply want this social evil to run its course. The main objection, from the hon. member for Houghton as well, is that this legislation is so different from that in the rest of the Western world. We are now deviating from certain norms, standards and principles that have already been accepted there in the combating of this evil. Sir, let us tell the hon. member for Houghton and other like-minded individuals; South Africa is, after all, different, and our norms and methods of approach are surely different as well. If we need legislation for the truly profitable combating of a problem such as this, we are surely not ashamed to also take steps that appear different from those of other people. Specifically the difference in the action we are taking will, I believe, ensure our success in the combating of this evil.

In this Bill a clear distinction is being made between the persons involved in this drug evil. The first group of persons are the pedlars, those unscrupulous exploiters of the personality defects or the educational and social shortcomings in the formation of a balanced human being. They are the blackmailers, those who enrich themselves. The second group comprises the unfortunate victims that begin to use the drugs, then abuse them and eventually cannot do without them at all. In the penal clauses various provisions are being made for these two groups of people. As far as the latter group is concerned, provision is also made for rehabilitation and after-care.

I believe that if we analyze the Bill in this way, it also indicates to us what our methods of approach and obligations are. By “us” I mean those people who welcome and support this Bill. By “us” I mean those who, as a result of the merciful dispensation from Above, are still on the right track, for whom certain values and norms are still valid. I see our method of approach as follows: Firstly we must evidence a preconceived loathing and abhorrence for those dealing in the drugs. There can be no other feeling towards those who are prepared eventually to destroy everything that is fine in a person and in a people. One could probably speak about that for a very long time; but if one just thinks of the fact that the social consequences of drug abuse embrace rejection of the community, its morals, its morale and even its laws, we cannot be blamed for specifically having a pre-conceived loathing for the actions of these people. We only need to read chapter 3 of the Grobler report to see what the consequences are of the abuse of these drugs which are dealt in so freely by certain people.

Secondly, we are asked to have an understanding sympathy for the people using the drugs, the drug takers and those people who eventually become completely dependent upon them. There are some people whom we would even like to address reproachfully, and it is perhaps also necessary that we address some people reproachfully —those who allow themselves to fall victim to a spirit of permissiveness, those who no longer want to use parental authority, the authority of the community and the authority of the Government, as guidelines for their guidance and control. Towards them we may harbour feelings of reproach, but there are also the unfortunates who have become slaves to drugs in other ways, perhaps even through a doctor who meant well. It is necessary for us to display an understanding sympathy towards them, because the solution to their problem lies in rehabilitation, and if we display the necessary sympathy we shall also be able to give the necessary attention to their rehabilitation. When one sees a lot of them one feels as if one could turn the punitive hand of the law against them, but it is our task to ensure that they are once more integrated into the community.

But there is a further requirement which this Bill imposes upon us, and that is the willingness to serve. This is necessary if we review our task of rehabilitation and education. I am not going to elaborate on that, but I just want to say that the general public has a big contribution to make here through financial and physical aid to welfare organizations engaged in the rehabilitation and after-care of these unfortunate people. The Bill requires, moreover, that we be imbued with an active desire to effect prevention. We need not go further than the Grobler report in search of combating and preventive measures. Certain words run through that report like a golden thread, and these are the words “the home”, and the words “sound family life”. I shall just quote the following short sentence from it (translation)—

In this sound family structure there are two important pillars, loving interest in what the child and the youth is doing, and then discipline in the family structure. On a previous occasion I have spoken about our biggest asset, a sound family life. I pleaded for the family to be seen as a labour community, an educational community, a community of authority and a community whose members share a common fate, and I want to repeat this. It is indeed a community whose members share a common fate, because I am convinced that the position of the family will determine whether we stand or whether we fall. Then there is also this quotation front the Grobler report (translation)—

The other remedy lies in the church and religion. The church is a well-organized institution for spreading information and for ensuring the organization of the free time of its members, but in addition the church is also equipped with a Message which dependants, in particular, need. I believe in combating through home, church and school, institutions that must carry out their task on an integrated basis. Then we would see before our eyes how this big problem does not increase in magnitude, but rather how it decreases.

Then there is a final thought. We must learn to realize that we cannot solve our problems by pushing the contents of a medicine bottle and pill-box down our throats. Problems are not solved in that way. We cannot become pill-swallowers when we are confronted by an insurmountable situation. We cannot simply go along and swallow pills whenever a situation of tension of frustration crops up, or for every pain or imagined pain. I think that we have a much more positive message to convey, and I quote the following from the Kerkbode of 21st April of this year (translation)—

I believe that we have the remedies in our hands. The Bill calls upon us to use them. I believe that if we see our task correctly and handle it properly, the future will be ensured and we shall see the fruits of our labours.

The hon. member for Germiston has dealt with various aspects of this Bill and I agree with most of what he said, because in principle we on this side of the House support all means of combating this social disease and social evil. However, I do not go quite as far as he does in aligning this type of problem with terrorism. I think that we have to view this whole problem in its right perspective. We on this side have agreed that very strict punitive measures are necessary to act as a deterrent particularly to dealers and pedlars.

Sir, there are certain aspects of this Bill which I believe should be put across to the public by the Press. When one looks at various comments and reports which have appeared in the Press, it is obvious that there is a large body of opinion outside this House which is completely misinformed as regards the contents of this Bill. I refer particularly to some of the comments which have appeared in the Press concerning the provisions of this legislation. When one looks at some of the comments which have been made by authoritative persons, it is obvious that they have been misinformed as to the contents of this Bill. Amongst the many articles which have appeared in the Press with regard to this Bill, and which are completely incorrect, there was an article over the weekend which indicated that a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Natal was most concerned because this Bill, according to him, did not deal at all with the question of alcoholic liquor. He had this to say—

One of the most important aspects of this Bill is the fact that most of the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Retreat Centres Act of 1963, which is being repealed in this legislation, are being re-enacted in this Bill. In other words, the question of alcoholism does not fade into insignificance with the passing of this Bill. It still remains a serious social problem in South Africa. Although the treatment in the rehabilitation centres may differ, alcoholics and persons dependent upon dangerous drugs are to be dealt with on a similar basis. Then, Sir, there was the leading article which appeared in the Daily News of Thursday, the 6th May, which condemns this Bill and the minimum sentences provided for. Then the article goes on to say—

In this connection, Sir, I would point out that this provision of the Bill was taken out of the Work Colonies Act of 1949, which was re-enacted in 1963. This provision has been on the Statute Book in fact for 22 years. Sir, I could go on quoting instances where unfortunately a wrong impression has been created in the minds of the public as a result of reports which have appeared in various organs of the Press. Some people are under the impression that if they are dealing with persons who indicate that they have taken drugs or that they have smoked dagga, they are compelled by law to report the matter to the Police immediately and thus hinder the rehabilitation of the person concerned. Similarly, organizations which have been asked to comment seem to think that they would fall within the ambit of the punitive provisions of this Bill in the course of the fulfilment of their work and some in the medical profession even were concerned that the privacy between the patient and his doctor was being threatened in that he would be compelled to report patients to the Police. This is an aspect which the hon. the Minister ought to tackle at an early stage in order to ensure that the public outside have confidence in the legislation of this House. In this measure we are endeavouring to combat a most serious social problem in South Africa, indeed throughout the world. It is therefore essential that the hon. the Minister, particularly in his capacity as Minister of Information, should put across to the public exactly what this legislation entails in order to win their confidence in this legislation on the basis of the facts.

The various aspects of this Bill were fully discussed during the Committee Stage and the Minister did accept certain amendments. There were others which we hoped would be accepted but were not. This measure is to act as a deterrent upon particularly the pedlar or the trafficker, the pusher of dangerous drugs. But we cannot view this legislation on its own; we must view its effectiveness also in the light of how it is going to be administered and how field work is going to be conducted. It is sincerely hoped that the punitive provisions of this Bill will have an effect on the pedlar of drugs in that he would have to realize the severity of the punishment and the danger of his actions.

However, on the basis that legislation alone is not going to solve the problem, it is interesting to note the comments which have been made by authorities in other parts of the world about the way in which they are combating this problem. An interesting article appeared in the publication Social Work of October, 1970. It deals with clinical research and treatment of drug dependants with specific reference to social work. Here it becomes evident that a great deal of field work, education and training are required by those social welfare officers who are going to be responsible for putting this legislation into effect. In almost every case it would be necessary for a magistrate to be guided by the report of a social welfare officer. Obviously, this is specialized work, work requiring special training in that the symptoms of drug taking have to be recognized. It has been shown that drug taking is a symptom of something else rather than a phenomenon by itself. But we have yet to discover of what it is a symptom. Consequently the field work of the social welfare officer of the Department of Social Welfare is going to play a vital role in the preventive field and, indeed, in the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. Obviously the work of such a social worker would entail family counsellings. Parents are concerned about certain reports appearing in the Press concerning their duty in the event of their discovering that their son or daughter is taking drugs or is misbehaving himself or herself in some manner. Here the investigation of the causative factors involved is of vital importance. This means that the staff of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will have to be further supplemented in order to combat this problem effectively.

Then there is the shortage of staff that exists amongst ordinary registered welfare organizations that are endeavouring to combat this evil and this problem. I think it is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not have an opportunity of submitting his Bill for comment to some of the welfare organizations concerned with this particular problem. I think this would have been of great assistance to the hon. the Minister. Although many of these organizations submitted evidence before the Grobler Committee of Inquiry into the Abuse of Drugs, many of them would have liked to have seen the draft form of the Bill before it came before this House. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will endeavour through his department to maintain the closest possible liaison between his department and the welfare organizations in the community, who will be called upon to administer a large portion of the preventive work and the treatment and rehabilitation of many of these people. Here, ton, the welfare organizations will require trained personnel who are able to deal with this specific problem. The co-ordination of effort amongst these various organizations will be essential. We are fortunate that there is the South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence which is itself running and maintaining a home for drug dependants at the present time. They claim to be achieving a great deal of success there. It is hoped that the hon. Minister will be able to give encouragement to these organizations and to assist them in the establishment of such special institutions.

Another aspect of the field work that is required and the preventive measures that must be taken, which together with this legislation can do a great deal in combating this problem, is the work amongst youth clubs and youth organizations, which can offer many of our young people recreational facilities which will be of benefit to them. These youth clubs will receive assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Many of these youth organizations had difficulties in the past in maintaining discipline and, indeed, in endeavouring to run their youth clubs under proper protection in view of the fact that sooner or later undesirable elements seem to infiltrate into those youth clubs and youth organizations. It is hoped that this particular aspect will also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister. Then there is the question of the part to be played by the churches and by spiritual guidance, which is all part of the welfare work in South Africa at the present time. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Germiston who mentioned this work and the role which the churches and spiritual guidance can play. This also leads to the necessity of maintaining a strong family life in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has at his disposal a family life commission to advise him and guide him on many matters affecting family life. This is another aspect of field work which requires attention by the hon. the Minister in order to make this legislation effective.

Then the question of education is a matter which was dealt with by the Grobler Committee of Inquiry. There is no doubt that education must play a very important role in bringing to the attention of young people the inherent dangers of drug abuse and the necessity for them to he fully aware of what the consequences might be if they partake of dangerous drugs. I think that the Department of Education, on instructions of the hon. the Minister, will be able to do a great deal in this regard. Indeed, I know that in Durban meetings were held by the Teachers’ Society where principals and teachers were able to receive lectures from authorities, such as the South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency, describing the various danger signs and suggesting various steps that should be taken as far as the young people are concerned and the role education must play in this regard.

Then there is the question of the actions of the police. Obviously there must be close co-ordination between the hon. the Minister, his department, the general public and the police in order to achieve effective control. We know that with regard to places of entertainment there is a provision in this Bill under which the person in charge of such a place of entertainment has a very serious onus of proof if there is any suspicion that persons are trafficking in drugs on his property. The police play an important part in the detection and destruction of large dagga plantations particularly in Natal. We know that earlier this year the police deployed some 60 tons of dagga estimated at value of R6 million in parts of Natal, Then there is provision in this Bill for the arrest and detention particularly of the pedlar and pusher to ensure that these persons are detained to make it possible to cut off the supply at its source.

There are general comments that one can make in regard to this Bill. There are certain aspects of this Bill which we on this side of the House thought could perhaps be dealt with on a slightly different basis. Here I refer to the fact that provision is made in this legislation for dealing with the person under 18 years of age, the person who was in the past protected by the provisions of the Children’s Act. The Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963 specifically precluded persons under 18 years of age from being sent to such centres. It appears at this stage that the hon. the Minister wishes to enlarge the activities of rehabilitation centres and perhaps to provide separate rehabilitation centres for young children. The evidence that was placed before us by the Grobler Committee clearly indicated that there are a number of young children, in some instances only nine and eleven years of age, who have been found to be dagga smokers. Some of them are found to take to harder drugs at a later stage to find greater kicks, etc. However, there are many welfare people who believe that the whole question of dealing with the person under the age of 18 should also be brought into the ambit of the Children’s Act. Here I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to amending the Children’s Act particularly as far as the definition of a child in need of care is concerned. It becomes obvious to many social workers, whether they are in the Department of Social Welfare or are employed by social welfare agencies, that if a child starts to smoke dagga or starts to take harder drugs, he is usually suffering from some sort of emotional disturbance. Therefore it is necessary for them to conduct an inquiry to try to find the causative factors, to investigate their family affairs to see what aspect could have led to them becoming drug addicts and regular dagga smokers. The Children’s Act lays down which children can be subject to an inquiry in the children’s court and found to be a child in need of care. We know from experience that most of them are dealt with as being neglected children or perhaps habitual truants. They are developing behavioural problems and are becoming deviates. In these cases some form of action must be taken by the children’s court to ensure that that child is not led astray and is fully protected. The Children’s Act of 1960 and the previous Act of 1937 have always been regarded as a children’s charter in any discussions as far as child welfare is concerned.

In the Children’s Act there are nine bases upon which a child can be declared as a child in need of care. It appears that some provision should be made in the Children’s Act to incorporate the child who is perhaps a drug addict or who is leaning towards drug addiction. This would then open the doors for the machinery of that Act to come fully into force. The hon. the Minister has endeavoured to a certain extent to enact some of the provisions of the Children’s Act, particularly relating to a place of safety, in this legislation. He has mentioned the question of the classification of rehabilitation centres in terms of clause 22 of this Bill. However, that classification of rehabilitation centres also existed in the Act of 1963. Those persons could be dealt with on that basis.

