Mr Speaker, the debate thus far and the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday, I believe, has confirmed the feeling which many observers have had since 1986 when the visit of the EPG was abruptly terminated by the cross-border raids—the feeling that this Government is less and less concerned with our international image.

Since May 1986 the Government has with mounting arrogance been asserting South Africa’s determination more and more to go it alone, setting a clear pattern of response to any criticism levelled at us, no matter by whom. We in the PFP have never suggested that South Africa should bow down to outside pressure in respect of the solutions to our internal problems, and we do not do so now. At least, however, we ought to be sensitive to some of the criticisms which are levelled at us and some of the advice which is given to us, particularly when that advice and that criticism come from our foremost trading partners and/or our traditional friends and allies.

Whether it is because of supersensitivity in regard to the CP threat to them internally, as suggested yesterday by the hon member for Soutpansberg, or whether it is for other reasons, this Government seems to be determined to show itself at its “kragdadige” or arrogant worst to the international community.

I happen to disagree with the hon member for Soutpansberg in attributing the motives which he does to the Government. I do not believe that the Government’s indifference to normal diplomatic niceties is something simulated in order to hold off the CP. I fear rather that it is reflective of a state of mind within the Government that a Rubicon has been crossed in international affairs, that we are not going to listen to advice from anyone outside and that sanctions and isolation from the rest of the world are acceptable to South Africa rather than risk giving up White domination inside of this country itself.

This is the choice which I believe the Government has made, and I fear for South Africa as a result. There is no doubt that isolation is already to a very large extent a reality for South Africa. I said it before, and I say it again. It is a reality. We need not question this. If we want to question it we can ask South Africa’s businessmen. We can also ask our academics, our scientists and our sportsmen. Isolation for South Africa is already very much of a reality. We are isolated from the international community more than we have ever been before in our history.

The sanctions threat, we know, is also a reality. We may derive comfort from seeing others reconsider the imposition and effectiveness of sanctions. We may get comfort out of being able to devise means of beating sanctions. The reality nevertheless remains, and whatever stratagems we are compelled to follow can only be at enormous cost to South Africa.

So, Sir, we in these benches cannot be excited about the “do your damnedest” diplomacy of the Government, and this hon Minister—I have read his speech carefully—displays an attitude about which, irrespective of the particular circumstances, we cannot get excited because it is all part of a dangerous pattern. The real question which this Government and this hon Minister should answer is the question of what they are doing in a positive sense to avoid the difficulties which we are facing and to return South Africa to a path of diplomatic normality.

That is what they should be answering. That is what this hon Minister should be answering. What is he doing positively to bring South Africa back to diplomatic normality?

In his speech yesterday, the hon the Minister, as he has done before, was in effect saying—I read it carefully—that no matter what South Africa does, sanctions are inevitable. That was really an expression of despair, an admission of defeat, and a remarkable and depressing admission to come from a Foreign Minister. I say this because what he was saying in reality was that in this field there is nothing more that he can do to stem the tide against South Africa. That is what he meant when he answered the hon member for Houghton in the terms he used.

I must say that we in these benches cannot accept that. We cannot accept the fact that there is no way out of the dilemma in which South Africa finds herself. When one has granted all the arguments about the lack of objectivity of our critics, about the open hostility shown by so many pro-sanctions lobbies, about questionable motives, about double standards and all that, one is still left with the fact that there are extremely powerful anti-sanctions groups operating to resist the imposition of sanctions against South Africa, including the Reagan Administration, the Thatcher Government, the West German Government and others. These are the influences we ought to be trying to assist in respect of the whole sanctions issue. What I want to know is what this hon Minister is doing to assist and reinforce those forces in their opposition to sanctions against South Africa. This is a question the hon the Minister must answer. What positive steps are he and his Government taking to assist those in opposition to sanctions against South Africa?

You can’t name one?

I say, let the hon the Minister name them.

Just name one!

One thing I must say to the hon the Minister. Whatever else he does in the sphere of foreign relations in South Africa, he must not engage the assistance of the hon member for Turffontein! That could only lead us to greater disaster! [Interjections.]

To personalise the question, I want to ask this hon Minister what he is doing to influence his own Government in regard to the resistance against sanctions? Let us look at one example— the 1986 United States Congress sanctions package and the conditions cited therein for the possible future termination of sanctions against South Africa. The conditions stipulated in section 311 of that Congress Act are similar to those cited by the EPG in this respect and also echo the sentiments held by the vast majority of South Africans. I should like to quote from the relevant provision which states that sanctions shall terminate if the Government of South Africa—

1. (1) releases all persons persecuted for their political beliefs or detained unduly without trial, and Nelson Mandela from prison;
2. (2) repeals the state of emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act and releases all detainees held under such state of emergency;
3. (3) unbans democratic political parties and permits the free exercise by South Africans of all races of the right to form political parties, express political opinions, and otherwise participate in the political process;
4. (4) repeals the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and institutes no other measures with the same purpose;
5. (5) agrees to enter into good faith negotiations with truly representative members of the Black majority without pre-conditions.

These were conditions stated nearly two years ago. Looking at our situation objectively, let us see what progress has been made in South Africa in regard to these matters.

We know that persons are still being detained without trial because of their political beliefs, and we also know that Mr Nelson Mandela is still in prison. We know that the state of emergency is still in operation and that people are still being detained under that state of emergency. We know that far from unbanning democratic political parties and permitting free exercise on the part of South Africans to form political parties and express political opinions, only this year 17 other organisations have had their political activities restricted. We know further that the hon the Minister’s colleague, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, is constantly threatening to close down sections of the free Press in South Africa. We know too that as far as paragraph (4) of that Act of Congress is concerned the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book as does the Population Registration Act.

Therefore, we look at the Government’s reaction to suggestions that are made. One asks again what this hon Minister feels in regard to matters of this kind. What is his answer to the matters identified as conditions of this kind? Is he taking any steps in this regard, not so much because of what is being suggested from outside but because of what he himself believes we ought to be doing in the interests of South Africa?

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for Parys for allowing me the opportunity to continue.

These are the questions we have to ask the hon the Minister. Apart from simply sitting back and saying we can do nothing about sanctions, is he taking any positive steps? Should he not be influencing the Government to take positive steps to create a far better climate for South Africa?

I now want to deal with another matter of topical interest to South Africa, namely the whole question of the Angolan situation. We in these benches welcome any steps aimed at negotiating a peaceful settlement of the Angolan situation and to bringing an end to South Africa’s involvement in the affairs of that country. The news we received this morning of the involvement of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence in these talks was therefore welcome. We hope that their deliberations will lead in due course to an end to the war and strife in Angola, and also to a resolution of the South West Africa-Namibia issue.

We believe that the settlement of these issues is long overdue, and we are confident that from the point of view of the cost to South Africa, in both human and material terms, the sooner that settlement comes the better. I believe it is a source of growing concern to all South Africans that our security forces are locked in a conflict situation beyond our borders. Until recently, the fear of an escalation of that conflict has been a very real one. We therefore welcome the fact that there are going to be realistic negotiations in order to try to resolve that situation.

We in these benches are equally anxious to see a final settlement of the South West Africa-Namibia issue, and we trust that all parties to this long drawn out dispute will find it possible to facilitate a settlement and to remove the barriers which have prevented this in recent times.

The Government has long since committed itself to the implementation of Resolution 435, and I trust that if the Cuban situation is resolved, the South African Government will be ready to meet that commitment without undue delay.

I differ with the hon member for Soutpansberg on this issue. He referred to Resolution 435 and chided the South African Government for its commitment to it as a basis of settlement. It may well be, after the passing of so many years, that aspects of Resolution 435, as settlement proposals, need some adaptation. However, there ought to be no equivocation whatsoever on the part of the South African Government in respect of implementing the spirit of Resolution 435 once the Cuban issue has been disposed of satisfactorily.

If the CP does not accept Resolution 435, one must ask them what their alternative is. Do they foresee South Africa being forever locked into a conflict situation along its western borders and being compelled to provide an army of occupation in order to establish and maintain its presence there? They also ought to realise that a very large body of opinion within South West Africa-Namibia has long since committed itself to the spirit of Resolution 435. From both the internal and external points of view, its implementation will be extremely helpful and welcome after other obstacles have been removed.

I hope the hon the Minister will give an indication as to what South Africa intends doing. Provided the negotiations upon which he is about to embark are successful in regard to the Cuban issue, are we ready to commit ourselves to a speedy implementation of the terms of Resolution 435?

In the few minutes remaining to me, I wish to make a few comments regarding the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday. I want to commend him on the initiatives which he told the House about and on the spirit of those initiatives in trying to normalise our relationships with our neighbours in the Southern African region.

I believe that these initiatives will enjoy the support of the vast majority of South Africans, and I hope that they will not be damaged by other political acts on the part of this Government, as has so often happened in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Berea for his good wishes with regard to the possibility of a visit to another African country. I also thank the hon member for Soutpansberg who conveyed his personal best wishes to myself and my colleague the hon the Minister of Defence. I must caution that arrangements have not been finalised. I do not know how it happened, but the story appeared in the Press and is now causing difficulties. It seems that the visit may not take place. I nevertheless want to thank them for the good wishes. It is appreciated.

I believe the hon member for Berea did not give a correct account of what I had said on sanctions. Naturally this Government has foreseen sanctions for years and has done everything possible to resist them and frustrate them. It would take me hours and hours to give the hon member a proper survey of the work that has gone into combating and preventing sanctions against South Africa. Various departments are involved—not only my department. The private sector is involved; they know it. There is a lot of work and planning involved in this matter. What I said was simply this: If we are to avoid sanctions, the price we will have to pay to do so will be too high for us to pay. That was what I said.

Just a few minutes ago the hon member read the conditions for the withdrawal of sanctions in the American legislation of two years ago, and I am grateful that he did. Would the PFP be prepared to comply with those conditions? [Interjections.] Would the PFP be prepared to comply with all those conditions?

Yes.

Well, that shows hon members why the PFP is not in power and why they will lose more votes. [Interjections.] It is as clear as that. I cannot put it any clearer.

That is why you will wreck South Africa!

Worst of all is that in their naivety the hon members do not realise that the moment any government in South Africa starts conceding that another country—whether it be the USA, Europe or Japan or Russia—may display the imperialistic arrogance to pass laws in its legislative bodies to force the governments of other countries to arrange their constitutional matters according to their prescriptions, there will simply be no end to that process of extortion. The hon members do not realise that it is a case of one thing today and something worse tomorrow. Take sport as an example. What has happened to Zola Budd? Sport has been desegregated in South Africa for a long time now; but then it was the next thing, and the next thing and the next thing that was required. [Interjections.] Today it is generally accepted that sport in South Africa is desegregated, but now one man one vote in a unitary constitutional structure is being demanded.

They have no idea of what South Africa’s enemies require of this country. I have tried to explain it to them so many times. Not even ordinary Black majority rule is good enough; it will have to be Marxist-based Black majority rule. [Interjections.]

Order!

With all due respect, Mr Speaker, I am now tired of debating this matter in this House. It is clear to me that they have minds like lead-lined vaults; nothing gets in and nothing gets out. They have their preconceived ideas, and I welcome this because we need quite a number of Prog seats in Johannesburg. Consequently I am very grateful to the hon member that he admitted today that they would comply with the demands of the USA and destroy the orderliness, prosperity and peace in South Africa. I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter any further with him, and I am therefore not going to waste any more time on him.

†Yesterday the hon member for Sea Point said that he had experienced a feeling of sadness—not anger—on his recent overseas visit. Well, I can tell him I share that feeling completely. I am also sad, only more profoundly so. He mentioned that he saw, inter alia, the British Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mrs Lynda Chalker.

Let me explain to the hon member what makes me sad. After our security forces had operated against terrorists in Botswana, she called in our ambassador. She said some rather ugly things to him. I do not want to read all of it, but she said, for instance, that we were “acting arrogantly”— a phrase also used by the other hon member. Furthermore she said that it was the worst act of aggression we had ever committed, she hinted that we had acted lawlessly, against international law, and she went on to explain that “gun law behaviour invites retaliation with open arms”. She called our action “gun law behaviour”.

After the ambassador had explained the facts and circumstances to her, she said she believed that Botswana was acting against terrorists. She said we had done it “intentionally”, and that the coming months would be “uncommonly difficult”. She virtually branded us as a state practising state terrorism.

I then asked our ambassador to put a question to her—not in a spiteful manner—a question which I thought she would be able to understand. That question was the following:

*Let us assume that the British security forces have been talking to the security forces of the Irish Republic for some time now about terrorists who are hiding across the border from Northern Ireland, and that they have repeatedly told the Republic of Ireland’s security forces that they know of houses or other places where these terrorists are hiding, from where they cross the border and kill, murder and maim innocent British civilians, and the British security forces have told the security forces of the Republic of Ireland several times that there is a house which they have reliably been informed terrorists are hiding in, and the security forces of the Republic of Ireland warn those terrorists, and then come back and report to the British security forces that they visited the premises but found nothing, and every time this happens they find nothing. The time then comes when the British security forces apprehend a group of terrorists who warn them that at that moment there are several other terrorists in a specific house, 10 miles across the border, who are going to cross the border the following day to kill people in Northern Ireland.

I then asked her what the British Government would do under those circumstances and with that information, and if those terrorists then crossed the border and killed British citizens, how the British Government would explain to the British public that although it knew about this in advance, it did nothing. I wanted to know how they would explain that they had warned the Republic of Ireland’s security forces, who in turn had warned the terrorists, and in spite of this warning the terrorists had crossed the border and murdered innocent people in the rural areas.

Her reply to this was very enlightening, and this is what makes me “sad”, far “sadder” than the hon member for Sea Point. She wrote the following to our ambassador:

This is what she told me. She said that they had a security agreement with the Republic of Ireland which worked. The Republic of Ireland was therefore co-operating. She totally evaded the question I put to her; she did not reply to it. I think this can make one “sad”. I think it makes one very “sad” when a member of government of a Western country to whom one puts such a question openly and directly, comes back and says that it does not apply to her, because she has an agreement which works, and whether or not I have one which works, I must not do this. Surely this is a matter regarding which the hon member for Sea Point must agree with me. He must therefore talk to this hon lady. He must tell her that her attitude saddens him.

However, there is something worse which saddens one. Today I want to ask all hon members to read an important article which appeared in the German magazine Stern, of 10 March 1988, under the headline, “Afrika, die kranke kontinent”. My department can make it available to hon members. It is important because I believe that the truth about our continent will in time to come filter through to an increasing extent, with far-reaching consequences for the history of South Africa and the whole of Africa.

This is a comprehensive article. It ends with a report by a woman from Nigeria, Ammo Ogan, in which she starts out by saying that President Nyerere, who is considered to be one of the great statesmen of Africa, recently announced that Africa’s biggest problems were still to come. That is what Mr Julius Nyerere said. He spoke about the mass media which was dependent on Western agencies, and he rejected this. He spoke about Africa’s hunger, its poverty, its inadequate infrastructure, poor medical care, lack of education; Africa’s growing mountain of debts, the plummeting prices of raw materials, the constant interference by the West in the affairs of African states. He concluded by saying that the bitterest pill for him to swallow was having to learn day after day from the Western media what was going on in his neighbouring states in Africa. They do not even have that. She goes on to say that African politicians were not prepared for independence. The more complex the problems of the continent become, the greater the lack of knowledge of the average European would seem to be.

The article goes on to say: Africa is larger than Europe, India, Japan, New Zealand and the USA combined. The inhabitants of the 53 African states speak more than 1 500 different languages. In spite of this everyone, ie Africa as a one-dimensional bloc, is treated the same by the Europeans. Of course they do the same thing to the Black people of Southern Africa. Exotic, primitive, subservient—according to the article these are the characteristics which Europeans are so fond of ascribing to the people of Africa. They push their own problems to one side and forget the part they played in making Africa what it is today. I want to ask hon members to listen attentively to this damning statement. A rubbish dump for outdated political systems, an inexhaustible source of cheap raw materials, a market for excessive profits. That is how the leaders of Africa describe themselves.

Then the lady from Nigeria says that her country was warned by events in Zambia. There the IMF set the requirement that the subsidising of the staple food, maize, should be reduced drastically. When the prices then skyrocketed, this led to hunger riots. Zambia’s President Kenneth Kaunda withdrew the price increases and severed his ties with the IMF. She also said that to this day Africa was suffering national and ethnic conflicts which originated in the arbitrary boundaries determined by the colonialists.

Africa’s political systems are threatening to collapse between glorified civilisation and traditional values. Added to this is the power struggle in the ranks of the new Black elite, who just as frequently as the former colonial governors, enrich themselves at the expense of the population. Africa is plagued by underdevelopment, hunger, illiteracy and colonial exploitation. The lady from Nigeria says that their highly trained elite, the Nyereres, saw all that had been achieved in the White man’s country. They dreamed of a similar future for their own peoples. She says that their politicians thought that all that was necessary was for them to sit in the driver’s seat and put their foot down, without any preparatory work, without finding sources of energy for the car, without the imagination to develop their own techniques and without even being able to build a car themselves.