However, there are aspects of the Children’s Act which certainly require further investigation. I hope the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to amending that particular section of the Children’s Act dealing with the definition of the child in need of care. The hon. the Minister should also look at other aspects of the Children’s Act such as clause 19 and clause 25 dealing with the corruption of children under which action can be taken against parents who have neglected their children. It can be classified as an offence,

Clause 19 of the Children’s Act deals mainly with the corruption of children in so far as it concerns sexual offences. These are aspects which affect the young person, and social workers all believe that if this whole problem is tackled while the person is still a young person, there is the greatest chance of rehabilitation. Where the hardened drug addict is caught up in this sort of legislation, rehabilitation and treatment are extremely difficult. If one talks to superintendents of welfare organizations who are administering rehabilitation centres for alcoholics, many will tell you that the hardened alcoholic invariably, after being released on licence, is back again in the institution in a very short time. They do have a certain degree of success with the younger people who have been admitted to the rehabilitation centres for treatment. Unfortunately very few come forward for treatment on a voluntary basis. I believe it is very necessary for the hon. the Minister to clarify the provisions of this Bill once again through the Press to the public, so that those persons who are possibly seeking some form of assistance in their rehabilitation can come forward on a voluntary basis and receive that assistance. The present legislation for the treatment of the alcoholic has shown us that not a great number come forward and submit themselves for such voluntary treatment. If we can encourage these people to come forward and to seek treatment on a voluntary basis, the chances of rehabilitation are far greater. Indeed, If we look at the whole question of the rehabilitation, we can see, so far as Great Britain is concerned, that this aspect is dealt with on a basis whereby a person can receive his treatment at a clinic, He might not necessarily be admitted to a rehabilitation centre. If they are able to continue in employment, they can continue with such employment and this is conducive to their rehabilitation.

In regard to the question of after-care, we also have provision in this legislation for after-care hostels, and this forms indeed a very vital part in the rehabilitation of these people. In this regard I hope the hon. the Minister will use every encouragement he can give the welfare organizations so that they can provide such after-care hostels where these people can receive further treatment and further help which many of them are seeking. The outpatient clinics at some of the hospitals in Great Britain also claim to be meeting with a degree of success. They consider the case work and the counselling of these people to be of primary importance. They believe that where there is a behaviour disorder it is best considered on a voluntary basis and on a medical basis. We hope that these rehabilitation centres administered by welfare organizations will be able to play a vital role in the implementation of the provisions of this Bill which is before us at the moment at its Third Reading stage.

Another aspect I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is in regard to the new advisory board on rehabilitation matters that is being established in terms of this legislation. I believe that this board must play a very active role in advising the hon. the Minister and keeping the general public informed about the dangers and the various aspects of the whole problem of drug abuse, as well as the problem of alcoholism and addiction to alcoholic liquor.

Clauses 16 and 17 provide for the establishment of this advisory board. I believe this advisory board would be greatly assisted if statistics were available. The hon. the Minister should consider computerization of such statistics. If one looks at the report of the Grobler Committee, it becomes clear that it had great difficulty in assessing the degree of this problem. As this position develops, I believe it is absolutely imperative that the hon. the Minister and this House should be kept fully informed as to what progress is being made and what research is being undertaken by this advisory board. The duties of this advisory board, as we find in clause 17, are indeed very wide. I hope that we will be able to receive regular reports, which will be laid on the Table of the House, from this advisory board. We know that the Director of Rehabilitation Services is going to be a kingpin in the administration of this Act.

We know that he is to be the vice chairman of this board and we are confident that the hon. the Minister will appoint as chairman of this board a person with vast experience in both the problem of alcoholism and the problem of drug abuse. Here I believe the Minister may have some difficulty in finding an authority on both subjects. However, it is imperative that the Minister be fully informed as to what is taking place. I was sorry therefore that the hon. the Minister did not sec his way clear to accept our amendment in which we asked for annual reports from this advisory board. We believe that in order to judge what progress is being made, this advisory board should operate along the lines of the old ad visory board on work colonies. Indeed, as a result of the reports of that board important legislation was introduced in 1963 which to a great extent altered a number of the provisions of the Work Colonies Act and the whole basis on which work colonies were originally established. Other problems like vagrancy were dealt with but greater emphasis was placed on the treatment of alcoholics. To an extent greater emphasis is now placed on the person who abuses dangerous drugs. I think it is most important that members of this House should be kept fully informed as to what is taking place at the rehabilitation centres, and the sort of work that is undertaken there.

The information that was previously furnished in terms of the reports of the advisory board contained a good deal of useful statistics. These statistics gave the percentages of people addicted to excessive drinking; the occupations of those people; their background; the number of committals and the number released on licence, as well as the number of absconders. These statistics are valuable in promoting efficiency and indeed the effectiveness of legislation passed by this House. Let us look at the figures giving the reasons for committal. We sec that excessive drinking still remains the main problem. Indeed, in some of the institutions as high a percentage as 83,3 per cent of the persons committed were committed due to excessive drinking. Ninety three per cent of the persons committed to the women’s retreats were committed because of excessive drinking. We know that the legislation passed in 1949 and which was re-enacted in 1963 also made provision for persons addicted to drugs. As far as they are concerned their number was very small indeed; in fact, there were only four such persons, according to the last available report, at the Sonderwater rehabilitation centre, I think this information is important because it will allow us here in Parliament to keep our finger on the pulse of things: it will enable us to sec what improvements should be made and it will enable us to see what effect this legislation has had.

There is no doubt about it. Extremely severe punitive measures are being passed by this House. They must act as a warning and convey a message to those persons who are abusing their position; those persons who are abusing our young people in South Africa and causing almost daily tragedies, This social problem must be tackled with realism and enthusiasm. This measure consequently has the full support of the vast majority of hon. members in this House.

Today I find myself in the pleasant position of being in almost complete agreement with what the hon. member for Umbilo had to say here. I should first like to comment on the way in which the hon. member for Umbilo began his speech. The hon. member—and I admire him for that— objected seriously to the way in which the English Press handled this whole matter. He did not mention the Press by name. Neither do I expect this of him, but I want to tell him that he has my wholehearted support in that allegation he made against the Press. The English Sunday Press, in particular, made its comments in what I regard as an absolutely irresponsible manner. But there is nothing strange in that. We have, of course, always found them to be the same group of people who are accustomed to demonstrate with the hon. member for Houghton at the University of the Witwatersrand, etc. They saw all this maliciousness in this Bill, and they completely forgot to notice its positive aspects. I say that I find it regrettable, because I believe that there is no way in which to tackle this problem except by means of a total onslaught. I regret that the English Press, and the Sunday Press in particular, has virtually dissociated itself from this. I want to say that here the fact of the matter is that we also need the English Press in the attack on this problem. That is why I find it so terribly regrettable. This problem is such a fundamental one, and such a serious one, that we cannot afford to lose some possible help along the way.

Serious penalties are being imposed by this Bill. We may now speculate and seek psychological reasons why a child begins to smoke dagga or to take drugs, but we must not lose sight of one thing. Before any person can take LSD, that LSD must first be available. Neither must we lose sight of the fact that that person who makes the LSD and other prohibited drugs available, is nothing less than one of the most unscrupulous criminals one can find in this country. Against an unscrupulous criminal there is only one course of action, and that is absolutely heavy-handed action; and it makes no difference whether the hon. member for Houghton or NUSAS launch pleas for him; one must take heavy-handed action against him.

I now actually see this Bill as being the first phase in something that I almost want to regard as a military plan of attack. The Grobler Committee has done the scouting. They have laid the foundation for the planning of this attack on the enemy that threatens us. They have done that work well. This Bill is a plan of how that attack must take place. I think that the attack has been well-planned. I think that the weapons being supplied in this Bill are good weapons, and there I differ with the hon. member for Berea who says that this measure will make exceptional demands on the Police. That may be so, but I believe that this measure is going to facilitate their task. That is why it has been drawn up in this way; that is why it is necessary for the penalties to be so severe; that is why it is necessary for the owner, the lessee or the person in control of a youth club to be forced to notify the Police of drug taking on his premises. For that reason it is necessary to provide for a person to be detained until such time as he supplies the Police with the necessary information that he is supposed to supply. I think that that provision in the Bill is a good one; I think that it will facilitate the task of the Police. But, Sir, the attack does not end there.

After we have, defeated the real enemy, after we have dealt with the smuggler, we still have another task to perform; we must clear up the battlefield; we must rehabilitate the people. This Bill is establishing a full rehabilitation programme that will be tackled under the control of the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters. This board will consist of select people, skilled people, authorities who can advise the Minister in the future fight against this problem. Because the problem is not solved as soon as the measure is placed on the Statute Book. This measure only creates the machinery. Very effective measures are being introduced for combating the problem, but over and against that, provision is also being made for the rehabilitation of the addicts.

Sir, although alcohol is not included in the group of prohibited, possibly danger-our or dangerous drugs, I find it encouraging that the abuse of alcohol is included in the rehabilitation provisions. But, Sir, I do not want to comment on that. I particularly want to confine myself briefly to clauses 4 and 5, in which the proviso appears, and where provision is being made for certain persons to use certain drugs on the recommendation of a doctor, in other words, by way of a prescription. Sir, I think that the doctors of this country have been entrusted with a special task in this Bill. In the all-embracing onslaught on this problem, there could be one shortcoming; I say that there could perhaps be a shortcoming, although I do not believe so, because I have confidence in my colleagues. Some of the preparations that are normally used as medicines, are under the control of the doctors and the pharmacists in South Africa. I do not believe that the doctors and the pharmacists in South Africa will leave us in the lurch. A big responsibility is being placed on them to ensure that the preparations they prescribe are used properly. I think that in the future the doctors will have to be very careful in prescribing amphetamines, these drugs that could previously be freely bought over the chemist shop counter and that can now only be obtained on prescription.

I heard the other day, through one of the larger wholesalers in the country, that since some of these amphetamines have appeared on the list of possible dependence-producing drugs, i.e. they can only be obtained by prescription, the turnover with respect to some of those drugs has increased considerably. I cannot explain the reasons for that, but I think that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not tell my colleagues that we should be careful. Let us be careful, and also contribute our share to the constructive implementation of this Bill. Let us also contribute our share towards ensuring that our confidence in this Bill, and in the amendments to the Health Act of 1919, that must follow upon this, does not shock the rest of the South African population. The doctors have a special task in connection with this Bill, because we are responsible for the use of those drugs in such a way that they are not dependence producing, that they will not cause problems as far as the persons using those drugs are concerned, and in such a way that we shall not, because it is easier for us, prescribe such quantities of a medicine that the person in possession of that medicine will get into trouble.

I believe that this is a Bill that is not Static. It is possible that we shall bring about changes in the future. In fact, one would be blind if, when better methods are found at a later stage for the fight against this problem, one does not bring about changes to the Act. I think that this Bill, as introduced here by the hon. the Minister, which has now reached its final stage in this House before it is passed, makes it possible, not only for the Police, but also for doctors, dentists, pharmacists and social workers, to contribute their share. If the radio, the Press and, in particular, as my hon. colleague of Germiston has already stated, the parents ask: “Where is my child tonight?”, I think we will already have given this serious problem a very telling blow.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down must, I am afraid, simply accept the fact, whether he likes it or not, that there are large numbers of people in South Africa, including myself, who differ from him very radically in outlook and philosophy. He must also accept, whether he likes it or not, that this does not necessarily mean, of course, that the people who feel the way I do, do not have South Africa’s best interests at heart. It does not mean cither, in the context of the Bill that we are discussing today, that we are not as against drug abuse as in fact he is. I would like to point out to him that the English-language Press, whom he castigated this afternoon, in fact initiated last year the whole campaign against drug abuse. So he must not think that, because people disagree with him about the manner in which these problems are to be combated, they do not have the best interests of South Africa at heart.

I am going to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. I am going to do so for the very same reasons that I advanced at the Second Reading stage of this Bill. Although I am dead against drug abuse, and although I think harsh penalties ought in fact to be enacted against drug pedlars, I do not agree with the methods which the hon. the Minister has introduced in order to combat this problem. Neither do I agree with the Official Opposition that significant amendments have been accepted during the Committee Stage. In fact, only a small number of amendments were accepted. Moreover, the Minister made it quite clear at the beginning that it was not his intention to accept any amendments which would restrict the operation of this measure. However, there were a couple of amendments accepted, for instance, the one referring to prosecutions in clause 6 in terms of which prosecutions may only be instituted on the written authority of the Attorney-General. Then there was another one to clause 13 in terms of which information may be submitted to the prosecutor only under oath. Then there is the amendment which the hon. the Minister introduced today, to extend the scope of “magistrate” in order to include assistant-magistrates. But this is about all, except for a few amendments regarding rehabilitation centres.

But these were important amendments, very significant.

They do not affect the principles of the Bill to which I object. The hon. member for Rosettenville knows perfectly well that these objections have nothing to do with whether a man has to spend 12 or 18 months in a rehabilitation centre. My objection is to matters such as the exclusion of the discretion of the courts of law through the prescription of minimum sentences whereas I feel that guide lines only, maximum penalties, should be laid down to indicate that this House regards certain abuses and drug peddling with the strongest possible disapproval. The hon. member knows that I object to the exclusion of the protection afforded under the Children’s Act and the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of some most severe provisions of this Bill. Another objection lies in my belief that the implementation of this Bill is going to lead to many hundreds of young people who are casual drug users going to gaol simply because magistrates may not care to use the provision about mitigating circumstances in clause 6,

There is no such thing as a casual drug taker.

What is a casual drug taker?

There are thousands of them and I am amazed that the hon. member, who is a doctor, does not know that there are thousands of young people who will try out a drug only for kicks.

Do you approve of that?

Of course I do not approve, but at the same time I consider that such a child ought not to go to gaol. In terms of this Bill he may go to gaol if the magistrate does not care to use the mitigating circumstances provision. Furthermore, I submit that, if a young man looks like a hippie, even if he is not one, the chances in South Africa are that, attitudes being what they are, such a young person may very well be sent to gaol for a minimum period of two years. There are thousands of casual drug takers among young people in this country and, as I have said before, amongst them may be the sons and daughters of anyone in this House. [Interjections.] Well, you know it; then have a little compassion because it might be your own child, A child may try a drug either under incitement of a companion or because it is the drug scene which intrigues him, it being, however much we may disapprove of it, part of modern life.

Who is responsible for that?

It is part and parcel of modern life; no one is responsible for it, no more than anyone is responsible for all sorts of other things. But, let me tell you, we ought to go into the root causes of drug taking and do something about it rather than merely to punish young casual drug users.

Finally, of course, my objection is based on the fact that there is a clause in this Bill which contains yet another power of detention without trial. I am the first to admit that I am allergic to laws like that—completely allergic to all laws in terms of which people may be locked up without trial; I am allergic to laws which put powers in the hands of the Police—the Police are the people who ultimately have to implement this Bill—to take people on suspicion, lock them up in solitary confinement for as long as they like. During the Committee Stage of this Bill the Minister said it was the very uncertainty about the length of the period such people might be held that gave the Police this mighty weapon. Has he then no idea of what solitary confinement can do to people? Does he not care that young people can be taken on suspicion and locked up in solitary confinement without their having access to parental assistance or legal advice, and that they can be kept there only because somebody suspects, on oath if you like, that they may know something about drug pushers? Let me give an example of what could happen. A youngster may be supplied with a dagga cigarette or reefer as it is called, by some casual, itinerant pedlar whom he has never seen in his life before. The pedlar offers him the reefer and invites him to try it. The youngster does try it and, on being found smoking the cigarette is arrested. The Police may suspect that he may know who the pusher is. The youngster will then be locked up though he does not know who the pusher is. He only knows that someone offered him this cigarette and, in a moment of recklessness, he bought the cigarette. That young man can then be held indefinitely until someone or other becomes convinced that he does not really know who the pusher is. Lack of knowledge is a very difficult thing to prove.

I think that any Bill that introduces a provision such as this, has no business on our Statute Book. I am amazed that the official Opposition has accepted this. I am astonished that after objecting in principle at Second Reading, and after its own amendments were rejected at the Committee Stage, they accept the Bill again at Third Reading. It only shows what a slippery slope we are on in South Africa, From the very moment we started accepting in South Africa the principle of detention without trial way back in 1963, it has become easier every time to introduce this principle, because people are prepared for it now. People have become punch drunk and are conditioned to the whole idea of detention without trial. To me this goes against all that is of value in the Western traditions of law. This is what Magna Charta and habeas corpus are all about, namely that the individual is protected against the might of the State by certain processes of the law that have to be followed. A man must be charged within a certain time after he has been arrested, he must know what he is being charged with, he must be given the opportunity of defending himself and he must have access to legal assistance. Thereafter, if convicted, only then can he be locked up. Under this Bill someone can be locked up indefinitely without trial. Nothing in the world will make me vote for a measure such as this, much as I am against drug taking and drug pushers.

No other country in the Western world has a law such as this. The Leader of the Opposition quoted Russia. For goodness sake, it is a new example that South Africa should follow Russia. A few other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere were also quoted, but we must follow Russia. They impose, I believe, the death penalty for drug users and pushers. Those are not countries we follow in our legal tradition. We follow the Western tradition. Britain, for example, has had a standing committee on drug addiction for years. This committee reports regularly to the Home Secretary. America has had committee after committee. Although they are well aware of the fact that these are serious matters, they are not prepared to introduce measures of this kind. I am not prepared to do it either. I believe that powers such as this can lead to all sorts of abuse. We have had experiences in the past with laws of this type which allow for arbitrary detention. Even the visits of a magistrate do not guarantee that the detainee is going to be properly looked after. We have had cases in the past where people, in detention without trial and in solitary confinement, have died, to say the least, curious deaths. I do not believe we should introduce one single other measure of such a nature in our Statute Book.

I am not going to reiterate all the other arguments I used during the Second Reading debate concerning minimum penalties and the fact that no provision is really made for fines or even cautions for first offenders. I have mentioned all these considerations before. I would like to stress once again that I believe there should have been a distinction drawn between dagga and the hard-line drugs. I believe that very sincerely. There is a world-wide controversy at the moment about dagga. Most countries are coming round to the point of view that a distinction should he drawn between dagga, marijuana or cannabis, or whatever it is called, and the hard-line drugs. No real evidence has been produced that inevitably a dagga taker goes on to hard-line drugs. There is some evidence that hardline drug users have originally used cannabis. I should like to give one further example. The American Council of Mental Health, three years ago, stated—

I agree. I am not for the legalizing of marijuana or dagga. They go on to say—

In America too there is a prison sentence for being in possession of dagga. This is what the American Council of Mental Health says.

It varies from state to state.

Yes, but not detention without trial. Oh no!

Mr. Ramsay Clark, who has just arrived in the country and who was an Attorney-General in the United States during the Johnson administration, said this—

And as far as the harsh penalties were concerned Mr. Ramsay Clark, said that they had in no way helped America to solve the drug problem. He emphasized that the underlying causes of drug abuse should be discovered and dealt with because indiscriminate punishment only manufactured criminals and brutalized the condemned person. I happen to agree with that. I do not believe that Mr. Ramsay Clark is any more in favour of drug abuse than I am and that he is no more hostile to the United States than I am hostile to the interests of South Africa.

I am appalled when I think of the consequences of this Bill, particularly as far as young people are concerned. For the reasons I gave during my Second Reading speech in detail I am going to oppose this Third Reading as well.

I now want to say in the time at my disposal a few words about the rehabilitation centres. I did not have much time to talk about them during my Second Reading speech. What rehabilitation centres exist in South Africa for Africans? May I ask that? I do not believe there are any. This Bill is colourblind, I am glad to say. It deals with all the races. But I want to know where are the rehabilitation centres for Africans. Quite inevitably the Africans found guilty of smoking dagga—and there are many of them—are going to go to gaol. Our gaols are going to be packed again, the ones we are busy emptying of pass offenders by the act of clemency of the hon. Minister of Justice. He did not really go very far, not far enough to my liking, Our gaols are now going to be packed by compulsory prison sentences for African dagga smokers, because there are no rehabilitation centres for Africans, How many are there for Coloured people?

The gaol, man.

“The gaol, man”, says the hon. member. Of course, “the gaol man”. That is what he believes in —punishment! This is what this whole House believes in. Punishment! It is not interested in curing these people. It is only interested in one thing namely punitive measures, despite the fact that the experience of every other country in the world has shown that punitive measures do not help this particular social problem, because of course it is a medico-social problem. It is caused by many factors. Why do people take drugs? Why do people drink in excess? There are all sorts of social reasons for it, such as tension, frustration, poverty, anxiety, difficulties, all kinds of things and social tensions. Those are the reasons which should be tackled.

I want to know why the hon. the Minister is passing legislation before he has provided the necessary rehabilitation centres for other racial groups. As for the Whiles there are not enough. They are largely being used for the treatment of alcoholics. I should like to know what success we have had with the treatment of alcoholics. I will tell the hon. the Minister why I do not think we have had success. It is because these rehabilitation centres do not have the staff to give proper treatment. They are really work colonies. These people go there but they do not get the expert attention from psychiatric or psychological experts, because there are not enough of these experts for existing needs. I want to know where the experts will come from who will serve the needs of all the additional hundreds of people who will be sent to rehabilitation centres. I do not think proper provision has been made for this at all. If it is cure that we want to provide and not just punishment. Then I say we simply cannot rely on the existing facilities. They are obviously inadequate. We need a whole variety of new services if we want to tackle this properly as the medico-sociological problem which it really is. We need all sorts of additional detoxification centres. We need outpatient clinics where the occasional user can be sent, not be incarcerated in the rehabilitation centre, not to be sent to a prison, but to be treated the way civilized countries do this. They should be treated at out-patient clinics so that they can retain their jobs and stay in society and do not have to have the stigma of being, as we call it, an inmate of a rehabilitation centre or a convict in a prison. The hon. the Minister told me that in clause 31 provision is made for sending people, only after other procedures have been adopted, to such centres. Firstly such a person must be declared as being a person in need of special care in terms of clause 29. But it will not be quite so easy for the man who finds himself in court to be immediately sent to one of these outpatient clinics. First clause 62 must be applied in terms of clause 29—instead of simplifying the whole procedure and making it possible for the court on a first offence simply to send a person to an outpatient clinic. The procedural red tape should be cut and it should be made easier instead of more difficult for these people to be treated as out-patients.

I say the more people we can get to volunteer for treatment, the more chance we have of curing these people. The volunteer comes forward and says: “I have started taking drugs and it has taken hold of me. I want to get loose of this terrible addiction”. Those are the people who are most likely to be cured. Unless we can provide these proper services at out-patient clinics and elsewhere, we will not have the volunteers coming forward and asking to be committed to these rehabilitation centres, where there is, as I say, a good deal of the work colony element, judging by the letters which I have received from the inmates of these work colonies. The Grobler Committee stated that the drug dependant has become a sick person and is in urgent need of help and treatment. I believe that we should be viewing these people in that light. We should cut the procedure and make it as easy as possible for these people to obtain some treatment.

The Nationalist Party is sick of your views.

I am not interested in the silly views of that hon. member.

As I say, I am not very optimistic about the methods provided for treatment of the drug addict in this Bill, because as J say, I do not think we have been very successful in the treatment of alcoholism in South Africa. Alcoholism is in fact, a far greater social problem than drug abuse, as far as I can understand from medical men. Indeed, the South African National Council for Alcoholics and Drug Dependents has given the figure of alcoholics to somebody who has given it to me. I have not had time to check on it, because there has been very little time to do anything in connection with this Bill. However, the figure that I have been given is that six per cent of the White population in South Africa could in fact be classified as chronic alcoholics. That is a very high figure. Nobody knows the figure for Africans and for Coloured people. The figure must be very high indeed for these people. I do not take the viewpoint of hon. members on the other side that if people spend money on drink, it means they are affluent. I take the viewpoint that if people spend money on drink, it is a social problem of the highest magnitude and that we should be looking into the causes of it.

It is part of the modern world?

We should be looking into the causes particularly of the vast increase in the consumption of alcohol by Africans in South Africa. The consumption of Bantu beer has in fact doubled over the last seven years. It is now up to the magnitude of 30 million gallons per annum. The consumption of hard liquor is also increasing enormously. These are great social problems. We have not yet tackled that and now we are trying to tackle the drug problem without any information at our finger tips. The Grobler Committee made it absolutely clear that they had no statistics on which to base their conclusions. Inadequate statistics were kept. They cut out entirely any investigation into the taking of dagga. They confined their investigation to the White population of South Africa only. We have very inadequate information indeed on which to go ahead introducing the most far-reaching measure which the hon. the Minister called with pride the toughest piece of anti-drug legislation in the Western world. He quoted proudly somebody who had said that about this Bill. He quoted it quite proudly; he was not upset about it. Sir, I do not think we should be proud about this. I think we are acting hastily. I think we have brought in an ill-considered piece of legislation which may very well have the most deleterious effect on the young people of this country. I do not know what the hurry was. I still do not know. I asked the Minister, and the answer he gave me was irrelevant. The answer he gave me was that we need this Bill because there is a man sitting in gaol now who only received a sentence of six months and he should have got 25 years. This cannot alter that sentence. That man is still only going to serve his six months. We could have waited another six months or a year in order to accumulate some more information and to give interested bodies the opportunity of studying this Bill. Nobody has had the opportunity to study it properly. Sir, I saw in an article in the newspaper that the hon. the Minister said that the S.A. Medical and Dental Council had accepted this Bill. Has the Council accepted it, or just a few executive members of that council? I do not believe the council has met for a number of months, but I may be wrong, and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me that. Has the S.A. Medical Association had an opportunity of studying this Bill? I do not believe it has, because it is meeting this week in East London and I do not think it could have had an opportunity to study the Bill. What about all the voluntary organizations that have been working for years on the drug problem? How many of them received the opportunity of studying this Bill? hon. members, including the hon. member for Umbilo, rightly stated that there was a lot of misinformation about this Bill. That is correct, but whose fault is that? I think the fault lies squarely at the hon. the Minister’s feet. Why does he rush through this piece of legislation without giving interested people, who have devoted a lifetime trying to put down drug abuse and finding out how these things can he combated, an opportunity of studying this Bill? No, he rushes it through Parliament. He was determined to get this Bill through before he goes away, and only he will know the reason for this. I do not even know whether this should be only a matter for the Social Welfare Department to handle. I am not at all sure that a lot of it should not have been in the hands of the Department of Health. As I said earlier on, I do not believe that this one Bill should have combined all the punitive provisions and all the rehabilitative provisions.

I think this is a hasty, ill-considered piece of legislation, far-reaching in its implications, and I do not believe that nine-tenths of the members of this House have had time to absorb it and they do not realize the consequences of the Bill that they are so glibly passing today, because they say they are against drug abuse. Sir, everybody is against drug abuse, but there are ways and there are other ways of combating this evil. There is no point in introducing legislation which I believe will introduce all sorts of complicated features into the whole method of combating drug addiction. If we had had a Bill introduced, after proper research, after all population needs had been studied, after dagga had been included in the study, if interested bodies had been allowed to study the draft Bill and if we had hammered out something which was acceptable without all these obnoxious clauses that introduce provisions like detention without trial, as if it were a matter of national emergency, and which introduce other obnoxious provisions, like excluding children from certain of the provisions of this Bill, and various other features like minimum penalties, etc., I think the hon. the Minister would have had unanimous support. I know that whether or not I oppose this Bill does not matter to the hon. the Minister very much and it does not matter to other hon. members, but it matters to me, because I am going to have my particular point of view put on record here. But if he had introduced such a Bill, I would have been delighted to give him my support, because I am just as concerned as he and other hon. members are, about misuse of drugs, and so are the other people who criticize the Bill. I want to point out that the criticism this Bill has received is almost unanimous, and surely not everybody who criticizes it, is misinformed about the Bill and not everybody is hostile to the interests of South Africa. But this is a hasty and ill-considered measure. It contains objectionable provisions, and I am certainly going to vote against it at the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Houghton opposes this Bill. We were not surprised last Thursday when she opposed it, because we know her; she always opposes legislation of this kind; she opposes legislation that testifies to strength and conviction, and which is aimed at combating certain evils in South Africa. She cannot mention one piece of positive legislation that she was ever in favour of, but we are not surprised at that because NUSAS also opposes this legislation, and she and NUSAS sing exactly the same tune and the same ditty in their opposition to this Bill. I do not know whether she is singing NUSAS’s tune or whether it is NUSAS that is singing grandma’s tune. She says that she does not approve the legislation and lodges a plea against it, quite simply because that hon. member is truly the product of the time in her views, and this goes for the permissive sense of the word as well. She is the conditioned individual; it is not the Opposition that is conditioned as far as detention is concerned. She says that she sees the dangers, but she is not prepared to lift a finger to do something about those dangers. One thinks of the story which the hon. the Prime Minister has told here in the House about the young man who was found guilty of murdering both his parents, and who then pleaded in mitigation that he was an orphan. Sir, the hon. member lodges a plea here for the youth, but she is not prepared to tell them: “Drugs are taboo; do not touch them.” In the Second Reading debate she spoke pardoningly of young people using drugs for experimental purposes, and today she spoke pardoningly about casual drug-takers. I just want to reply to one point she made here, and that is in connection with the question of the haste with which this legislation was introduced. Sir, this commission of inquiry was established in July 1969. I think that it has made a very excellent report available in a very short space of time. The reason for speed in this case is that this drug problem is increasing and developing with rapid strides over the whole world—one could almost say from week to week. It is said that at present we are in the position in which. I think, America and Britain and other European countries were three or four years ago. Sir, we know what has happened in the past three or four years in those countries. We cannot wait for another year or two to pass before we put certain measures into operation.

I think that this Bill is a drastic one, but it is very necessary. I think that it is amongst the best legislation I have ever seen. I think that this is so because it is the result of a model report on which the commission must be congratulated. I can only say that at this stage this report is receiving the attention of experts abroad. Since the hon. member for Houghton is making such comments about this report, I just want to quote to her what was written to me by a person who is at present an assistant professor at the University of Hamburg and who has been doing research in the United States for two-and-a-half years about the drug problem. He writes—

He is now taking his Doctor’s degree—

He is referring here to the senator of the Hamburg Parliament who deals with internal affairs—

Sir, it is surely a compliment to receive such a letter from a country like Germany, and from someone who has already made such a far-reaching study of the problem. I think that the committee ought to be congratulated. I believe that we all cherish the hope that after the legislation has been passed, this report will not be placed on the shelf to gather dust. I believe that not only must it receive the careful attention and study of the Government, but also of all branches of the private sector. I think that commerce and industry must give attention to it. A person who is dependent on drugs, and who is in the employment of a merchant or an industrialist, can have a very serious and detrimental influence on his business. The industrialist and the merchant must be able to recognize the dependant and, if necessary, to help him rather than replace him. The world of education must, as already mentioned by the previous speaker, make an intensive study of this report at all levels. A study of it must be made from the primary school level to the highest university level. They must have a knowledge of this report and know what is contained in it, so that they can diagnose the symptoms of dependence. so that they can eliminate it and so that they can truly rehabilitate the dependants. Likewise the church and youth organizations must also do their duty, as mentioned in the report. Above all we, as individuals and as a people, must all he made aware of the danger of drugs. I believe that we can do this by making available elementary, non-emotive information in this connection. If there is one thing we must guard against in this matter, it is that we do not handle this in such a way that it arouses people’s curiosity so that they want to experiment with it. That is why I say that the information and the guidance should be non-emotive in character.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Houghton. If anything shocked me in her Second Reading speech, it was the indifference she displayed towards this problem, I was also shocked by the pardoning manner in which she spoke of young people making experimental use of these drugs. If there Is one fact that South Africa must immediately make itself aware of, it is the fact that drugs are cot something to be played or experimented with. They are a danger to life. They are dangerous to older people who think they can control themselves, and they are dangerous to young people who experiment with them. They are dangerous to the weaker individual and to the stronger individual, and in the long run they are destructive to all who risk involvement. It is only when one sees the victims, the human wrecks whom this evil has preyed upon, that one can fully realize this. Only then can one completely identify oneself with the measure this House is now considering. I had the opportunity one night of walking through St. Pauli in the company of the writer of this letter I have quoted from. I was informed that the majority of those young prostitutes, who made themselves available in that district, were the victims of drug traffickers. I was told that the life expectancy of those young girls is not more than four years from the time they started using drugs. It is these consequences that let one accept the drastic nature of this legislation. However, let us harbour no illusions about that; it has become a very necessary measure for South Africa.