I want to tell the hon member for Sea Point that this saddens me! When that hon member travels abroad, he must tell Mrs Lynda Chalker and Mrs Thatcher that this is really sad. She and the rest of Europe must give attention to this sad state of affairs. The position is getting worse. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development elucidated another problem which is on its way, namely Aids. This is an alarming situation, but while Africa is dying, the American Congress is trying to strangle economically that part of Africa where there is hope for development and which can offer all its people a stable and prosperous future. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Berea and the hon member for Houghton are now upset about this. In order to get sanctions lifted we must comply with all the requirements laid down by the American Congress. If those hon members know anything about political blackmail and international politics, they will realise what the position is. If one complies with those demands made by that Congress in order to escape a sanction or two during the next six months, the hounds will run one to ground and devour one. There will be no end to the demands which will be made. Eventually they will draft and publish our Constitution in Washington. If one does not implement that Constitution within three months, new sanctions will simply be imposed.

We have introduced dramatic reforms, and it is well-known that there was a split in our party. It is well-known that the CP left us and that this Government moved as fast as it could, in the light of South Africa’s need for survival, with a threatening world on one side and a public which was frequently not properly informed on the other. The hon the State President, as a statesman, and this Government, had to steer a course between these two dangers, and take unpopular decisions because we did not want South Africa to survive only for a year or two or three, but because we believed in our country and its future.

Surely these facts are also known to the PFP, but they are exploiting them. They are not so stupid that they do not know what is going on in South African politics. They know what the CP is saying. Why can they not for once study what America and people like Wolpe and Solarz are doing? They will then find that they, as the PFP, simply cannot meet those demands, because they will then have destroyed South Africa. This is what I have said, and I would be glad if this could be reflected correctly in future.

[Inaudible.]

Yesterday the hon member for Soutpansberg simply said that the CP rejected Resolution 435. No, Sir, it is not that easy. The hon members for Soutpansberg, Pietersburg and Lichtenburg, as well as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Waterberg, participated in the 1977 election, when Mr John Vorster was the Prime Minister of South Africa and the chief leader of the NP, in November … [Interjections.] No, those hon members must calm down now. There are certain facts of the past which they cannot blot out. [Interjections.] One can change one’s policy if one wishes, but one cannot change facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

At that stage some of those hon members had been in Parliament longer than I had. What happened? An NP brochure was published, entitled Vrugte van Nasionale Bewind. Those of us who participated in that election in November 1977, are acquainted with the publication. It contained a preface by Mr Vorster. The hon member for Losberg has said that we have renounced everything former Prime Ministers stood for. That book contained a preface by Mr Vorster.

He did not say everything!

Mr Vorster praised the publication in his preface. During that election the hon members whose names I have just mentioned, and I, distributed that brochure throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. They supported it and propagated it. The following was stated in it with regard to South West Africa:

This was stated in the brochure Vrugte van Nasionale Bewind, which we used throughout the country in the November 1977 election. These hon members distributed it in their own constituencies and supported it from one platform to another. [Interjections.] That took place in 1977.

Let us go further. The National Party of South West Africa and all other South West Africa parties were fully consulted, and we received written indications from all the parties of South West Africa that they accepted those principles and that they accepted that whatever Constitution they would draft would be subject to testing in the territory as a whole, ie by all the people of South West Africa.

The draft settlement was submitted to the Cabinet under the leadership of Mr Vorster in April 1978. The present State President was strongly opposed to accepting it, but we discussed it for an entire day under the leadership of Mr Vorster. The President, however, resigned himself to it.

That was not all, however. At that stage I was the Minister, and explained this entire matter in detail in the caucus. There are quite a number of caucus members who were there with me, and they know that these hon CP members were also caucus members then. Not one of them stood up and objected; as a matter of fact, some of them praised it. Mr Daan van der Merwe stood up and said we had no alternative and we had to do it this way.

In the winter of 1981 the Prime Minister, who is now our hon State President, invited his Cabinet and the South West African leaders, to a meeting in the veld, where we could be alone and not be bothered by telephones. The entire South West Africa issue was discussed in detail with the leaders of South West Africa. The hon member for Lichtenburg and the present hon leader of the Official Opposition were present, and the acceptance of the settlement plan was reconfirmed unanimously.

Is that where the lion was?

On 11 November 1981 and 21 December 1981 the five Western forces which at that stage formed the so-called contact group—ie the five Western members of the Security Council—submitted to us the constitutional principles which in their opinion had to be taken into account in South West Africa when Resolution 435 was implemented. In this a little more weight was given to minority rights, but in our opinion this was still inadequate. I sent the documents to all Cabinet Ministers, including the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The Prime Minister instructed me to inform all my colleagues that we would discuss that important matter on 19 and 20 January 1982. On one of those two days each Minister had to put his standpoint to the hon the Prime Minister. At some of the discussions it was not necessary for everyone to speak, but when important matters were at issue the Prime Minister required everyone to speak and state his standpoint. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows what he said on that occasion, and fortunately there are colleagues of ours here who were also present. He said he would like to see more protection for minority rights, but he accepted that under the circumstances we had no alternative. Those were his words.

That is not the whole truth!

I submit here today that those were his words.

The Prime Minister was the one who explained there that he was totally opposed to this matter. But the Cabinet accepted it unanimously. I read out in the Cabinet the letter which was to be sent to Gen Haig, the then Secretary of State of America, and after the letter had been approved it was sent to him. The point I want to make is that one can now see how they are abdicating with regard to their international undertakings. They are abdicating with regard to everything they undertook.

Except a Black president!

The country will have to pass judgement on this. This is a matter which this Government handled in an honourable and sincere way. The CP leadership participated in this and they were fully informed on it, but now they suddenly want to withdraw from this. When the UN’s partiality eventually became apparent, this Government said that we no longer saw our way clear to having such a large contingent of UN forces in South West Africa. We took this decision because a speaker from the DTA was not allowed to put his case to the Security Council in New York, whereas Swapo was.

Then Pres Reagan came into power, and after he had come into power the Americans came here to Cape Town and asked us what our attitude would be if they could get the Cubans out. We then said that if they could get the Cubans out it would be a “new ball game”. That is how it happened that under Pres Reagan’s government, shortly after he came into power in 1981, we again became involved in negotiations based on Resolution 435, but with a Cuban withdrawal as a prerequisite.

During the seven years in which Pres Reagan has governed, this standpoint has formed a shield against sanctions and no sanctions were imposed against this country because of the South West Africa issue. There were people who thought seven or eight years ago that we would get sanctions first as a result of South West Africa. Because of this turn of events and ingenious diplomacy on our part, I submit we did not get sanctions on South West Africa first, but on the RSA itself. We thought the order would be: Rhodesia, South West Africa, the Republic.

The CP is continually airing the view that the statements, standpoints, principles and undertakings of leaders should not be rejected. Surely the hon the State President can say whether I am right regarding the NP’s standpoint on the UN Charter in 1945. The opposition at the time—the NP—did not like the UN Charter, and opposed it in this House. The Charter was signed by Gen Smuts and when Dr Malan subsequently came into power, we did not throw it overboard. He honoured the previous government’s international undertaking. Now I am asking who is running away. Who is abdicating? Who is following the examples of leaders of the past? It is as clear as daylight! I am asking the hon member for Pietersburg whether he still stands by Dr Malan’s legislation on diplomatic immunities and privileges. This is a simple question.

Surely it was not necessary for you to accept power sharing!

Does the hon member for Pietersburg stand by Dr Malan’s Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1951—yes or no? [Interjections.] This is an easy question, Mr Speaker, but he cannot answer me! It is quite clear!

Are you still in favour of a Black State President?

Now I come to the worst distortions of the CP, but I have the hon member for Losberg to thank for this. I really must thank him, because usually they tell these stories at meetings at which we are not present, but he had the courage—I thank him for this—to stand up in this House yesterday and really tell us the kind of stories they tell at house meetings … [Interjections] … and he has therefore afforded me the opportunity to reply where we can all hear the truth, and hopefully where the country can also hear it.

He started by accusing my department of ineptness …

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

… and by saying that this ineptness was evident in that inter alia our ambassador in Washington quoted Dr Martin Luther King approvingly. Then he alleged that an authority on the American scene considered Dr King to be “a very controversial communistically-orientated and radical agitator”. Those were his words; hon members heard them yesterday.

The South African ambassador wrote the following in his open letter to the Americans:

Compare this with the hon member’s description of Dr Martin Luther King as a communistic agitator. He said authorities on the American scene felt this way. Mr Speaker, apart from George Washington, Martin Luther King is the only American for whom a public holiday has been proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of the USA.

You know why that is so!

These are the only two Americans in the history of that country!

You know why that is so!

I assume that the hon members of the CP do have a little respect for Pres Reagan’s views. They would surely not say that Pres Reagan is one of the biggest communists.