At this stage we do not yet know how effective it is going to be. It is quite possible that this same House will yet have to adopt additional amending measures in the future in order to plug Up loopholes. Loopholes will most probably be discovered by the drug traffickers, because they have tremendous ingenuity. It will be necessary for those loopholes to be plugged up, and that they be plugged up as soon as they reveal themselves. I also believe that it is necessary for the people of South Africa to take note and to be given a timely indication of what the penal provisions are which this legislation provides for, and what presumptions are being created. The presumptions that are being created are absolutely essential for pinning down the drug pedlars, and the penal provisions in this legislation ate indeed aimed at discouraging possible offences. With the kind of offences this legislation is dealing with, penal provisions must still play the extremely important role of deterrence. Nothing but penalties will deter the drug-pedlars, the traffickers and the distributors. That is why such drastic penalties are being prescribed, for example confiscation, even of fixed property, and the minimum penalties of 5 and 10 years. These are the very measures which the hon. member for Houghton and NUSAS call archaic measures. However, they are necessary in this connection as deterrents. The reason for these penal provisions is the unscrupulousness of the people who make these drugs available and control dealings in this connection—actually the wholesalers.

With the evidence at our disposal one cannot go any further, as the hon. the Minister also said during his Second Reading speech, than to say that it is all a matter of money. We cannot see anything more than money in it. The money aspect plays a tremendous role. As far as I am concerned this whole question of drug trafficking is simply a matter of money. In the report the example is mentioned of 500 000 tablets which the Police took possession of, and which could have been purchased at R2 500, while the black market value was at least R25 000. A drug pedlar told the committee of 150 per cent to 500 per cent profits and more on a relatively small supply of pills that he sold on the black market. One is dealing here with unscrupulous people who supply these pills merely in order to enrich themselves, making physical wrecks of the recipients. What is more, these people act calculatingly in order to get young people, particularly young girls, into their power, with whom they can then staff their distribution organization. The cold-bloodedness of the supplier and the wholesaler in these drugs cannot actually be given proper punishment. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, in my opinion, he acted with restraint when he refused to apply the death penalty in such cases.

I now want to resume my seat, but I just want to mention that the Bill provides for the rehabilitation of dependants. I think that previous speakers have already elaborated on this sufficiently, and I want to conclude by saying that it would have been a stupid people and a stupid Government that did not give attention to the rehabilitation aspect. If these dependants were not rehabilitated, so that they can also play a useful role in society, be self-supporting and also support their dependants, it would only mean that our welfare services would be burdened with people who, particularly because of their youth, would be a burden to the State and to welfare organizations for years to come. On the one hand South Africa cannot afford to lose its potential labour forces to the drug devils and, on the other hand, it cannot afford to carry social good-for-nothings, who could perhaps have been productive, and to make them a burden to the State and to welfare organizations. The legislation is necessary and has been excellently drawn up. I hope it is in time, and I believe that it is going to serve as an example to others in other countries. I also believe that future generations may one day be grateful to this generation and this House for their far-sightedness in placing this legislation on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I rise not to follow what the hon. member for Waterkloof had to say, but rather to answer some of the attacks which were made on us by the hon. member for Houghton.

I have been very gentle with you.

The hon. member for Houghton says she has been a little gentle with us. I must say she has not learnt an awful lot during the course of this debate, but she has learnt one thing. When she spoke in the Second Reading debate, she did not know what she was talking about; she had not read this Bill. Now, in the course of a period of time, she has learnt something about this Bill. She cannot be anything less than what she calls “gentle”, because that is the best she can do at this stage.

I have not changed my mind about anything.

No. The hon. member for Houghton is as stubborn as she accuses us of being. But, Sir, let me say that it was not the English Press which initiated the campaign against drugs, as the hon. member said; it was the members on this side of the House who for years now have been pressing for some drastic action to be taken, and notably my hon. friend from Berea. He has been pressing for this legislation, not only in this House with private motions, but right through the period at every possible opportunity. Perhaps it was because the Minister of Health at the lime, to whom my hon. friend’s pleas were addressed, was the former Minister of Health, Dr. Hertzog, that nothing was done. We do not know. But something has now been done. Let me say, too, that it was the United Party-controlled Johannesburg City Council which has pressed for, and is about to get from the Provincial Administration, an ordinance to enable them to deal with these clubs where the drugs are pushed. As a result, something is being done. This was not something which was pressed upon anyone—it was something we had been asking for for years. We welcome the Bill, because it is the first time our pleas have been answered.

What is this Bill about? This Bill is a Bill, in the first place, to control the abuse of drugs, to control drug traffickers and deal with them very harshly, and also to rehabilitate those drug-dependants. That is what this Bill is about. Those are the principles of the Bill, and we could not vote against those principles at the Second Reading. The hon. member for Houghton does not seem to agree. Let me say that perhaps her error was contained in a remark in respect of the hon. member for Umbilo, in which she said that his amendment relating to the rehabilitation centres did not affect the principle of the Bill at all, as she sees it. That is the whole problem of the rehabilitation centres. That is one of the main principles of this Bill. In fact, if you look at this Bill, it has 65 odd clauses, 15 of which deal with those matters concerning the drugs themselves, the control and the penalties to be applied to persons who peddle. The rest of the Bill deals with just that matter. That is the whole point.

However, contained in those first 15 clauses is also a principle which we are in favour of, namely that drug abuse should be stopped and drug pedlars should be treated as severely as is possible. These are the principles contained in those parts of the Bill. The hon. member must not now try and have it both ways. She is either in favour of that or she is not, and she indicates that she is not. We have had all this talk from the hon. member about the drug scene being part and parcel of the modern scene. Now, Sir, really, I am no Mother Grundy, but are we going to accept that the drug scene is part and parcel of our modern life? No, Sir, we are not prepared to accept that. If the Government comes, as it does here, with some constructive proposals to deal with the problem, we on this side of the House will support them.

No matter how they deal with it.

No, not “no matter how”. During her speech at the Second Reading the hon. member for Houghton agreed that this drug pedling was a serious and grave problem, and she is quite right. As a matter of fact, it is more serious than a lot of people appreciate. The story is being spread that what we are going to do here, is to turn a lot of youngsters into criminals. But this is not what this Bill is designed to do, nor will in actual fact do. In the first place this Bill is designed to hit at the cold-blooded pusher of drugs and to hit him as hard as possible. By this Bill we let him know that by pushing drugs in this cold-blooded way without any mitigating circumstances whatsoever, he will go to gaol. Then the Bill makes provision for the treatment of drug addicts and in this connection special exceptions are made from the normal processes of the law. Since this Bill became available a number of experts have had the opportunity of saying what they think about it, particularly in the light of the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton on the punishment prescribed. Let me, in this connection, quote Prof. Harry Grant-Whyte, one of the world’s experts on anaesthetics and on drugs. He said that when he last year visited San Francisco he found that 30 000 young people were being treated for addiction at one clinic alone. These young people were not riff-raff but came all from decent homes. Through their actions they and their families are faced with destruction and heart-break while international traffickers in drugs become millionaires in the process, according to Prof. Whyte. Severe measures are called for before this problem assumes similar proportions here. He felt more legislation was still to come. Addicts seeking treatment would not be penalized, he felt, and such treatment would be readily given in confidence as in the past. Is there any evidence today that this will not happen? Is there any suggestion that persons who are seeking help will not be treated in these clinics in confidence, as in the past? The very amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo, an amendment at which the hon. lady sneered, was an amendment to provide that the private institution, registered in terms of the Rehabilitation Act may continue for eighteen months with their treatment, until such time as they can provide the wherewithal and meet the conditions to be registered under this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton quoted Ramsey Clark, a former Attorney-General of the United States. I have just quoted what Prof. Harry Grant-Whyte had to say about what was happening at one single clinic in San Francisco, just because this type of legislation is lacking.

They have minimum penalties in America.

Let me tell her something else. I have here the Department of State Bulletin of the 1st February, 1971. According to that there are today in the United States 100 000, possibly 200 000, heroin addicts, addicts for whom, as I understand the position, there is no cure whatsoever. They are to remain such for the rest of their living lives.

And this is all part of the modern scene!

It is the responsibility of everybody in this country to give this legislation a chance to work. Let me refer to the report of the inter-depart-mental committee of 1952 on the abuse of dagga. In paragraph 347 it reported that the penalties provided for in the Union law are—

They went on to say that they wanted greater penalties imposed. As a result of this report, an amendment was made to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act in 1954 in terms of which a new section 61 was put into the Act providing for a fine not exceeding £500 (R1 000) or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. That was also found to be quite inadequate. In 1957 the Act was again amended. This new amendment provided that, for a first conviction, there should be a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for five years or both and for a second conviction, a compulsory minimum penalty of one year's imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment and if necessary, a fine of R1 000. What did that hon. lady, who talks in such high-faluting terms about principles, say about it then? It was for the trafficker that a minimum penalty of one year’s imprisonment was prescribed in 1957. Now there is a proposal that there should be a minimum penalty of five years for the drug pusher. Mr. Speaker, we support this. As far as the reports on this debate from the outside are concerned, that is where we first disagreed with the hon. member for Houghton and where the difference really lies, because the hon. member had a principle and whatever we were to say would be wrong. What is that principle? It is no good having principles unless they are related to the realities and unless they are going to be put into effect. The principle of being opposed, as we are, to the imposition of minimum penalties and of taking away the discretion of the court, is that there may be circumstances which cannot be anticipated when legislation is introduced, which may arise and concerning which the court ought to have that discretion. Our standpoint on this is very clear. We say that, if you are a pusher of drugs, there is only one possible mitigating circumstance which we can think of. Where a person is pushing or periling drugs for gain which are going to maim, kill, damage and destroy the person—especially when most of those persons are young people—that mitigating circumstance is that he is not right in his head because he, in fact, is also a drug addict. If that circumstance exists, this Bill provides for that person to be dealt with differently from the cold-blooded pusher. It does so in clauses 7 and 62 where, even if you are charged with periling and it is found in the course of the trial, or even after you have been found guilty, that you are addicted, you can then be sent for inquiry and for treatment. So much for that.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Houghton is going to interject, I do hope she will interject so that I can hear her, instead of mumbling into her beard at the end there.

I said “So much indeed”.

Yes, so much indeed! But what is the answer to it? Is it not true that that is what this Bill provides for? That is the point—that is what it does provide. But one has heard nowhere else that that is what it provides. I think the hon. member for Houghton has only discovered during this debate that that is what it does provide. She certainly did not know that at the time. I see that she does not disagree with me now.

The hon. member talked about rehabilitation centres as if no provision was being made for them. She says that people should be allowed to go voluntarily for treatment. This Bill provides for just that. People can go for voluntary treatment and not only to the rehabilitation centres to be created in terms of this Bill, but also to those private institutions of which there are many throughout the country, and which is also dealt with here. And, Sir, if the hon. member would look at clause 44 she will see just that.

The hon. member has accused us of doing certain things which she thinks are wrong. What are they? Supporting the principle of this Bill? Let me say that the hon. member for Houghton took a very interested part in clauses I to 15 during the Committee Stage, clauses which deal with drugs, drug pedlars, penalties and various other things. But the hon. member was conspicuous by her absence in participation when we dealt with three-quarters of the Bill dealing with the rehabilitation of drug addicts.

Were you not here when I gave my analysis of the Bill at its Second Reading?

I am not talking about the Second Reading. I am talking about the participation of this hon. member in the Committee Stage on three-quarters of the Bill, on the rehabilitation part of it. Not a pip did we have out of her, except one amendment as far as I can remember, which was accepted. Here is an hon. member who has the impudence to accuse us of supporting a Bill of which rehabilitation is one of the main principles and with which most of its clauses deal. And yet she does not say a thing about it. Only now at the Third Reading stage when she suddenly realizes, having listened to the debate, that it has an awful lot to do with rehabilitation, does the hon. member say anything at all in this regard. What she said was wrong because what she pleaded for was already in the Bill.

I see you are going to make the same misrepresentations about this as you did about me and the Boss Bill?

What misrepresentations?

Let me say this. Apart from our disagreement as to those minimum penalties—and I hope the hon. member accepts now that we do not propose to take the discretion of the courts away—-the hon. member voted with us consistently throughout the Committee Stage. She voted with us to include section 6 offences relating to places of entertainment being made part of the clause 7 scheme that is giving the discretion to the courts to impose other than minimum sentences.

I opposed that clause.

The hon. member voted with us on that. When it came to the interrogation clause, clause 13, the hon. member voted with every amendment of ours on that as well. She voted for our conclusion as well.

I opposed that clause.

What happened? I remember it distinctly. The Whips on our side at the end when our amendments had been rejected, asked that the official Opposition’s opposition be recorded. At that stage the hon. member said: “Mine too”. It is in the minutes, for everybody to see.

What happened under that clause? The hon. member must appreciate the fact that it was the United Party who got that clause watered down to what it is. And it is very significant so far as clause 13 is concerned, that as a result of those amendments it cannot in the first place be any Tom, Dick or Harry Bantu Commissioner or someone who has just been appointed a magistrate. It must be a magistrate of some standing. In the second place you cannot be interrogated or detained unless evidence on oath is given. In the third place, this cannot happen unless the judicial officer has given his consent to it. What is more, he reviews that decision every fortnight. These are significant changes which have been made. That was the object of the operation. Nevertheless we find it, without our amendments, still not to be satisfactory. What have we done wrong? What are we accused of doing wrong?

Go and explain that to your constituents; not to me.

Is it wrong to support a Bill the principles of which are to fight drug pedlars and drug abuse and to provide for rehabilitation? Nothing else at all. It is a great pity that some of the thoughts of the hon. member have been echoed by other people who perhaps have not read the Bill. I am sure the hon. member’s stand is somewhat encouraged by what she saw in the newspapers over the week-end, like the following—

I must say, Sir, would it not be nice if those who wrote like this in the newspapers had read the Bill before they wrote it? Then the other remarkable thing one found is this

Well, this is really good.

Order! Is the hon. member reading from a newspaper?