Are you trying to tell us that Martin Luther King was not a communist?

They will resort to saying something as absolutely ridiculous as this, but of course they will only do so when we are not present. However, I do not think they will say something like this in public where we have an opportunity to give the facts. [Interjections.] What is of course interesting is that on 18 January 1986 Pres Reagan signed the proclamation which established a public holiday in honour of Dr Martin Luther King. On that occasion the American President said:

Are you now protecting Dr Martin Luther King?

I am now quoting further from what Pres Reagan said on 15 January 1987 in honour of Dr King:

Whether one liked him or not, Dr Martin Luther King always inexorably insisted that political goals …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, I do not have time to reply to any questions now. I am sorry.

Dr King never advocated violence to achieve political objectives. That is what this Government also says. We are asking people to abandon violence as a means of attaining political goals.

And communism?

No, wait a moment! The hon member for Losberg and his party must tell us whether they think that the President of the USA could honour such a big communist in this way. That is my first question.

Anything is possible in America!

The second question is … No, Sir, we are going to be at loggerheads any minute now! The second question concerns the allegation regarding Mr John Sears. The hon member said Pres Reagan had only just come into power when we appointed Mr John Sears who, according to him, had been sent packing by Pres Reagan, as a lobbyist although we had a golden opportunity to get a better man. This is the best joke I have heard in a long time! [Interjections.] Mr John Sears was already appointed to a key position in the election campaign of Mr Richard Nixon in 1968. He was the director of Pres Reagan’s election campaign. In the USA it is generally accepted that he engineered Pres Reagan’s victory. He was the tactician. He was the leader of the election campaign. Mr Sears is one of the most respected political commentators in the USA. That was also the reason why he was appointed. He regularly appears on both NBC and PBS. The best newspapers in the USA constantly use his standpoints and ask him to write columns and articles. No one in the USA doubts that man’s expertise and insight. In the run-up to the forthcoming presidential election candidates asked him to be their election manager or director. However, he did not consider it advisable to accept.

Is he still Pres Reagan’s advisor?

Now I must hear in this House how inept we are, and that Pres Reagan sent him packing. I am now saying that that is not true. The hon member sucked that out of his thumb. He is going to pay for that too. After all, we now have ammunition. Every day we wonder what the CP is telling the people when they visit them in their homes. Fortunately this hon member came openly to this House to tell his ridiculous stories. Now we know what kind of stories they tell.

Would you believe that John Sears, who is one of the most respected political commentators in the USA, was sent packing by Pres Reagan. That, in fact, is what they are saying.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to refer you to the provisions of Rule 88 which the hon the Minister has not been complying with. The Rule provides that when speaking every member must address the Chair. The hon the Minister is standing with his back turned to you.

Order! That is not a point of order. I shall decide on that for myself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I want to deal with the next allegation of the hon member. He went on and, very impudently, said he asked the hon the Minister to reply to this too. He is sinking ever deeper into the quicksand. His question was whether the NP government had, at the insistence of the Department of Foreign Affairs, opened the doors to all foreign television and Press representatives who published abhorrent scenes from South Africa abroad.

This is yet again what they are telling the people, but everyone in this House knows what happened. Media regulations were introduced by the Government. What I am now telling the hon member can be confirmed by the hon the State President. My offices abroad were the first to make us aware of these abhorrent scenes. I then showed the hon the State President some of those scenes which were on video cassettes. He, as I had done, said that urgent steps had to be taken against this.

How long did you wait before you took action?

Why did the hon member not ascertain the facts? He knows very well that no action could be taken until the regulations had been properly promulgated. He also knows very well that our own newspapers could publish what they wished. Today I want to say that some of our own newspapers published worse scenes than foreign newspapers did. The hon member should know this too.

What is important is the question who the Minister of Information was when the riots took place in Soweto and Sharpeville. No steps were taken at that stage, and let me tell the House that some of the worst scenes which are still being shown today, date from that time. Why must we attack one another with this nonsense? Why can the hon member not ascertain the facts?

Are you going to speak for much longer?

I am nowhere near finished yet. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member attacked Dr Koornhof again because he was supposed to have given the wrong impression regarding the release of Mbeki. He went on to say that Mbeki had subsequently been restricted, and now the Americans ostensibly do not know what our policy is.

But they do not know what it is!

When Mbeki was released the Government did not guarantee that if he could not prevent himself from breaking the law or adopting a certain pattern of behaviour, he would not be rearrested or restricted. The Advisory Release Board which made the recommendation did not say that either.

I consequently cannot understand the hon member’s point at all. It is not at all relevant; it is irrelevant. He does not know what is at issue. He thinks because he is confused everyone is confused.

You simply took a chance.

The hon member then quoted something which Dr Koornhof was supposed to have quoted from something which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was supposed to have said. What this apparently amounted to was that the hon the Minister was supposed to have said that negotiations could take place around this negotiating table or in this forum of the National Council “and such questions as the release of Mr Nelson Mandela, the legalisation of the ANC and the abolition of remaining discrimination laws” could also be discussed there.

I spoke to my hon colleague about this. The embassy based this document on newspaper reports, but the hon the Minister actually said the following:

Was the embassy therefore wrong?

The entire import of the hon the Minister’s remark was therefore that all manner of conditions for negotiation should not be laid down; then we would never get around to negotiating. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg must contain himself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

He told certain Black leaders that they should not constantly say that this must first cease or this or that must first be done. The hon the Minister’s standpoint was that we should go to the conference table without predetermined conditions. The persons representing the Government, will state their principles there and make suggestions which the Black leaders may not like, and the Black leaders will also make suggestions and state principles which the Government’s representatives may not like, but the conference table is the place to discuss this, and it is wrong to say that one will not go to the conference table until a certain precondition has been met. This was the import of his words, and it is not that difficult to understand them. I would say it is not at all difficult to understand them, but yet again we have a distortion.

You are therefore repudiating Dr Koornhof.

Then the hon member comes along, and this is worst of all. He again quotes from a newsletter or pamphlet of our embassy in London. In this reference is made to the National Council which was envisaged in 1986. As hon members all know the relevant Bill was published in the Gazette of 23 May 1986. In consequence of this our embassy in London said:

I want to emphasise the word “planned”—

“… of the new constitution”!

This refers to the constitution which must still be negotiated on.

It says “the new constitution”, not “a new constitution”.

Then the newsletter or pamphlet quotes the following sources:

If one consults the relevant Gazette and one makes a simple calculation, this is in fact true, because 6 + 10 is 16, and 16 4-2 is 18. Anyone could in fact deduce from the Bill as it then read that there could be a majority of Blacks in that council, but this had absolutely nothing to do with the Government, the decision-making of the country or the executive. Good Lord no! [Interjections.] The National Council would act in an advisory capacity and this was spelled out. There was no suggestion of decision-making by a majority of votes. But do hon members know what this hon member said? [Interjections.] They are not going to get away with this. According to him our embassy said “the Whites will be reduced to a minority”.

I said “to a minority”.

Order! If the hon member for Losberg cannot discipline himself, I shall be compelled to restrain him. The hon the Minister may proceed.

In conclusion I want to say that I have now dealt seriatim with every one of the so-called allegations of ineptness made by that hon member.

He was right!

The hon member says he was right. Very well! We will see what our voters have to say about the mendacious distortions which they of course also tell behind our backs. [Interjections.] Hon members have now seen in this House that they are like enraged wasps when the truth hits them.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister entitled to suggest that I did not quote what he has just read out correctly?

Order! In the sense in which the hon the Minister said it, he was correct. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the ignorance of the educated is a bigger problem than the education of the ignorant! [Interjections.]

*In conclusion I want to thank hon members, particularly hon members on our side. I shall thank them personally by letter, because unfortunately I do not have the time to thank them in detail now. [Interjections.] I want to thank them for their seriousness and good preparation in respect of this debate. I do not think I can pay them a greater compliment than to associate myself with the columnist in this morning’s edition of Die Burger, who referred to the excellent and outstanding quality of the speeches of the speakers of the NP. [Interjections.] I take pleasure in associating myself with this.

In conclusion I want to say that if anyone from outside had listened to this debate, they would have heard from the PFP that we had to comply with all the requirements of the American Congress in order to avoid sanctions.

No. It is because it is right for South Africa! [Interjections.]

From the CP they would have heard that we were too lenient towards the Americans and that we were giving too much away. [Interjections.] I ask the country outside to judge. If they must choose between the PFP and the CP, which will they choose? [Interjections.] They can choose either of the two, but then they will be choosing a South Africa which will degenerate into confusion and chaos.