From memory, Sir!

It is not a report of what happened in the House; it is really comment by this newspaper on what the United Party did and what the hon. member for Houghton did.

I think as a legal man the hon. member ought to know that he may not quote it.

Then we had someone else, a professor of law at a very distinguished university, saying that it was a great pity that this Bill dealt with penalties and did not deal with rehabilitation. Of course, that is just what it does. However, he did add that he had not read the Bill. I think that is precisely where we stand at the moment. Sir, what is it that the hon. member for Houghton wants, except publicity? What does she want in respect of drugs? We stand here with a Bill before us to deal with drug abuse, with the evidence of the Grobler Committee, which has reported that this has reached proportions that need urgent legislation. We supported the Bill because of that, because of the principles I have indicated, and we tried to improve the Bill and in some respects we did, and that is our contribution. But so far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, what is her attitude and what is her contribution? It is merely that she has a lot of principles that she waffles about, unrelated to what is in the Bill, merely for the purpose of making some political capital out of it, which in the long term she is not going to get. But I just want to say this, that so far as his Bill is concerned, if this Bill is not passed—there are aspects of it that we do not like—but if it is not passed and implemented soon, we shall find In South Africa precisely the same pattern that you are finding in America, with the views and the attitudes that the hon. member for Houghton represents, and which is becoming an octopus which will kill that nation if it is not controlled. We on this side of the House are determined to take steps now before that octopus is allowed to swim any further in the waters of the youth of South Africa.

I have listened with great interest to this debate today and I want to say at once to hon. members that I enjoyed it very much. In the second place I want to say thank you very much to hon. members on both sides of the House for their support in this connection, for every responsible member of this House supports this legislation. There is one comment I want to make though. Everyone is now laying claim to having initiated this Bill. The baby has been born and is lying in the crib, and now everyone says it looks just like them; everyone is now the father of this child. The English Press conceived it and so did the United Party. Only the hon. member for Houghton has not yet laid any claim to paternity of the child. I do not want to go into details. I do not begrudge anyone his right to lay claim to this measure. I just want to furnish the facts as I know them. There have been private motions over the years on various aspects, such as the abuse of liquor, drugs, etc., from members on both sides of the House. The first real action, I think, which specifically gave rise to this matter, was a report of the commission on alcoholism. In its report in 1969 that commission brought it very frankly and specifically to my attention as Minister that the abuse of drugs had begun to assume such proportions that they were becoming concerned, and they thought attention should be given to the matter. It was to the contents of that report that I reacted immediately by announcing under my Vote during that same year that I intended appointing a commission of enquiry to investigate the matter. That was done in May. In July I appointed the commission of enquiry, it brought out its report and at the first subsequent opportunity this legislation was introduced. I do not want to quarrel now about the paternity of the Bill. I am simply stating the facts and I maintain that everyone in his own way made a contribution. The English Press for example launched a campaign after the commission had already been appointed. The Johannesburg City Council showed its interest by way of a special investigation after the commission had already been appointed; Mr. Widman, who did very good work in this connection, also took steps, after the commission had already beer, appointed, however, but this in no way detracts from the fact that each in his own way played a part in it. I do not want to ask for any special credit for this.

Sir, I want to broach another matter before ) reply to the debate. It speaks volumes for the efficiency of this House as a constitutional establishment in a modern, civilized, responsible country and for the sense of responsibility of responsible members of this House, that a Bill of this scope and this nature could be thrashed out so thoroughly on such a high level and disposed of so rapidly. I think it is an honour for an establishment such as this House that we were able to deal with this legislation in this manner.

I want to return immediately to the amendment which I myself proposed in the Report Stage today. It means, as hon. members will undoubtedly understand, that only persons who have an appointment as magistrate or additional magistrate under the Magistrates’ Courts Act may now act as magistrates in respect of the provisions of clause 13. That was the intention and that is why the amendment has been introduced in order to clarify the matter.

Sir, quite a number of members participated in the debate and I want to deal with their arguments briefly. The hon. member for Berea began by advocating that we should keep the classification of dagga as it is, and he advanced reasons as to why this should be the case. In this connection I should like to quote from a paper read before the congress of the Medical Association this year, where the following was said in regard to the American situation—

And that in spite of all the hon. member for Houghton had to say about dagga and how harmless it is. Sir, I shall return later on to dagga …

They say it should not be legalized but it should not be treated on the same basis as the others.

Yes, it should not be legalized, but it should not be treated on the same basis as other drugs either. I shall in a moment furnish other facts and reasons as to why I treat it on the same basis, and in addition to that I want to say that South Africa, whatever America may do, has the right to do what it deems fit.

Then the hon. member for Berea asked how well the various Departments were equipped to deal with this problem. I want to tell him at once that we are to the best of our ability, of course, gearing all departmental machinery to cope with this new problem. The hon. member referred to the manpower shortage in the Police Force and made representations to the effect that women should be employed as police officers. I just want to inform him that it has already been approved in principle that there should be women police and that advertisements have already at this stage been placed in order to attract women police into the Force, not only for the purposes of this Act, but for other purposes as well. As far as the shortage of customs officers is concerned, I want to say that the organization in this connection has been tightened up.

There is, however, another advantage in this entire situation as far as customs officials are concerned. As a result of the provisions of clause 13 of this Bill, by means of which we are now able to obtain certain information which was not known and available to us before, our customs officers and inspectors will be able to act far more effectively and efficiently in tracing these substances. I am convinced that our customs officers will now be able to act more effectively, but I want to acknowledge that the hon. member is right when he says that the shortage of customs officers could also create problems for us. As far as the import and export of these substances are concerned, the matter will be dealt with by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health, when he introduces the necessary amendment to Act No. 13 of 1928, to eliminate any loopholes there may still be in that legislation, supplementary to this Bill. The hon. member asked me what my standpoint was in regard to alcohol advertisements. If I am interpreting him correctly, he was asking me to take the initiative in putting an immediate stop to all alcohol advertisements. I should like to know whether this is the official standpoint of the United Party?

I did not ask for it to be stopped, but that it be controlled. We should have a look at it.

Anybody can “have a look at it”. That we shall do. I think that is precisely what the advertisers want us to do. They want us in fact to have a look at their advertisements to see how good they are. However, one must maintain one’s balance in this connection. I want to repeat the standpoint I slated on a previous occasion, viz. that it is certainly the right of the wine producer and those people who deal in this commodity to advertise their wares. Whether I agree with this personally, does not matter. In my opinion the other side of the matter, at which we shall have a look, is the combating of the abuse of liquor in South Africa and that we shall undertake more and more intensive rehabilitation work in respect of this problem. We must educate our people to use and not to abuse these commodities, for that is how it is meant to be.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why did the hon. the Minister support the Drugs Control Bill under which advertising is limited if he is not prepared to do it, in connection with another drug which is now mentioned in his Bill?

I want to be honest and say that I do not think anyone in our modern society regards liquor in the same light as drugs, despite the fact that they are both intoxicants. I do not think we can draft legislation in which these two substances are accorded identical treatment. If the hon. member tells me that his party will do this differently, I should like to hear about it. But I do not think he can give me that assurance.

The gravest concern in respect of the legislation which is at present under discussion is in connection with action taken against children under the age of 18. I have been told so frequently, from all quarters, that steps now have to he taken against children under the age of 18. I just want to point out that our Liquor Act at present makes it impossible for children under the age of 18 to obtain liquor. In other words, this request has already been complied with. Then, of course, there is also the task of the schools in this connection, and the role which teachers could play in the education of children in this regard. But above all, I think, we need the example of a responsible community and the example of the parents. Thirteen moralizing sermons and 30 moral lessons do not have the same value for a child as one example from a responsible parent. That is my conviction and therein lies our ultimate strength.

Clause 18 deals with the establishment of rehabilitation centres. The hon. member asked me where we would find the money for this purpose. I just want to tell him that the Board which will now be appointed, and the Director of Rehabilitation Centres will immediately have to deal with the entire situation. They will have to tell us where existing rehabilitation centres would have to be expanded and where new ones would have to be established. It was not possible for me to establish centres before we had legislation in this connection. We must of course have legislation first before this can be done. Now we will take immediate steps in this connection. The matter will be dealt with as rapidly as possible and to the best of our ability. I think that with this I have replied briefly to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Berea.

The hon. member for Germiston made a speech in regard to the strength of the family unit and as usual it was worthwhile listening to him. I want to tell the hon. member that I endorse everything he said in that connection. I just want to quote to the hon. member from a radio talk which I gave some time ago in the programme “Top Level” in regard to the position of the family. I said—

That is the theme of my speech. I just want to repeat that I endorse the entire idea behind what the hon. member said.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked us to launch an information campaign immediately. I want to give him the assurance that this will receive my immediate attention. We must be careful with this information. I want to warn immediately against the danger which exists when people who are not equipped with all the facts try to launch an information campaign, and when such people hold speeches on drugs wherever they may find themselves. That could have an extremely prejudicial effect in that it could stimulate people ’s curiosity to such an extent that they go and try out what they have been told about.

Yes, it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

For that reason we must tackle this matter with great care. For that reason I am now requesting everyone who is thinking about this matter not to act in an irresponsible manner. We will furnish the correct guidance at the right time so that the matter can be dealt with in the right way. Then I want to refer to the question of the wrong information given by the press to the public. This last weekend in particular I read reports relating to this legislation to things I have never seen in this legislation. I have heard the comments of experts on parts of the legislation, as quoted by a few members in this House, which proved one thing only, and that was that those experts acted solely on what the newspaperman had told them was stated in that legislation, or what he thought was slated therein. The experts then gave their own reaction to that. Some of them did not even glance at the legislation or see it at all, but they were looking for publicity by commenting on it in spite of the fact that they did not know what was stated there. There are a few very clear examples here, but I am deliberately going to refrain from quoting them. It is very clear that they are people who were merely looking for publicity in this connection, and wanted to join the hue and cry on a large-scale because it would be popular in certain circles. I just want to give hon. members the assurance that we shall have to act in a responsible manner in our entire approach to this matter as well.

There are numerous problems in the administration of this legislation which we shall have to deal with. The hon. member for Umbilo put certain questions in regard to administrative problems. I want to give him the assurance at this early juncture that I have already arranged to hold a conference in August of this year of all the regional heads of my Department through out the country. This conference will be devoted entirely to the abuse of dependence-producing drugs and the administration of this legislation in all its facets. I want to begin with my own Department and get them together first so that they can be the first to be given full information in regard to the position. Then every regional head can undertake to provide the necessary guidance in his own region so that he can bring private initiative and all the other people into the picture as far as this situation is concerned. That is our intention in this connection, and that is how we will apply it. Subsequent circumstances may in future cause us to hold a general congress in which these specific problems may be dealt with. Then we can bring everyone interested in this matter into the picture.

I think it is time we said something more about the question of voluntary rehabilitation. As a result of the hon. member for Houghton’s outcry the accent at present falls to such an extent on certain of these sentences and terrible measures which have now been described by her in capital letters, that one of the finest provisions in this legislation has been overlooked. Since 1963 we have been experiencing a problem in regard to the rehabilitation of people. That problem is being completely eliminated now. No publicity whatsoever has been given to it now; one would swear that it was not included in the legislation at all! The problem with the present 1963 Act, which deals with rehabilitation, is that it provided that when a person had to be admitted to an institution and he did not offer to admit himself as a voluntary boarder, but his family wanted to have him admitted to that centre because he needed rehabilitation, he could only be admitted to that centre in one way. They bad to go to the police and lay a charge against their own spouse. Then a public court case had to be held, and all those details had to be thrashed out in public. Only then could that man be admitted to the rehabilitation centre. As a result few people made use of this measure. They did not want to make use of it because nobody wanted their private lives exposed in the Press and in a public court. This legislation provides that such a member of the family can simply go to a welfare officer and leave the matter in his hands. The welfare officer will act immediately and arrange for a subsequent enquiry to be held. This can he done in camera, without anyone knowing about it. The moment we find that such a person would really benefit from rehabilitation, he is taken to the rehabilitation centre. I want to express the hope and the expectation that many more people will come forward voluntarily and that families will bring many more people along to be rehabilitated, whether they are addicted to alcohol or to drugs. I am mentioning them both, because this relates to both these cases. I think that this fine positive aspect of this legislation has been completely overlooked in this fuss which has been kicked up about the other part of the legislation.

Then the hon. member for Umbilo also asked me about the childrens' homes, and specifically about the question of how we declare children to be in need of care. I just want to inform the hon. member that my problem is that the childrens’ homes as they exist at present are not equipped to deal with children who are dependent on these substances. They must be treated in a rehabilitation centre, under special circumstances. That is why it will not be of any use declaring these children to be in need of care as such. However, we have the situation in hand, and rehabilitation centres may be classified. We shall keep a watchful eye on the position to see to it that children are rehabilitated at the right places and receive the correct attention. The hon. member also asked a question in regard to the Advisory Board. Clauses 16 and 17 make provision for that. In regard to the reports of the board, I can inform the hon. member at this early juncture that I intend in the initial stages to call for reports quite frequently. The legislation gives me the power to do so, and ] am going to. They will provide interesting statistics. To my mind the Director is the key figure in this entire situation. The Director as such will have to take steps when he is confronted with these problems.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Fauresmith for his speech. He mentioned one matter which I should like to endorse sincerely. He made an appeal to our professional people, i.e. our doctors—and I want to add to that our pharmacists, veterinarians and dentists—and various other people who have to work with these substances in their daily lives—for some of them do in fact have medicinal value— to act in a responsible manner by not writing out prescriptions too readily in a frivolous and light-hearted way, merely to retain the goodwill, or whatever you like to call it, of a patient. I want to give that hon. member my immediate support when he says that we should make an appeal to these people to act in a responsible manner when they deal with this problem and not to overdo the prescriptions. The hon. member for Waterkloof also made a fine, calm, powerful and peaceful speech in support of this matter. Nor do I need to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North. We had enough to do with one another during the Committee Stage. In any case, he devoted his entire speech to the hon. member for Houghton and I think I must leave the two of them to their own private quarrel. I do not think I should have anything to do with that, because it may perhaps give rise to a further problem.

Now I come to the hon. member for Houghton, and her opposition to this legislation. I find it interesting that the hon. member for Houghton should vote against the principle of this legislation. She said that she would vote against the Third Reading of this legislation as well. The principle of a Bill is normally to be found in the title of such a Bill. What is the title to this Bill? The title is: “Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Bill”. Those are the two aspects which we regard as essential to deal with this matter, namely the control and curbing of the abuse of these substances, as well as rehabilitation. In spite of the fact that the hon. member says that she agrees that these substances should be controlled, she is voting against the principle of this Bill. That is to say, she is voting against what I regard to be the basis of the Bill, i.e. the control of the substances and the rehabilitation centres. For what other reason is she voting against the principle of this Bill? If she votes against certain provisions and clauses during the Committee Stage, fine; to say during the Third Reading that her amendments were not accented and that she is therefore voting against the Third Reading, is also acceptable, but to vote against the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading is something in regard to which I can state candidly in public that the hon. member and her Party is opposed to the control of these substances and is opposed to rehabilitation centres. [Interjections.] Even if the hon. member repeats what she has just said 20 times, it is recorded in Hansard that she voted against the principle of this Bill. If one votes against the principle, deeds speak louder than words. The public will forget all her speeches, but still know that she voted against this Bill. The hon. member’s objection is in the first place to the imposition of minimum sentences. She keeps on telling us that we must not adopt our own course, but should imitate Western civilization, Surely the hon. member is aware that certain countries also have minimum sentences in this regard.