The PFP thinks the more it concedes to the outside world the more it is going to save its own skin. [Interjections.] The CP thinks the more one tramples other people’s values underfoot, the more one promotes one’s own values. I think our hon State President said recently that one did not need to hate others to love what was one’s own. The NP will continue to disseminate that message. It will disseminate this message to the outside world and to South Africa. Where necessary it will take unpopular steps to ensure that South Africa survives, because our patriotism is greater than we are. Our party puts South Africa first! [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports this Bill. Clause 1 provides that “Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology” be substituted for “Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs”.

At the moment two officers are appointed from the department. This is now being amended and in future one person will be appointed from the Department of Economic Affairs and Technology and another from the National Energy Council. Clause 2 provides for the imposition of a levy apart from the Equalisation Fund levy, which is applicable to diesel fuel. The door is left open, however, for this to be retained if, as in the past, it should again be deemed necessary to impose a levy on the CEF. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member for Carletonville who supported this amending Bill on behalf of that side of the House.

This is the first amendment since the commencement of the Central Energy Fund Act in 1977. This amendment does not arise from any problems but attempts to adapt the principal Act to changing circumstances. The amending Bill must therefore be read in conjunction with the Energy Act, Act 42 of 1987, in terms of which a National Energy Council was instituted.

This envisaged National Energy Council was established after a critical investigation was carried out by a task group in co-operation with the Commission for Administration. The National Energy Council fulfils a substituting function in the sense that the Energy Branch of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the energy function of the Foundation for Scientific Development of the SCIR are being replaced. At the same time this National Energy Council also satisfies needs, of which there are two. Firstly, it fulfils the need for an efficient energy management plan and secondly, the council fulfils the need for the effective application of energy, taking factors such as the freedom of market forces and the involvement of the private sector into account.

Consequently it is clear that only specialists must be appointed to the National Energy Council as a result of the highly specialised nature of energy as a science and therefore expert personnel are being transferred from the Energy Branch out of the ambit of Government as well as certain personnel of the CSIR. Since 1 April 1988 the National Energy Council has replaced the Energy Branch of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs as well as the energy function of the Foundation for Scientific Development of the CSIR.

In terms of clause 1 of the amending Bill an officer of the National Energy Council is now to be appointed to the directorate of the National Energy Fund.

†As regards the second amendment, the background is as follows:

The Central Energy Fund is regulated by Act 38 of 1977, for the following purposes: In the first place, to finance and/or to promote, inter alia, the acquisition of coal, the exploitation of coal deposits, the manufacture of liquid fuel, of oil and other products of coal, and the marketing of these last-mentioned products. The second purpose of this particular Act is to make provision for the acquisition, generation, manufacture, marketing and distribution of any other form of energy, as well as the research connected therewith. The third purpose of this Central Energy Fund is to control any project to which the fund may be applied and which has been designated or approved by the responsible Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

This Central Energy Fund is used to finance the production of oil from coal and of synfuel products. Furthermore, South Africa owns extensive coal reserves and, up to now, officially at least, crude oil has not yet been found in economically exploitable quantities. These factors stimulated the manufacture of the synthetic liquid fuels from coal. Since 1956 three Sasols have been erected and are now in production. These undertakings require millions of rand, and therefore it was decided that the users of liquid fuel had to contribute to the financing of synfuel projects.

Since 1 April 1988 the Central Energy Fund became a fiscal measure and is now collected and paid to the Exchequer.

*This amending Bill amends the principal Act so as to impose a levy for the benefit of the Central Energy Fund on all petrol, distillate fuel or residual fuel oil and not only on those products on which customs and excise duty is payable in respect of which no rebate or refund is applicable. Consequently it is a pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also wish to support this Bill. As has been said, its primary objective is to ensure the continuity of expertise and know-how, and this is something we wish to support. The need has resulted from the reallocation of personnel, and we believe the way this is dealt with in the Bill is in fact correct.

The other aspects of the Bill are largely technicalities, and we support the Bill as it is.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members for Carletonville, Bloemfontein North and also the hon member for Pinelands. I should like to thank them sincerely for their support of the legislation. It is very clear to me that they agree with us that it is important for experts to be involved in the Central Energy Fund. I also consider it very important that they realise that we have to extend the levy, for which provision has already been made in the principal Act, to include diesel fuel.

I wish to thank them very much for their support of the legislation.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports this legislation too. I shall not go into the entire Bill but concentrate on only a few clauses.

As regards the envisaged new section 24 of the principal Act, as contained in clause 10, provision is now being made for the establishment of the Council for Nuclear Safety. The objects of this council are to issue nuclear licences for the construction or use of nuclear installations, the disposal of hazardous nuclear material, etc. The activities of the council are already defined in the provisions of this Act, but now they may go further to rent, sell or dispose of movable or immovable property. They are obliged, however, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, to obtain the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology to do this.

I come now to the composition of the council. It shall consist of not more than 14 members, appointed by the Minister, who shall not be licensed employees. Provision is made for a chairman and a vice-chairman of the council. The Minister shall appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman of that council from the members of the council who are not officials or employees of the State. The chairman of the council shall be vested with all the powers and duties granted to him under this Act.

The council may also co-opt members to assist in the performance of its functions. The Bill also specifies which persons are not qualified to be appointed to the office. We can find no fault with this.

The frequency of council meetings is specified. There is provision for an executive committee to which shall consist of persons who are appointed by the Minister. The executive committee shall have a chairman and a vice-chairman with as many members as the council shall decide. The council may also appoint committees to be of assistance to it. It may also appoint personnel.

Furthermore the council is empowered to delegate powers to other committees to be of assistance to it.

The funds of the council are monies appropriated by Parliament or fees paid by licencees. The executive officer shall be the accounting officer of the council charged with the responsibility of executing certain duties in the course of the year. In addition an annual report shall be compiled which is to be submitted to the Minister within three months of its compilation. If Parliament is in session, the Minister shall lay it upon the Table in Parliament within 14 days.

There is a further clause in terms of which persons may appeal under certain conditions if they feel that they have been wronged. We support this clause. The Minister’s decision shall be final in this case.

A further clause which I should like to emphasise is that which provides for the appointment of an advisory committee in respect of compensation of persons when they are injured in the course of their duties. We consider this clause a very good thing.

As I have already said, the CP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, nuclear energy and nuclear safety have always been a very emotional matter. I believe, however, that we have now reached the stage in which it is no longer as emotional a matter as it was previously.

Nuclear science has developed and together with it the necessity for more streamlining and adaptation of control measures. In the past, when we were less sophisticated, research, development and control all fell under one body. Recently this has started changing worldwide. As nuclear energy has made more technical advances, the importance of the establishment of more control bodies has been realised. The trend at present is also that the function of control should be carried out by a separate body—a body which is altogether autonomous, without the possibility of outside influence. This pattern has developed in South Africa too. We have now reached the stage in which we are able to consider such a body, and that is the object of this amending Bill.

Probably the most important consideration in the establishment of such a body is that the costs and efficiency of the nuclear industry as a whole should not be adversely affected. The Atomic Energy Corporation has recommended that we take the duty of licensing and control, possession, production and processing, etc of nuclear material from its overall control and transfer it to a fully autonomous body. This is what is being done in this legislation.

If hon members look at the Nuclear Energy Amendment Bill, they will see that it is merely a transfer of duties from the corporation to this new council; we call it the Council for Nuclear Safety. As a juristic person, the council will be granted the right to issue, alter or cancel licences as far as this affects the safety of installations and their operation.

It is very important that the Atomic Energy Corporation, which was previously exempt from the obligation of possessing a licence, will also have to appeal to the new council for such a licence. I think this step can only contribute to ensuring the optimum level of safety in our atomic energy as far as it is humanly possible.

Under those circumstances we on this side of the House also support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the question of nuclear safety is of paramount importance and obviously this Bill has recognised that fact. This has often been an emotion-charged issue to which the public at large is justifiably extremely sensitive. There have been accidents elsewhere in the world which have heightened public concern. It is therefore right that the Government take this matter of nuclear safety extremely seriously and that they be seen to be doing so. One has only to recall the public concern and outcry at the siting of Koeberg, and we argued, as did many others, that it was unwise to site a nuclear power station so close to an urban area such as Cape Town.

A fundamental principle overriding the issue of licensing and control, is the need for independence. To date this has not been the case with the Atomic Energy Corporation bearing the responsibility for these functions as well as for the production process itself. This is obviously undesirable and therefore we welcome the independence brought about by this Bill, establishing a separate Council for Nuclear Safety. Public safety demands the need for the most rigid of standards, and to the extent that these activities become incorporated into the private sector, the need for a safety watchdog becomes even more acute. Now this watchdog will have more teeth and will apply equally to State and private enterprise. Its objects and functions are detailed and the composition of the council will allow members with the necessary skills and expertise to be appointed. We welcome this. Such skills will include environmental health and conservation. In addition, members may be co-opted if required for their specialised knowledge.

The Bill also allows for appeals to the Minister against decisions of the council. In the search for safety in this regard, we believe this Bill goes a long way to meeting this requirement. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Pinelands for his support of this Bill. I want to latch onto one remark he made and that was that the control of nuclear energy is something which has always been of an emotional nature.

*One can understand this in the light of very recent events. One thinks for instance of the case of the Chernobyl nuclear power station in Russia. If one considers the magnitude of the consequences of that disaster, one can understand why such a matter is emotionally charged. In the case of Chernobyl it not only claimed human lives and left others in an unfortunate physical condition but also resulted in the prohibition of certain foodstuffs, namely agricultural products which could have been subject to this radiation, for human consumption. I am merely mentioning this to point out the far-reaching effect that inadequate control over nuclear energy in the nuclear installations of a country can have.

We in South Africa are obviously fortunate that we have enormous natural resources in the form of uranium at our disposal to generate our own energy. Not only do we have extensive supplies of uranium which can last for generations but we also have an exceptional process for enriching uranium which makes this even more important. For that reason we are far ahead of certain Western nations in the rest of the world.

Control of nuclear energy which is ultimately to be generated is vital and that is why I wish to conclude by saying that the most important amendments which are brought about by this Bill deal with the creation of this Council for Nuclear Safety, its functions, powers and independence from the Atomic Energy Corporation. Consequently I find it a pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I want to speak in support of what my colleague the hon member for Pinelands had to say about this Bill. We are also aware that there is at this time much talk about the possibility of the construction of a second nuclear power station in South Africa. I am not quite sure to whom I should address these remarks, since on the one hand the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation has had the ministerial responsibility for Eskom entrusted to him and yet, on the other hand, we find that this Bill has fallen under the control of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

Certainly the people in Natal, particularly those living along the north coast, have learned with a measure of concern that an investigation is to be undertaken between Port Durnford and Salt Rock during the course of the next few years to establish a possible site for a particular nuclear powerstation. I refer here, of course, to the Press release by the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation on 20 April 1988. I noticed with some interest that the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology said yesterday that Natal was unlikely to be the site for a new nuclear power station. Nevertheless, the Bill before the House today is of critical importance because it is an important piece of legislation designed, among other things, to safeguard the public against nuclear damage.

The Council for Nuclear Safety which is proposed by this Bill, is a body with quite extended powers, particularly with regard to the issue of nuclear licences, the construction and use of a nuclear installation and control over nuclear hazard materials. The establishment of this council has obviously come at the right time if Eskom is to begin investigating possible sites for future nuclear power stations whether it be in Natal or not.

The hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation has emphasised—I quote from his Press release—that “at this stage nuclear power still is the only viable alternative to coal for bulk supplying of electricity”. At the same time we are aware of the fact that Eskom has for some time been wanting to push ahead with a massive plan for the electrification of South and Southern Africa. It is estimated that 13 million or less than 40% of South Africa’s total population have electricity in their homes.

We certainly all accept that electricity is absolutely essential today, not only as a source of lighting and heating, but in order to provide people with the opportunity of availing themselves of other essential commodities which many of us take for granted. I think immediately of television as an educational means.

If Eskom is to push ahead with a policy of electrification of new large areas in South and Southern Africa it has to consider its fuel supplies. There is a general realisation—it has been said in this House this afternoon—that coal supplies will run out one day and that alternative power supplies are needed before this happens.

I also want to draw the attention of this House to an article which appeared in the Cape Times on 5 February this year. This article referred then— some two and a half months prior to the Press release of the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation—to a rumour that the building of a second nuclear power station was being considered “in the near future with Natal as the popular site.” A PRO for Eskom said too that Eskom had an ongoing programme to identify possible nuclear sites for the establishment of a nuclear power station in 19 areas along South Africa’s coastline.

We are also aware that R1,3 billion has been allocated by the Government over the past two years to nuclear energy programmes.

The point I wish to make is that although Eskom has stressed that no nuclear power station is planned for this century and that their nuclear power programme is a long-term project, there is always the possibility that these plans could be altered, and I believe that this House needs to be aware of this. Many factors point to the very real possibility that South Africa could in fact have its second nuclear power station sooner than we are at present led to believe. If this is the case, this new body, the Council for Nuclear Safety, increases in importance immediately. As the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation has stated, and I quote:

We find here that the Council for Nuclear Safety is already being referred to.

I emphasise that this Council for Nuclear Safety is to be involved in all nuclear site studies, and this is underlined by clause 11 of the new Bill. Any such investigation must cover a wide range of aspects, not least of all the legal, socio-economic, environmental, ecological and technical, and the results of the reports on each and every aspect which is investigated should we believe be made available to the public for comment and reference. While the PFP is prepared to support the investigation of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to coal, because it is obvious that coal supplies will one day run out and at present there is no other energy source manifesting itself, we will only do so provided that the most stringent standards with regard to nuclear reactors are introduced and that such reactors, when constructed, are located in thinly populated areas only.

We also believe that four or five sites should be identified soon before any site is finally chosen for a nuclear power station, and what is important again is that a full environmental and ecological report would have to be produced first.

Only recently, however, we have had the second anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, a disaster which has been described as one of the strongest arguments demonstrating the fallibility and danger of nuclear technology, and consequently, taking into account the objects of the Bill before the House today—to safeguard the public against nuclear damage, to regulate and exercise control, through the licensing functions, over the use, possession and production of nuclear material, and the disposal of nuclear-hazard material—we support this Bill and the setting up of this Council for Nuclear Safety.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Carletonville, Stilfontein and Kuruman—he is almost a benchmate of mine—very heartily for their support of this legislation.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Pinelands and the hon member for Durban North for supporting this Bill. I think it is important that each and every one of the speakers emphasised the absolute importance of nuclear safety, and I also want to highlight its importance. If we are to develop the nuclear programme we have already started in this country, I think it is important that we should take all possible steps to secure nuclear safety in South Africa. I think for that purpose it is important that the authority should be vested in one organisation only, and I think that is the main emphasis of this Bill.

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban North referred to a possible site for a power station. I want to say at once that we have no doubt that, in the light of currently available technology and the fact that our coal reserves will be exhausted at some time or other in the future—as the hon member for Durban North said—the only alternative technology for generating large-scale power is certainly nuclear energy. I therefore consider it important that in determining a location for the construction of a nuclear power station we take all factors into account—all ecological, geological and environmental factors—before such a decision is reached. The point which the hon member raised is also of very great importance to me; this is that we should examine the population density of such a site.

I want to give the undertaking here today—I want to do it very briefly—that we shall not examine only one site. When we note the investigation which took place in Northern Natal, I want to repeat that I do not consider Natal the most suitable place at this time for the next nuclear energy plant. It may be the case in future. I believe we should be able to say with a clear conscience that we have looked at a number of possible sites and that we should announce the priority site far in advance to enable institutions and people involved to make the necessary comment in order to establish whether the site involved is most suitable in all respects. I therefore give the undertaking that we shall really do everything in our power in future to eliminate the mistakes we may possibly have made in the past.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the Chernobyl tragedy. We should not place ourselves on a pedestal now and claim that South Africa is above such an incident. Consequently in selecting a site we should also make provision to take every preventive measure and deal with the technical aspects of all investigations, as well as to publish it beforehand for general notice so that we may receive comment in order to ensure that we are selecting the right site in every respect for such a power station.

I thank hon members for their support of the legislation before us.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the legislation under discussion. In my opinion the purpose of this legislation is twofold. In the first place it seeks to decentralise educational opportunities on the tertiary level, thereby making it more cheaply available to more people. This Bill enables university, technikon and teacher training facilities to be provided under one roof.

This development must be welcomed. The construction of universities, technikons and teachers’ training colleges requires large amounts of capital and it has become essential to consider alternative educational facilities.

I should now like to motivate our reason for supporting the legislation. Firstly education, particularly on the tertiary level, is becoming very expensive. This is not only the case in the RSA, but the pattern throughout the world. The Tertiary Education Bill is an attempt to meet the challenge of rising costs and should eventually result in cheaper education.

Facilities for tertiary education need no longer be concentrated in the more expensive urban areas, but can also be offered in the relatively cheaper rural areas. I hope and trust that the Government will avail itself of this opportunity to channel opportunities for tertiary education to the areas of the Black population on a larger scale. Without major expenditure tertiary education can now be brought within reach of the Black areas, something which, naturally, the CP welcomes.