I talked about detention without trial.

No, the hon. member must not run away from what she said now. Her first point of attack was clearly that she was opposed to the Bill because minimum sentences were being prescribed. These minimum sentences are prescribed in clauses 2 and 3. The question of detention for interrogation is dealt with in clause 13, and I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member opposed clauses 2 and 3 and voted against them, while she knows for a fact that numerous West European countries already have this situation.

No, not Britain.

England does not have it, but the United States does. Another argument of the hon. member was concerned with the casual drug-takers. Looking at her, it seems to me that occasionally the hon. member is a casual South African. I made it clear during the Committee Stage that clause 7, which makes provision for mitigating circumstances, as well as clause 62 in terms of which the trial may be stopped and converted immediately into an enquiry, and even after conviction may lead to admission to a rehabilitation centre, are specifically aimed at preventing the imprisonment of people who, just for kicks, or whatever other reason, tried it once. Exceptions are being made so that they may be sent to a centre. That is the specific object behind this. I made it as plain as could be, and it is stated in that way in the Bill. But now the hon. member does not want me to be allowed to lay down such a provision. If I did not have that provision there, it would mean that the hardened drug-taker, who keeps on doing so year in and year out and in addition trafficks and deals in drugs, may not be dealt with either, because a person may accidentally be apprehended in terms of the other provision. Does the hon. member not understand that? Surely it is as clear as can be. One imposes a total prohibition and then makes provision for us practical application, as in clauses 7 and 62. As regards the statement she has given general currency to and which the newspapers have followed her in blazoning it abroad with such relish, i.e. that we are now going to fill our prisons with the young people of South Africa, I want to say at once to the hon. member that practical experience will show that our Police and our courts are responsible people. They have dealt in a responsible manner with similar situations in the past, and they will be able to do so again. Where necessary these people will be rehabilitated and our institutions will receive more and more of these people. Our prisons will definitely not be filled. We will deal with the trafficker only—and I repeat, deal mercilessly with him, without any trace of compassion, for nobody dare have any compassion for him.

I said this the other day, and I just want to reiterate it briefly here. The hon. member waxed lyrical about all the other countries. She said things were not done like this. We are medieval in our approach, obsolete, etc. Here I have a very definite quotation. The man I am quoting is Dr, George Birdwood, chairman of the London Region of the Association for the Prevention of Addiction. After my legislation was introduced this man was asked to comment. This article appeared on 7th May, 1971, in the Cape Times. He expressed himself very clearly, and I quote—

South Africa is now doing things differently to all the other countries. This man says: “I feel it is worth trying.” He is the chairman of that organization in Great Britain. Why does he say this?

This is the danger he sees …

Then he goes on to say—

Why do the Police find it so difficult to work back from that small-time operator to the master mind behind it? Because the British legislation does not have clause 13 and is therefore unable to obtain that information. That is why Britain is powerless and has given up hope; that is why Britain is now on its way to taking the next step, i.e.—

so serious is the problem—

“I am unable to deal with him and I am therefore giving in. Now he is free to carry on, I shall be more lenient and accommodating. I cannot cope with the problem, but I am not going to admit defeat. I am therefore going to be more lenient” that is the way the hon. member reasons. That is precisely what it amounts to. The hon. member had such a lot to say about dagga. I have here an article which appeared in the magazine Time. The hon. member can go and read it herself if she wants to. The date is 3rd May, 1970— quite recent therefore. I am here quoting two American professors who made a special study of dagga abuse in particular. I quote—

In other words, here we are dealing with dagga, and dagga alone. Then a number of examples are mentioned—

These are the consequences of dagga and dagga alone, according to an American magazine. I have another reference to dagga here, but I shall read it out to the hon. member later. I want to treat her little by little with dagga so that she can know where she stands.

The half-hour for your speech has almost expired.

Have I only a half-hour for my speech? I did not realize it. Then I want to say this in conclusion, that we are dealing here with a measure which is essential in the interests of South Africa. South Africa is no appendage of any other country in the world, but is a country in its own right—full-fledged, adult and with the right to act according to its own judgments, an adult and sovereign independent state. If we then consider that we should act in this way against these people and this is ratified by the body chosen by the people, then we shall continue to do so without asking what this or that country would do, but shall do what we, according to our own views, consider to be right. The people will support such actions, as we may expect from any decent South African.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the amendment to the proviso of section 4(1) (a), an amendment which allows the hon. the Minister to exempt from the control of the committee —which I shall refer to as the “tender committee”—any item which he wishes to exempt. I do so because of the concern over the extent to which a later clause makes provision for the delegation of authority. The control is in fact contained in section 4 of the principal Act, a section which is being amended by clause 3 of this Bill. There are a number of points I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify. In the first place, to what extent can the delegation envisaged in clause 5 empower the purchase, or arrangements for purchase, without the prior recommendation of the committee envisaged in section 4 of the principal Act? In other words, it is the intention, by allowing for an exemption from that control, that contracts which at the moment are limited to conclusion after the committee has considered them, can be entered into without that control? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is on the same wavelength with me. At the moment the law says that no contract shall be entered into for the manufacture or acquisition of armaments unless a committee appointed under section 8 has considered it and made recommendations. This is now amended to provide that the same shall apply except where the Minister directs otherwise. Now, by directing otherwise, he negates the whole purpose of this proviso which was inserted in the original Act, a proviso which to our mind is an important element in the control which is exercised by the Minister. Without that control, when we come to clause 5, we find that the power becomes completely unlimited. I think it is important that we should know exactly to what extent this exclusion which the Minister now takes the power to effect, is going to water down this control; and where he has excluded items, what alternative control there will be over contracts entered into.

Then a further point arises here. The original Act provided for the manufacture or acquisition of armaments. Now that power is being amended. We now have, for instance, the concept of maintenance being introduced, including the maintenance of buildings or of land. In terms of this proviso those are not covered. In other words, authority can be delegated, to take it to its ridiculous extreme, from the officer commanding a unit to the quartermaster, who can delegate it to the quartermaster-sergeant, who can delegate it to a junior N.C.O., for instance, for the maintenance of vehicles in that unit. That is not protected in terms of this proviso, because it is not the manufacture or acquisition of armaments. It now becomes a contract for maintenance, which therefore is not controlled by what I regard as the protective machinery of the original Act. In the same way, land and buildings which now fall under that provision and which must be maintained in the same way as vehicles, etc., also are not covered by the proviso to section 4 of the principal Act. I will not take the matter further at this stage, but I would be glad to hear from the Minister what controls apply in effect, firstly, to exempted matters, secondly, to maintenance contracts for vehicles or for any other purpose, and thirdly, to contracts for the maintenance and purchase of land and buildings, etc.

The hon. member was not present when I made my speech,

No, but I have read it

In any case, what the hon. member must remember is that under the present system where one has a State Tender Board and a State Procurement Board, the procedure has been followed of granting such powers in cases where one, for example, buys off the shelf. This is all we are indicating here. The hon. member will see that I put it very dearly—

This is what we specifically have in mind here namely that, since the Armaments Board is now taking over the functions of the present Procurement Board, we shall have the power of taking steps in cases which demand speedy action and in minor cases.

I thank the hon. the Minister for the explanation. May I ask him whether he can give the assurance that the same conditions which applied under the Procurement Board, i.e. the three conditions he mentioned here, will now apply in regard to this board? In addition, could he elaborate a bit more in regard to the problem of maintenance, since the manufacture or acquisition of armaments is not covered in the proviso to the original section?

As the hon. member knows, in terms of section 4 (4) of the existing Act I have the power of giving any instruction to the board, which it must then carry out, but before the board proceeds to take these steps, the matter will be discussed with me. We shall not go further than is necessary under the present circumstances for both the Defence Force and, in consultation with the Minister of Police, for the Police.

But should the word “maintenance” not be inserted in the original section? Should it not read: “No contract for the manufacture or acquisition of armaments or maintenance”?

No. There are certain existing contracts which have already been concluded, but not by the Armaments Board.

New contracts?

Yes. Sir, my information is that it is not necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to he difficult over this. I accept the hon. the Minister’s bona fides but at the moment he has no power in terms of this Bill to limit contracts for maintenance, because it does not fall under the definition of “manufacture or acquisition”. All I am suggesting is that he should consider the matter and perhaps in the Other Place add the word “maintenance” so that it will read “manufacture or acquisition or maintenance”, so that contracts for maintenance will fall under the same proviso. If he will do that, then I will be perfectly happy.

I will consider it and if it is necessary I will do so.

Sir, this is a very wide-ranging clause, which entitles the hoard, without the approval of the Minister, to delegate powers to any person or body of persons, including any committee, the holder of a post under the board, any employee, and the holder of any post in the Public Service, to do certain things. This means that the board, without ministerial approval, can delegate any of its powers of purchase to any individual either in the employment of the board or in the employment of the State, or to any person or body of persons outside the employment of the State. In fact it is an unlimited power of delegation. Then, Sir, it also permits any body or person to whom such power has been delegated, to re-delegate his power to any other person or body. It is not only one person to whom the board delegates powers, but the person receiving that delegated power may re-delegate his power to any person to whom he wishes to delegate such powers.

What about (2) (a)?

It is only limited to the extent to which the delegation is to an officer or employee in the Public Service. Only if the power is delegated to a public servant must the permission of that public servant’s Minister be obtained, ft is not the Minister of Defence, but the Minister of the department under which the public servant falls to whom the power is delegated. So if the board should delegate a power to an officer concerned with supplies, in, for instance, the Department of Prisons, it would have to obtain the permission of the Minister of Prisons. If it was an officer or an official in the Department of Police, the Minister of Police would have to give permission, but not the Minister of Defence.

What about subsection (4)?

Subsection (4) simply lays down that such conditions and restrictions as may be determined by the board will apply.

As may be determined by the board.

Yes, by the board, but the hon. the Minister is now abrogating his own control over delegation and handing it to the board. The board may then impose conditions when it delegates. But if it does not, the board passes its power over to the delegatee, who can then further delegate so that the original responsibility falls away. I recognize that subsection (5) provides that the board shall not be divested of a power delegated by it, but after giving it some thought, I wonder whether some form of reporting should not be provided for. On clause 3 I dealt with the question of the committee which must approve, except where there are exceptions, and which I now accept the hon. the Minister will confine to the three cases he mentioned. But would it not be wise to insert a proviso that where a power is delegated, any purchases made over a certain value should be reported back to the board or to the committee? I do not mind whether it is to the committee or to the board. In this way the board itself would keep the ultimate control and a delegation from X to Y would not occur. That may start off with a small item, such as R100 to be spent on spares for a particular vehicle, which is one of the exempted items. Then the vehicles get old and, instead of there being one amount of R100, it becomes R100 this week, R250 a week later and by the end of the year it can amount to a large sum of money. Therefore my suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that he consider some form of report-back to the board or committee when a delegated power has been exercised.

A moment ago I referred to that in passing. If the hon. member would look at section 4 (4) of the existing Act, he would see that from time to time the Minister gives instructions to the board in regard to the performance of its functions, as the Minister deems fit. The board must carry out such instructions. In other words, in spite of these provisions, the Minister retains the power to give instructions to the board and to say how they must perform those functions. For example, if the board were to go too far with its delegation, the board may be instructed by the Minister to cancel it. This is the first thing that may be done. Therefore there is control. In the second place, at present it is a standing instruction in terms of section 4 (4) that the minutes of the board’s proceedings must be submitted to the Minister immediately. In this way he exercises control. In practice, when a board meeting takes place and a matter is discussed, it may be clear to the board that they want to decide in a particular direction. But, because there are one or two matters outstanding which must be checked, the matter may perhaps be referred to a committee consisting of one or two members of the board. The members may be directed to deal with the case. The legislation is merely to make provision for these circumstances.

* Otherwise they have to approach the Minister each time and ask him to agree to the delegation of these powers to A, B or C. It is only to help the administration and to expedite matters that we are seeking this power. The Minister still retains the right to issue instructions to the board concerning the way in which they should approach it. I think it is now clear to the hon. member that in terms of section 4 (4) the Minister still retains the right to instruct the board as to what they should do.

Mr. Chairman, I accept this, and I am not asking that the Minister should attach his approval to a delegation every time. That would be unreasonable and I realize that this delegation is necessary in certain circumstances. My fear is that after the delegation has been approved, the Minister as well as the board loses control over its implementation. The board delegates to a person or body. That body or person may then redelegate to another person. At that stage one would already be three steps away from the Minister. I realize the hon. the Minister has the power to say how the board must operate. The hon. the Minister said that if matters went too far, he would be able to cancel it. But it will not come to his notice. The board delegates, and after it has delegated, there is no provision that if the person or body receiving the delegated power delegated to someone else again, he or it should report that fact to the board. In other words, if the board delegated certain powers of purchase to me. and I in turn delegated them to the hon. member for North Rand, I would not need to inform the board that I had redelegated them. I would have received that power and could do with it what I liked. I am using this example because perhaps it will penetrate to the Minister. I mean that powers may be delegated from one person to another and the Bill contains no provision that a report should be submitted on how that power was used. I just felt that where those powers were either used or redelegated, a report should be submitted on the use of such powers. This is all I am suggesting. I regard it as an additional control measure which would require no additional work. The board would not have to meet every time. All that would happen, would be that the board would receive a report of how its delegated powers were used in practice. If it were dissatisfied, it could then withdraw those delegated powers. Otherwise it would never appear in the minutes received by the Minister. The board would have no knowledge of what was happening This is the idea as well as the problem which I have.

It really amounts to a question of whether provision should be made in the Bill or whether it should be left to good administration. I personally believe that it should be part of the instructions that I give to the board. Where you take these steps and by-pass the normal procedure of the committee which must report back, it must be part of your instructions to see to it that it is reported back to the next meeting of the board. It is a question of the control which the board is exercising.

Why not have it in the Bill?

I have no objection to it being written in the Bill. However, I think it is a question of good administration which could he effected by proper instruction. It is the intention to do so. I have no objection to having it laid down in the Bill. I will go into the matter. If it is necessary, the Bill can be amended. Personally I feel that we cannot include in an Act everything which is part and parcel of good administration.

Not everything; only control measures.

Mr. Speaker, I concluded on Friday evening by saying that, contrary to the contention of the hon. the Minister of Transport, the South Africa Act vested in the provinces powers to build and control roads within their boundaries. Despite the passage of the 1935 and 1948 Acts, this power was re-enacted in the Republican Constitution Act of 1961. We do not support the views of the hon. the Minister of Transport that the procedures laid down under this Bill will in fact ensure more efficiency, will save public money or will have work done much better than it has been done in the past under the provinces.

Finally, this Bill before us will result in traffic regulations being formulated by a statutory body, namely the National Transport Commission, to apply to national roads thoughout the Republic. These regulations are to prevail over the ordinances passed by any of the provincial councils in respect of traffic control in their own provinces. One cannot imagine a more glaring example of overlapping and inefficiency when one comes to the inevitable question: If there is a conflict between transport regulations, what authority is to be supreme as regards the control of traffic on these national roads where the regulations of the National Transport Commission must prevail against the ordinances? Presumably the provincial administrations will be expected under this Bill to use their own provincial traffic police to enforce regulations which are in fact in conflict with the regulations and ordinances which they have adopted. The intention of this Bill is to bring about uniformity by the simplest way which is known to this Government, namely to direct what should be done. They do not seek uniformity by consultation and co-operation between various persons concerned.