Secondly this legislation, if it is correctly handled, should lead to the burden on the White education budget being lightened. In recent years, as a result inter alia of the shortage of institutions for tertiary education, particularly for Blacks, more and more students of other population groups have been accommodated in White educational institutions. To the CP, which advocates a policy of separate educational institutions up to tertiary level, such a situation is completely undesirable.

From the latest available particulars it appears that the position of technikons and universities under the control of the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly, is as follows. As regards technikons there were 40 492 White students and 5 169 coloured students as at 31 March last year. As regards universities, the position—this includes Unisa—was 150 405 White students and 52 225 coloured students.

With the influx of coloured students to White tertiary educational institutions the percentage of funds from the White education budget that was being applied to coloured persons rose alarmingly. At universities alone it amounts at present to approximately 26%.

If this situation were to continue the result would be that in the end we would not have any real White tertiary educational institutions in this country. These institutions would be White only in so far as they were being financed from the White education budget. If the legislation before us is handled correctly it will be possible for a situation to develop in which the burden on White tertiary educational facilities will be lightened.

Thirdly the CP supports this legislation because we do not begrudge other people’s educational opportunities, and because this legislation will meet the needs of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in particular. The image which is being so maliciously created of us, namely that we begrudge other peoples everything, including education, is simply not true. We want every people, in its own right, to develop as far as its capabilities allow it to do. [Interjections.] This Bill now creates an opportunity to provide education to all population groups on the tertiary level, in such a way that education of a national character can come into its own. We hope that the Government will avail itself of this opportunity to turn education in this country into a truly own affair.

On this occasion I must, however, utter a word of warning as well. The Government will have to be careful that people, the Black people in particular, do not acquire qualifications for which few, if any, job opportunities exist. Last week the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid also said something along these lines. To provide everyone with tertiary education, without job opportunities existing for the qualifications they acquire, is to look for trouble. This creates false expectations among people. Then the expectation is created that if one has a certificate one can walk in anywhere and is entitled to a job.

I am not opposed to education and training for Black people, or for any other people. However, we must get away from the idea that it will solve all the problems in the country when everyone in South Africa is receiving education up to a certain level. An educated person who either cannot make the grade in practice and compete with others or who cannot get a job is a frustrated person. He is susceptible—more susceptible than the untrained person—to dissatisfaction, rebellion and even ultimately to revolution.

Finally there is an important matter which cropped up in the standing committee. Hon members have before them here today the document in which the approved, as well as the rejected amendments of the standing committee are indicated. In this connection I am referring to an amendment which was moved in respect of clause 12 and negatived. That clause deals with the admission and refusal of students. I am quoting subsection 2:

This clause is extremely important for own affairs education. Without this entrenchment all tertiary colleges that are now established will be opened to all races. The PFP saw this and in accordance with their policy moved the following amendment to that:

What clause?

I am referring to clause 12(2). I am quoting the PFP amendment:

The PFP moved this amendment but it was rejected because they were unable to canvass enough support for it in the standing committee.

What is important, particularly to the White electorate, is that a single member of the NP also moved an amendment to clause 12 on the standing committee. I quote:

1. (a) die student deur die kollege of deur ’n ander kollege of ’n universiteit, technikon of onderwyskollege vanweë onaanneem-like gedrag geskors is;
2. (b) die applikante nie voldoen nie aan die onderwyskundige toelatingsvereistes benewens dié in subartikel (1) genoem, wat deur die raad vir toelating tot ’n bepaalde kursus of gedeelte daarvan gestel word; en
3. (c) die maksimum getal studente wat by die kollege vir ’n bepaalde kursus kan inskryf, reeds bereik is.

I assume that this amendment, which was subsequently withdrawn with the knowledge and the approval of the hon the Minister, was moved and that at least initially it was a well-considered proposal to accommodate the other Houses of Parliament. It is important because this amendment of the NP does not differ materially from that of the PFP. If the amendment had been accepted the controlling bodies of the educational institutions concerned would not have been able to refuse any person on the grounds of race or colour, and in that way determine the character of that educational institution.

We on this side of the House therefore take cognisance of what the NP was prepared to concede on the standing committee in respect of this very important matter. They were prepared to accept only three reasons for the refusal to admit a student to these tertiary colleges, namely misconduct at other educational institutions, inadequate academic qualifications and the lack of space at such an educational institution.

If this amendment had been accepted, and I assume that it was initially moved with the knowledge of the hon the Minister, the CP would have voted against this legislation because precisely nothing would have remained of own affairs education in this legislation. As the Bill is formulated at present we are satisfied that it can be applied within the framework of the CP’s policy. In fact, as the Bill has been formulated at present it is a gain in regard to the CP and our view on education. It creates the opportunity to bring about greater segregation in the sphere of education. The CP therefore supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Brits for the support he expressed on behalf of his party in respect of the specific amending Bill being discussed by this House. It is a pity that he again gave a slight political tinge to the whole matter.

By now one has come to realise that those who are so silent on the standing committees become extremely talkative here. Of the arguments which he enumerated against the amendment ostensibly moved by a prominent NP member we heard nothing on the standing committee. This is the first time these objections have come to our notice.

This legislation makes provision for something which we foresee will become a need, namely to bring tertiary education to communities in which there is a need for such tertiary training. A new organisational principle is the combining of the three main components of tertiary training under one roof. This is certainly a new principle, but fundamentally it does not detract from the respective components of tertiary training. It merely makes it financially more feasible to offer tertiary training. No standards will be endangered because the training institutions, as regards university training, will be affiliated with universities, and when it comes to technikons and teacher-training, they will have to comply with the standards set by the respective certification boards.

University colleges are not a new concept in South Africa. Just think of the name PUK— initially it was the Potchefstroomse Universiteits-kollege, while TUK was the Transvaalse Univer-siteitskollege. This is now the University of Pretoria. Then there is UKOVS, which they now call UOVS. This is another example of an era in history which has not yet come to an end, because they are also still in the process of becoming a university. [Interjections.] Consequently it is entirely within the tradition and history of our tertiary education that this kind of thing should happen.

When it comes to whether this can be afforded, I want to point out that it is expensive to start a university from scratch. The same applies to a technikon and a teachers’ training college. Apart of the establishment of these various institutions, this legislation affords a greater possibility which to my mind is very important, namely co-operation between the respective components. Duplication of courses and similar problems of which we have far too many on the tertiary level in this country are being eliminated.

I should like to let this suffice. We gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP wish to extend our thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Stellenbosch, for the work he did in chairing the committee. I am sure the hon the Minister, when he replies, will echo those thanks.

There is some history to the measure before us. It goes back to its first presentation in June last year, and was debated in the standing committee during June and August and part of September last year. Before I discuss the problems that then arose, I think we should also note that a considerable number of the amendments that were proposed in that standing committee have been incorporated in the measure. Naturally we are very pleased about this. It makes for better legislation when a standing committee has time to debate and discuss these technical areas. I do not wish to touch on those today, because there are two key areas where this measure does not fulfil, we believe, the key role of instituting new tertiary institutions in South Africa.

The first of these is to follow the line that is now almost universally adopted in tertiary institutions, namely that they should fall under some form of unified control. The recent universities’ investigative report made it very clear that they would like to fall under one Minister. I will touch on that a little later.

Secondly, there is the entire question touched on by the hon member of the party on my right, the hon member for Brits, concerning the admission requirements for students. As we well know, the Government is in what we shall call a move-over phase from having restrictive categorisation in tertiary institutions to having restrictive categorisation still on the Statute Book, but in fact allowing students of colour into tertiary institutions. That we acknowledge.

It was those two principal areas that became the problem in the standing committee. As one can understand, in a standing committee, and particularly one dealing with an area as sensitive as education, it is important to reach consensus.

It is important to reach some point of contact. As I have indicated, there were a considerable number of amendments on which contact was reached. We have no problem with that.

I want to mention two particular points. A proposal that the control of these tertiary institutions be placed under this particular hon Minister was not acceptable to the majority party in the House of Assembly. Secondly, the proposal that racial restrictions should not be allowed as far as these institutions are concerned was also not acceptable to the majority party in the House of Assembly. I have emphasised that, because the other parties—with the sole exception of the party on my right—were in agreement on those two measures. So, for some eight months this measure was actually blocked in the standing committee. The question is—and this hon Minister will no doubt like to take it up—who actually blocked that measure? Was it blocked by the parties that proposed the amendment or by the majority party in the House of Assembly? I want to suggest that it was being blocked by that party, not because of any educational reason, or even for any reason of great principle—particularly regarding admissions—but simply because it was politically not acceptable for them to be seen to be racially opening tertiary institutions. The interesting thing is that today we have seen a fine exposition by the hon member for Brits as to why the CP can support this measure. They can support it for the very reason that the NP blocked this measure for eight months, namely that they were not prepared to give way on a racially restrictive policy with regard to tertiary institutions.