That is nonsense.

It is so. The hon. member for Brakpan can say that that is nonsense, but that is what will happen under this Bill. It will be a matter of directives because of the irritation of the National Transport Commission in having to consult the provinces. This is a statement which is embodied in the White Paper which is before us today. It states that consultation has led to frustration. They do not like to argue with the provinces about the interests of the provinces and about what the provinces would prefer for their own particular circumstances. This Bill affects the status and the powers of the provinces; they are to be reduced to a mere sub-department of the National Transport Commission when they do build national roads. They will be expected to assume delegated responsibility to build roads according to the dictates of the commission and not the wisdom of their own engineers. We believe that this Bill does in fact offend against the recommendations of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions, that it is contrary to the recommendations and the interests of the provinces and that it is above all contrary to recommendations of the Department of Transport itself. For those reasons we cannot support the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a point that was touched on by the hon. member who has just sat down. He said that the question of consultation seem to have been lost sight of. I want to speak particularly from the angle of the Executive Committee of the Administration of Natal, but I believe that this will apply to all four provinces. The hon. the Minister made a statement here in Parliament the other day and the hon. member for Green Point has referred to it already. I can assure the hon. members that this statement as it had been reported in the Press has created consternation in Natal. It has caused consternation because it was quite clear that that statement could only have been made if the Minister had been misinformed completely in regard to the attitude of the Executive Committee and the Administration in Natal. Not only were they against the Bill, but they had said so. They have sent a minute to the Secretary for Transport in which they set out four separate points of argument against this Bill. These separate points are based upon legal advice and on long periods of discussion by the Executive Committee of the proposals in this Bill. They rejected these proposals. I want to put the point to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of this Bill that there never was consultation in regard to the principle of a takeover by the Government of the power to make roads. The deputation of officials that met members of the Executive Committee and members of the Provincial Administration argued there from the angle that this has been decided already and that they were going to take it over. That is why the Executive Committee said in the memorandum that they have sent down to the Secretary for Transport that if it is nonetheless the intention to proceed with the draft Bill, we must say so and so. Then they said that they asked for the opportunity of consultation. There never was consultation in the sense that the people concerned got round the table and discussed the principle of the take-over. They did not discuss as to whether it was desirable and as to whether it was accepted by both parties That was never done. To the best of my information, right up until today, all four provincial administrations have been against the take-over, as it is called. I challenge the Deputy Minister to bring any evidence in writing whereby he can prove that the other three provinces have accepted it. Here we have the evidence in writing that Natal has not accepted it. This was not a take-over; it was simply a …

Smash and grab!

Yes, it was a confiscation of power which was vested in the provincial council since the time of Union. This is a confiscation of the powers, a taking-away, without their approval, without their consent and without the conditions being laid down in advance upon which there would be agreement.

Now, in regard to an important matter like our national roads, I want to say that this spirit which is being engendered by the Government department concerned can only lead to endless trouble in the future. I want to go back and say to the hon. the Minister that he may remember a conversation we had some three years ago in connection with traffic control. I do not think we were having discussions in confidence and therefore the hon. the Minister will not hold it against me if I mention it. The Minister told me that he was not going to take over traffic control. I then said to him from my heart: “Ben, you are very wise indeed. You don’t know what sort of a headache you would be taking over if you took over traffic control”. I now want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look into this whole issue himself, because I can tell him what he will find. He will find that the Chief Engineer of the Department of Transport is the person who is basically at the bottom of the whole of this takeover. This Chief Engineer is now on pension, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into the matter. Every province will tell him the same thing. Let him go to the Transvaal to find out what the background of this takeover is. Where does the present staff stand? I know none of the present staff. I knew the Chief Engineer who is no longer there, but I know none of the present staff. If the Minister would go to them and ask for a plain and honest statement of opinion, I think he would find that they are frightened about what is being done and the load which is being placed on them. This is not simply a case of taking over the construction of national roads and that is the end of the matter. This is the creation of a new department. What has the National Transport Commission got even in the way of a nucleus of a department? One man and a dog. Those are not my words, but those of a person of authority in the department. They have nothing from the administrative side, from the clerical staff right to the top, and on the construction side the Minister’s staff will now have to build de novo a new administrative edifice which will now take into account the whole question of the construction of national roads. National roads are not something that stand in isolation or in vacuo in the economy of South Africa. They are not things that are built out in the country with endless space and with no limitations. It is not something where people can go to blackboards, draw their lines and lay down their specifications and put X at one point and another X at another point and say that there is the road which will go between these two points. This is not national road building. From the time when the first Bill was considered and the old National Roads Board was constituted to the present time, I have been involved in my own area with the question of building national roads. I want to say that it is a most involved and intricate question, involving human relations at every turn. What is the Minister going to do about expropriation? That gentleman who was Chief Engineer for the National Roads Department was responsible for this Bill, as I see it, He became impatient over the delays. I am not necessarily blaming him as an official. I blame someone higher up than that engineer for taking this decision. The engineer could not take the decision to come with legislation to Parliament. But he grew impatient. Over and over he exercised his functions and felt that the route was settled, the specifications determined and the money was available, but ever so often some difficulties cropped up. Over and over again “be work did not proceed as he had anticipated, until he became completely furstrated and said: “I am going to take over the construction of the roads myself”. I am sorry to say that that was not the way to deal with it. If I was not such a patient man, I would recognize impatience in other men. When it comes to building national roads, one must not be impatient. My memory takes me back to the first commission on which the late Mr. Hollander sat for the planning of the first national road under the National Roads Board. We have to be patient. The building of national roads should be dealt with slowly and step by step, building from the grass roots. It should be done in collaboration with the various communities which have to be dealt with. Some will be by-passed, but others we will go through. Every one of those communities has to be dealt with, and patience and forbearance should be exercised so that the best plan can be worked out.

Then we have this question of nature reserves, the areas which are getting so few in South Africa and which we wish to protect. Sir, I am not now talking about the National Transport Commission and its engineers: I am talking about engineers as a class. They do not see the view when they are building a road. What they see is the best route from Point A to Point B, and with that goes questions of financial consideration the compensation to be paid and the amount of cut and fill that is involved, etc. They see that and they put it up and quite rightly; that is what they are engineers for. Someone else has to come along and say: Do you not realize that that road of yours is going through an area which is or ought to be a nature reserve? It is a pearl of great price belonging to the people of South Africa and we must not despoil it by driving a national road through it. But that has to come from somebody else; it is not the job of the engineer. The job of the engineer is to give his price and to show his route. At the present time the people concerned know whom to go to; they go to the Administrators of the four provinces. But under this system, who will they go to? Will they go to the Minister? The Minister has taken a hand in trying to save a road going through one nature reserve, many years ago. He gave his final opinion. The road had to go through the nature reserve. Some five years later the Deputy Minister came along and I went with him and we had a look at it, There was lovely stinkwood, yellowwood and other trees. The Deputy Minister said that we could not put a road through there and chop down these trees which are hundreds of years old. That is the answer, Sir. That is what they are going to do.

That was the Provincial Council’s engineer.

I get that interjection. The Deputy Minister—I do not want to misquote him—said that was a Provincial Council decision.

No, not decision; it was the Provincial Engineer’s planning. The Provincial Council never makes a decision.

Oh, the plan. The Provincial Council never makes a decision? All that we can do is to represent to the Provincial Roads Engineer and the Administrator, and that in turn is the representation that goes to the National Transport Commission, and the bridge is their Chief Engineer,

That is the present position,

That is the present position, Sir, and it was that procedure which made the ex-Chief Engineer so browned off. There was one answer, and that was to reduce the duties and the responsibility of the National Transport Commission and its engineers. Cut that red tape and tell the people who are busy with the construction of the road to get on with the job with the minimum of delay. The cut has been made in the wrong place. Instead of taking 50 lbs. off the camel's hack here, it was decided to take 1 000 lbs. from there and put it onto the camel’s back, because that is what the position will be.

I want to come back again to this question of the administration. I say that you start at the ground floor with the clerical staff, on the administration side, and then you go to your engineers. And, Sir, they are as frequent as diamonds in Adderley Street. Where is the technical staff to come from to carry out the national road construction programme which is visualized in terms of this Bill? It is coming from the staff of the provinces; that is where it is coming from. There is no other way; there is no other place; there is no other source from which to draw it.

And there is already a shortage.

Yes, there is a shortage already. Sir, we have, as I say, not national roads being built in the abstract, somewhere out in vacuo, but as part and parcel of the basic transport system of South Africa, linking in, we hope, with the provincial roads, which are being built now by the National Transport Commission and the others by the provinces. But in the Bill as we have it before us now the Minister is asking for powers to delegate authority to build roads to the very provinces in respect of which he had said in his speech: “The trouble with the province is that it costs too much money; they are not sufficiently effective; they are not efficient in doing their job; it is going to save money and lead to greater efficiency and we will be able to get on with the job; the planning is bad.” Sir, the planning is finally determined by his own Department of Transport, and he proposes now to hand back to the very people whom he has accused of wasteful expenditure and incompetence, the very job which he is taking away from them in the Statute. Sir, why has that been put there? It is an assurance, not a fire insurance but an insurance to cover him over the period when he knows that his own Transport Commission will simply not be able in a physical sense to get down to road-making; he knows that, so he is going to leave the provinces now to carry on for a period until such time as he can hand over road-building to the Transport Commission to get on with the job, when they have built up their clerical, administrative and professional staff. Only bit by bit, as they are able to take all that staff from the provincial administrations and put them under their own rule, will they then gradually take over the actual construction of the roads. Sir, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I ask him to take this Bill when it is passed—and of course it is going to be passed--and to tuck it away in his drawer for 12 months and during those 12 months to leave matters exactly as they are, but to discuss the practical effect of what is being done with the senior members of his own staff in the National Transport Commission. Let him discuss with his own people exactly what is contemplated. They will answer him honestly in regard to many of the points—I can only deal with a few of these points at the present time—which have been raised by every one of the four provincial administrations. Let him then decide at the end of the year whether he wants to implement the provisions of this Bill or whether in fact he is prepared, on re-thinking, to leave the position as it is, but will rather try to reduce the delays which take place because of this circumlocution which takes place between the province and the National Transport Commission and then all the way back again. Sir, that is where the delay is taking place at the present time. The provinces are against this. There is a spirit of resistance, a spirit of hostility, a spirit of bitterness being created because the provinces feel that without their approval, without their consent, without any proper consultation, these powers are being taken away from them.

Do you know that in the case of one particular national road it took 13 years of negotiations between the province and the commission before the route was decided upon?

Sir, I will not doubt that. I do not know which section it is, but it may well be that it was unnecessary. When once the standards were laid down, when once the route was finally decided, the province concerned, whichever province it was …

They argued about the route of the Johannesburg-Pictoria road.

Sir, I accept that. I realize some of the circumstances surrounding the choice of a route between Johannesburg and Pretoria. There it is not a case of which is the best from the point of view of construction; that is purely a question of engineering principles and a question of costs; that was not the sole consideration there—very, very far from it —so that when those other considerations come into it, I can quite understand that delays took place. But let me repeat this plea: Simplify the procedure at the end of the National Transport Commission so that the province can get the okay to go ahead with the job provided they build within the specifications laid down and naturally within the four corners of the money that has been voted. That control is there and so it should remain. Sir, this is putting the load on the wrong end altogether, and the people who are going to suffer are going to be the people of South Africa. The Minister is going to get a headache and I doubt whether he realizes what a headache he is going to get, but his staff will tell him. Let him go along and have a talk to Sybrand van Niekerk, the Administrator of the Transvaal, as man to man. I challenge the Minister to do that. Let him go and have a talk with Mr. Van Niekerk as man to man and see exactly what the position is in the Transvaal. Why create this feeling of bitterness right at the start of a new venture of this kind where there is bound to be a clash; because the Minister has not got the staff and he has to take powers.

There was full consultation; the Deputy Minister can reply to that.

I repeat, in the case of Natal there was no consultation whatsoever. The meetings that took place were on the basis that it had been decided. That is why this was referred to the Minister and sent down this past week.

He said they agreed.

Yes.

Natal concurred, he said.

No, they did not concur. I quote—

What was the date?

It was sent in April this year.

The discussions took place last year, a long time ago. The present Minister of the Interior was still Administrator,

I think I was in the chair, Douglas.

If the hon. the Minister of the Interior was not occupying that position, I think I would put him in the box as a witness. I might find him a very unsatisfactory witness, but I want to say that at no time whatsoever, so I am informed, did the Executive Committee in Natal take a decision to accept the forfeiture of the powers which are being handed over in this Bill to the National Transport Commission. Am I right? I challenge the Minister of the Interior,

The Minister will tell you.

Am I right? I challenge the Minister.

All right, I will tell you if you ask me. What clause are you dealing with?

Did the Executive Committee of Natal ever agree to hand over the power set out in this Bill to the National Transport Commission?

We discussed every clause in the Bill.

You see, Sir, the Minister says he was in the chair during that meeting and he will not say: “Yes, we agreed to hand over those powers”. Why not? Because they did not agree to hand them over. He said they discussed them, hut that is my point. Of course they discussed them because the matter was presented as a fait accompli as regards the principle. All that was left to he discussed was the practical means of giving effect to the principle that had been decided upon without their acquiescence and agreement. All the talk in the world is not going to get away from that. This document from the Administrator of Natal, which was sent here last Thursday, I think it was, sets out in detail precisely what the official Opposition of Natal thinks about the matter. I say this is creating unnecessary bitterness and trouble in respect of a venture which the Minister himself, because of his paucity of staff, cannot hope even to commence for perhaps a year or even two years to come, before he will be in a position to start with the actual physical construction of work on one of the national roads or freeways. That is the position. What a pity that we should reach that stage. I ask the Minister: “Keep this Bill for 12 months in your drawer, and then come back and have a look at it”.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for South Coast is back in the House with his old fighting spirit again. He said that he was a very patient man; that is something new. We do not know him as a very patient man. He used very strong language. He said, “This Bill is the complete confiscation of the provincial councils’ authority”. It is a pity that the hon. member was not here when we had the Second Reading debate, because all the points raised by him were also raised during the Second Reading debate. The points raised then were replied to.

No.

Oh, definitely! Then the hon. member said that he discussed the matter with the Minister who promised him that we would not take over the control of traffic on the roads. But we are not taking over control of the traffic; we are only preparing in the Bill for certain cases in connection with axle load, etc. But the provincial traffic departments will still act on our behalf.

Where do you get that from?

You have just mentioned it now.

Are you going to sweep your headache into the provincial administrations?

I shall also reply in detail to the other points raised here by the hon. member. Before doing so, I want to come back to the hon. member for Green Point. In an attempt to make out a ease, the hon. member referred, in the first place, to the Schumann Report once again. The hon. member must remember that the Schumann Report dates back to 1964. After the Schumann Report had been published, a specific request was made that the matter be investigated further. Why did the hon. member not take the trouble to examine, in particular, the evidence secured by the Marais Commission? I do not want to waste the time of the House; for that reason I am going to refer to two paragraphs of the report. I want to start by referring to paragraph 450. Furthermore, I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, before the Marais Commission sat, we had the Schumann and the Borckenhagen Reports. Before this report was published, investigations were also carried out by the provincial administrations and by the National Transport Commission. In other words, the Marais Commission had the opportunity to condense and correlate all the necessary evidence. What did they find? They found the following—

Then the commission proceeded to state very explicitly what these matters were. The commission analyzed these matters and drew attention to all the shortcomings. The hon. the Minister was quoted in this House.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Would the hon. the Deputy Minister please read paragraph 444 of the Marais Commission's Report in connection with the evidence which the provincial councils submitted in regard to those matters?

Mr. Speaker, it is not my task to read that evidence. [Interjections.] The Marais Commission took all the evidence into account. They did not only take the evidence of provincial administrations; they took the evidence of all the various bodies. The Marais Commission did not only proceed from what was in the interests of a province; they proceeded from what was in the interests of South Africa as a whole. This is also my problem with the hon. member for South Coast. He is still talking like the ex-Administrator of Natal, who thinks of Natal only and not of South Africa as a whole.

Did you read that paragraph?

Of course I read that paragraph. After all the evidence, including that paragraph, had been read, the commission found that—

The Commission went on to mention that—

1. (i) the National Transport Commission's technical staff;
2. (ii) consulting engineers, employed to detail planning; and
3. (iii) private contractors, who are entrusted with actual construction work.

In looking at the percentage of work that is done, one finds that the Marais Commission was quite correct in finding the following in paragraph 453—I am not going to read all the recommendations made by the commission—

In other words, a physical take-over is to be made.

But that says “control”.

“Control in all its phases” includes physical planning, the construction of roads, etc.

*Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point said, as did the hon. member for South Coast, that “the Minister was misinformed”. The main theme in the Minister’s speech was the following: “After discussing the matter in detail with the provinces, they decided to do the work themselves”.

No, you said: “The Bill was formulated with the concurrence of all the provinces".

I am coming to that. Then the hon. member quoted the Minister’s statement that he wanted more efficiency in order to save the public money.

*What the Minister said in that regard, was merely in keeping with the report of the Marais Commission. Then the hon. member asked me to Table the correspondence between the Province of Natal and the National Transport Commission, in order to prove his statement. The hon. member for South Coast also asked for that a moment ago. I shall now deal with those questions point for point, but before doing so, I should very much like to straighten out the facts and the history of this matter. On 5th November, 1970, the Secretary for Transport, other senior officials and I had talks with the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee of Natal in connection with the recommendations which had flowed from the reports of the Borckenhagen, Schumann and Marais Commissions, because at that stage we were engaged in preparing and drafting the White Paper. However, that was not the first occasion. For that reason it is a great pity that the hon. member for South Coast only wants to lay the blame on the former Chief Engineer of the Department of Transport, for he is a person who cannot be here to defend himself. The hon. member ought to know that my predecessor, Mr. Van Rensburg, who subsequently became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, had talks with all four provinces, that subsequently a consultative organization was constituted and that there was a considerable amount of correspondence in this regard. He should also know that as far back as 1967 and 1968 Minister Van Rensburg told the provinces, “Here are the reports. We cannot go on as we are doing at the moment.” Subsequently all those talks gave rise to this measure. In other words, it is not only a chief engineer who was responsible for this. After all these facts had been taken into consideration, this decision was taken.

At the start of the talks it was very clear that the Executive Committee of Natal did not see the necessity for the envisaged new set-up. That was when the Minister of the Interior, who is sitting next to me, was still the Administrator of Natal. But in the course of these talks, when more clarity began to emerge in regard to this matter, Natal adopted the attitude that if the Government were to decide to proceed with these proposals, it would acquiesce in them. That was its first decision. It is also important to know that at a later date the Cabinet Committee charged with this matter, had talks with all four Administrators in Pretoria, and not one single objection was registered against the recommendations now contained in the White Paper. Their only comment was that the provinces would not be granted adequate financial assistance, and on that point they were subsequently satisfied later on, after further talks with Dr. Du Plessis of the Reserve Bank. Therefore, the principle was accepted by all four Administrators on behalf of their provinces, and the draft legislation which followed, was merely to give effect to the recommendations as contained in the White Paper, with which the four Administrators had agreed.

Who was the Natal Administrator?

The person who succeeded the present Minister of the interior.

Was he by himself, unaccompanied by a member of Exco?

Yes. When such talks are held, members of the Executive Committees are not present.

If I may interrupt the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Ex co-members were present during the first discussions with him.

Yes. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that on 27th February, 1971, the Acting Secretary for Transport had talks with Mr. Martin, the M.E.C. for Roads, Natal, as well as some of his senior officials, in order to discuss certain administrative matters. The main object of the talks was to ensure that the change-over of the control over national roads from the province to the Central Government should proceed as smoothly as possible and that the provinces should have clarity as to what they were to do in future as far as national roads were concerned. These talks were also held in order to reach an agreement with the provinces in regard to the transition period, with an indication of the specific functions of the National Transport Commission and the provinces during this transition period. The hon. member was concerned about the question of the transition period, because there had to be such a period. Therefore, the functions of the various bodies had to be defined. These talks took place in the best of spirits. We met with goodwill and co-operation on the part of the administrations. The talks were held on the basis that the National Transport Commission was taking over the control over national roads. At no time did the administrations raise any objections to this move. In fact, everybody was prepared to assist in ensuring that the take-over would proceed as smoothly as possible. The Natal Provincial Administration even offered to assist in training staff to deal with expropriations. There is no doubt that the principle that the National Transport Commission would take over the control over roads, was accepted.

But let us take a look now at the correspondence to which the hon. member for South Coast referred. We circularized this draft Bill not only to the provinces, but also to all departmental bodies. Having pointed out to the Natal Executive Committee that this matter was urgent we received a letter from them on 8th April, 1971, which read as follows (translation)—

Although they did not see the necessity for this legislation, they nevertheless raised no objections—

Now he comes …

Read on.

Let us take a look first at the problem of the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member reads into this that they are opposed to the principle of this Bill. But that is not true. The further implications referred to here, relate to certain clauses. In his letter he said that he did not see the necessity for this legislation, but if we proceeded with it, he just wanted to set out the implications of certain clauses. Let us now take a look at these clauses. The letter goes on to say—

The Department of Transport then replied to this letter and very clearly furnished the correct reply. The reply reads as follows—

This is a reference to the Transkei and all those territories. We must make provision for them in this legislation. The letter goes on to say—

We received no reply to this.

Another clause about which the hon. members as well as the Natal Provincial Administration felt unhappy, was clause 15. In that regard the letter we received from them on 8th April, 1971, went on to say the following—

On 14th April we replied again and said the following to that province—

We gave them a full reply. Once again we received no reply from them. We therefore accepted that they had accepted it. In regard to the next clause they said—

I want the hon. members to appreciate very clearly that the Executive Committee said in principle that they did not see the necessity for our taking over the roads, but if we did so, they wanted to bring this specific clause to our attention. In other words, in principle they accepted that we were going to apply this specific clause. We then replied to that letter and said—

And then they mentioned all the clauses and the responsible bodies involved in the matter. I want to tell hon. members that the Executive Committee received a letter from the National Transport Commission as far back as March. They received the draft Bill, and they were asked to be so kind as to expedite the matter. On 8th April we received a letter from them. We replied to their letter on 14th April, and to this day we have not received any farther letter or reply in this regard. In other words, whereas the Natal Executive Committee said that they did not see the necessity for our taking over the construction of Toads, they added that if we wanted to proceed with it, they just wanted clarity from the Government on these specific matters before we did so. On 14th April they received the explanation in regard to those specific matters, but they did not reply again. Accordingly we accepted that as far as they were concerned, the matter was settled, and we also accepted that they were satisfied.

However, when the legislation was already being discussed here, we received the telegram which they sent on 5th May, more than a month after the letter which they had already received, and we found that the hon. member for South Coast had a copy of this correspondence. I say that this is simply another somersault and that they simply want to make political capital out of this matter. From the very outset we consulted with the provinces. I myself and my predecessor did so, as I have already said, and not only with Natal, but also with the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal; and at first there were problems Initially none of these provinces was very happy, which stands to reason.

If the hon. member for South Coast had been here, he would have known that in my Second Reading speech I referred to the fact that I did not blame the provinces for wanting to give priority to the provincial interests when it came to the construction of national roads. That simply goes without saying, and we cannot take it amiss of them. But in looking at the increase and in looking at the task which the provinces have in maintaining depreciated roads and constructing their own provincial arterial roads, with their staff, one realizes, as did the Marais Commission and the Cabinet Committee after consultation, that the provinces cannot be saddled with this as well, for the one’s National Road Fund would simply fall into that bottomless pit. One would never have a decent system of national roads in South Africa and one would always be saddled with patchwork done by the provinces. Now we are making it possible for the provinces to determine their own interests. The interests and needs they have, can be submitted by them to the Treasury, and they will be properly financed in respect of their own road construction programme in regard to the locality and provincial requirements. Besides, we are not draining the National Road Fund; we can use it now for developing that important service which should have been introduced a long time ago. I may just point out very clearly that the statement made by the hon. members, proceeds on the basis of the locality and the provincial interests, and this legislation and the Government proceeds from the premise of the interests of South Africa as a whole.

In conclusion I want to furnish two examples. The hon. member for South Coast said that the engineers merely constructed a road from point to point, but surely the same applies to the provincial engineers as well. After all, they are not different from our engineers. It is our task as the Government and as a transport commission, which, as I said the other day, consists of people who love South Africa, to ensure that nature, game reserves and parks are protected to the extent to which they can be protected. There are cases where, perhaps, one has to construct a road through such a place with as little disruption as possible.

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

1. (e) by the substitution for subsection (6) of the following subsection:
2. “(6) The members of the Commission other than those who are members of the public service shall be appointed for a period not exceeding five years and, subject to the succeeding provisions of this Act, shall hold office upon such conditions as the State President may determine when making the appointments: Provided that any member of the Commission shall be eligible for re-appointment upon expiry of his term of office, and provided further that individual members of the Commission may be appointed for different periods and upon different conditions.”;

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that the National Transport Commission shall under that name be a body corporate, capable of suing and being sued, and in addition provides for the amended constitution of the commission. We have had some difficulties in dealing with this commission and its activities in its present state without the question of its amended status having arisen. One has found that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, when representations are made in regard to the activities of the National Transport Commission, have referred to this commission as an autonomous body, and have said that they cannot do anything about its activities and cannot interfere with what it is doing. This is in regard to its operations at the present time. Now we are dealing with the constitution of the National Transport Commission with far wider and far more responsible duties than those which it held until the present time. For example, the problem arises now when we are dealing with the reconstitution of the commission that one will have a commission according to this clause which will appear to consist of four public servants ex officio of their positions, with the Secretary for Transport as chairman. They in their capacity as members of this commission, in the form in which it is now suggested in this clause, will exercise powers in so far as the provinces are concerned particularly when work and responsibilities are delegated under the National Roads Bill. When one looks at the position from the provinces’ side one realizes that the degree of efficiency with which the work is discharged by the provinces and particularly by the roads departments is after all the responsibility of the Administrators and their executive committees. But let us look at the constitution of this commission. One realizes that the Administrator, who is appointed by the Government, and the executive committee, which is elected by the councillors, are in terms of this clause made subject to the directives of a commission which is in fact a public service establishment. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister at this stage whether the fact that the commission is an autonomous body, with whose activities the hon. the Minister does not regard himself entitled to interfere, whether this position is to continue. If this is to continue I simply cannot agree that the composition of the commission should be as is envisaged in this particular clause of the Bill. I believe that if that is so the commission should be differently constituted.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister about the body to which this commission will be answerable in the discharge of its duties. Obviously it is a body which is answerable to the control of the Controller and Auditor-General.

Yes.

Now one comes to the question of annual reports on its activities. Are those to be departmental reports which will then be dealt with in this House under the Vote of the Minister of Transport, or will they be reports that will be tabled merely for information as to the activities of this commission If it is a question of making representations to the commission, will the Minister, who up to the present time has taken the attitude that the commission is autonomous, be in a position under this constitution of the commission to receive representations or to pass those on to the commission, or is the commission going to be entirely autonomous?

Their functions will remain precisely as they are at present. This Bill does nothing in regard to that.

Why I am concerned about it is because the Bill now deals with amendment of the constitution of the commission, in other words, who shall be members.

The principle remains the same.

I concede that to the hon. the Minister. He says that this commission will be outside the ken of the hon. the Minister so far as directives, directions and supervision are concerned. If that is so, I think one must take a very careful look at what is proposed in this clause, to see whether it is acceptable. The hon. the Minister will realize the very wide powers which are to be exercised or enjoyed by this commission.

It has those powers now.

But more under the National Roads Bill, Sir. That is why, according to the amendment, the commission shall consist of the Secretary for Transport, who shall be chairman, and three persons who are members of the Public Service.

Have you read the principal Act?

Yes, I have read it; the hon. the Minister knows that I have. But we are dealing with a commission which is being reconstituted.

No.

It is being reconstituted. Why do we have the amending Bill? The whole basis of this amendment, if the Minister will read it on the first page of this Bill, is the re-constitution of this commission. In the circumstances one is considering again whether it is right for an autonomous body now to be under the chairmanship of a public servant, unanswerable to Parliament.

It is under the chairmanship of a public servant at the moment.

I am well aware of the fact that that is the present position, but the Minister has come to us with a Bill which is amending the constitution of the commission. I am now raising the query whether it is envisaged that we will have any further power over this commission. If it is not so, I will either suggest that this clause be amended …

But then you must amend the principal Act.

The whole constitution of the commission, the question of who shall be members of the commission, is now before this Committee.

One additional member to the National Transport Commission is all that is provided for.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you whether I am correct in proceeding on the basis that the composition of the commission is before this Committee. It is on that that I am addressing you.

The hon. member may proceed, as long as he confines himself to the amendment and does not discuss the principal Act.

I am dealing with the amendment, Sir. I am referring to subsection (1) (b), namely that “the commission shall consist of …” such and such persons. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister some questions in regard to his suggestion that we adopt this Bill. Perhaps he would be good enough to reply to me. Is this commission to be outside the control of Parliament so far as its activities in terms of the National Roads Bill are concerned?

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I will then assume from the replies which the Deputy Minister and the Minister have given me that that is a fact and that I am stating a fact. If that is so, and having regard to the authority which this commission will exercise now toy virtue of the National Roads Bill, I want to say that we are totally opposed to this clause. We will vote against its inclusion in the Bill which is before us this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I support the hon. member for Green Point, but in view of the time there is no time to put forward arguments. I would therefore like to move the adjournment of the debate …

Order! The hon. member may not do that.

All right, I shall then carry on. In this clause we deal with the constitution of the commission, as the hon. member said. I must again appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to do something about the Commissioner of Road Transportation and the Commissioner of National Roads. In subsection (1) (d) provision is made for the Commissioner of Civil Aviation. It reads as follows—

Now, Sir, I have read the principal Act and this amendment, but there is nothing here that says that the Commissioner of Road Transport shall have a thorough knowledge of road transportation or that he shall be appointed through, shall we say, the private sector in road transportation.