It is interesting that today we are no doubt in a fairly historical position, because we have a measure before us under the new Standing Rules for which a new formulation will have to be adopted in terms of Rule 114. This party will not be supporting this measure and we will be demanding a division at the end. In terms of the new Standing Rules I cannot move an amendment to the measure before us today. However, I can place a declaration on record as to why this party will not be supporting the measure. I want to read that now, and I will read it a little later when the declaratory vote is taken. I declare that the PFP will vote against the Question and we submit the following written declaration:

1. (1) place the proposed tertiary colleges under the Minister of National Education; and
2. (2) explicitly prevent the restriction of the admission of students on grounds of their race, colour, creed or sex.

I will touch on the key elements of those two points a little later. Some of the background to the formulation of these tertiary institutions the hon member for Brits has touched on, as did the hon the Minister in his introductory speech.

When we look at the number of students in tertiary institutions in South Africa, I think it is important for us to recognise that there is a very significant imbalance. There are 248 000 students at universities, 54 000 students at technikons and 43 000 students at teacher training colleges. These are students of all races. We understand that this measure is designed to correct the imbalance by creating tertiary institutions in areas where currently there is not a university or technikon which can combine in fact the functions of a university, a technikon and a teacher training college. From the discussions held in the standing committee we understand further that these tertiary institutions will be created specifically for the Department of Education and Training and for the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives. We are advised that it is highly unlikely that such tertiary colleges will be created for the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly, who is in fact trying to reduce the number of students particularly at universities and teacher training colleges. These institutions will also not be created for the Department of Education and Culture: House of Delegates, because their students are already in such institutions.

Therefore we need to look at the growth potential in both Black and so-called Coloured education. As I reflected the other day, it is interesting to look at the figures in terms of university rationalisation touched on by the hon member for Brentwood and others the other day when we debated the hon the Minister’s Vote. When we look at rationalisation, we are not looking at rationalisation in terms of a totality of students, but we are in fact talking about rationalisation in terms of a segmented racial grouping.

If we project a figure for the future it is highly likely that the current Black student population at universities, which is between 42 000 and 45 000, will increase to some 200 000 by the year 2000. I will not say that existing universities cannot take it, but it is inadvisable that they grow to full-time residential universities with 30 000 or 40 000 or 50 000 students. That would be totally inadvisable. Therefore it may be preferable to follow the example of universities in other countries. One can use the model of university colleges which the hon member for Walmer mentioned here previously, or the American model of small State universities. However, we must create smaller institutions where, in fact, the university can handle the students and the students can feel some human and personal contact.

There is a key element to which this Government has committed itself. That is principle 1 of the De Lange Report. That hon Minister knows full well—he has to observe it every day—that:

That is what this hon Minister is bound to do. We believe that in binding him to do this, it also binds him to ensure that that education is in fact equal.

We have argued vociferously, and will continue to argue, that separate cannot inherently be equal. That party may argue that it can be. That is their right, but then they must show demonstrably that that situation exists. So, when we create these new tertiary colleges for Black and Coloured education, we are in fact looking at creating a situation to provide an education equal to any received in South Africa.

I turn to the two key elements that the PFP objects to regarding this measure. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that we voted in the standing committee on the principle of the introduction of this measure. We believe that it is important that the measure be introduced. In the standing committee we voted against the measure as it came out of that standing committee, because we believe that it is flawed. First of all we believe that it is flawed, because these newly created tertiary institutions are not placed under the control or the co-ordination—if one prefers that—of a single Minister.

When we look at it logically, just in the two departments that are likely to create tertiary colleges, namely the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives, we see that this hon Minister is the co-ordinator of the Ministers’ Council when sitting together regarding education. However, I put it to this hon Minister that when a tertiary college is set up in an area such as Kimberley, under which Minister will that college be set up? Will it be set up under the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives, or will it be set up under the Department of Education and Training? Both will have an equal right to set it up, because there is no doubt that there is a demand in that area for such an institution by both groups. We believe that this hon Minister is going to be placed in a very difficult position in refereeing the kind of demands from both sectors and that he should have been the one to control these institutions.

This hon Minister will be aware of the fact that we are occasionally—I will not say frequently— faced with the problem of what one could call “errant” Ministers. These are Ministers who choose to go their own way, not like the hon the Minister for Education and Culture: House of Assembly, who goes the way of his party on all occasions! However, there are errant Ministers who would act in a certain way, because they believe their group, if you like, demand certain things. That errant Minister, whoever he may be, may then choose to set up a college where it is not in the best interests of South Africa to set it up.

There again, I believe we should look at this issue as one for South Africa as a whole rather than as an own affair. That is one of the peculiarities of this measure. It is a measure introduced, as we see, by the hon the Minister of National Education. He is the one who will be responding to me, but no institution created by this Bill will actually fall under this hon Minister. Constitutionally I find it interesting—we put this in the standing committee—why this measure is not actually an own affairs measure. We actually never got a satisfactory reply and I wonder whether the hon the Minister of National Education could give me a reply as to why this measure has not been treated as an own affairs measure.

The second leg of our criticism relates to racial restrictions. I want to say to the hon the Minister of National Education who previously was responsible for universities, that we accept the bona fides of the NP in not imposing racial restrictions on the tertiary institutions—universities and technikons—falling under the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. As the hon member for Brits correctly pointed out, there are a large number of students of colour at both those institutions, but in both the Universities Act and the Technikons Act the possibility of the quota being introduced still exists. We challenge the hon the Minister to have it deleted and I hope that he will do so one day, because now the difficulty is not with the hon members of the NP, but with the hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

When we listen to the hon member for Brits, we hear that he is saying what the NP policy was 10 or 15 years ago which was to racially restrict the tertiary institutions. He wants the Black, Coloured and Indian students out of the White technikons and universities. That is their policy. [Interjections.] He wants tertiary institutions to be pearly-white own affairs. If the CP ever came to power—which heaven help South Africa it never will!—it could use existing legislation to once more racially restrict the universities and technikons in South Africa. [Interjections.] We believe that in terms of creating the new tertiary institutions, that is exactly the danger we in this Parliament should have tried to prevent. We put this in the standing committee.

The hon member for Brits was quite open about it that he is happy with the measure. He said they were happy with the measure because it fitted in with their philosophy and it was a gain for the CP. [Interjections.] Is the NP proud of that? The NP is saying that they will not place a restriction on the admission of students to tertiary colleges as they do not place a restriction on technikons and universities at the moment. We are happy with that, but we want them to follow that up. The interesting thing that the NP must realise sooner or later is that if they want to prevent the CP from carrying out their views they must pass legislation to stop it now because the other two Houses will never allow that party to pass it.

The other two Houses will not have a say.

We believe it was a sad day when the NP did not accept the amendment which would have explicitly prevented the restriction of admission on the grounds of race, colour, creed or sex. It fits in with their philosophy. They would be quite happy with it. Unfortunately, they have gone along looking over their right shoulder at the CP.

Now you are talking nonsense again.

No, I am not.

We shall define our own policy.

I am listening.

Define yours and we shall define ours.

It will be interesting—I have no doubt that we shall listen to it a little later in this debate—to hear what the NP has to say about separate educational institutions as expounded by the hon member for Brits in terms of White funding. White funding for these institutions would be cut off in terms of their philosophy. That is something we reject totally.

We in the PFP are therefore going to oppose this measure, not because we are opposed to tertiary educational institutions, but because we believe that in South Africa today the measure which could have come out of this Parliament should in fact have been one which would have ensured a better educational philosophy and a better relationship between peoples in institutions than that which is coming.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon member for Pinetown and his party were not prepared to support this legislation, and if this House were to follow their example, we would in fact be prejudicing those communities who have the greatest need for this specific kind of education and training.

The hon member—I want to congratulate him for this—took an historic step here today in that, according to the new rules, he will have to submit a declaration in which he then sets out the reasons for the opposition of his party to this legislation. I wish him luck in that regard. The PFP’s opposition to this legislation consists of two elements. Firstly they want control to fall under one Minister, namely the Minister of National Education. In contrast to that this measure provides that every group will deal with its own affairs. We have never been ashamed of our policy of education as an own affair, and the Government has no intention of departing from that policy. As regards the education of Black people as a general affair, it will be dealt with by the Minister of Education and Development Aid.

Their second objection relates to the requirements for admission. They want these colleges for tertiary education to be opened to all races. Our standpoint, and the hon member is aware of it, is that the necessary flexibility exists in the 1983 Constitution to make a provision for this specific matter.

However, I want to leave the hon member at that and return to the legislation. It was interesting that when the standing committee was considering this matter it was clear that the greatest need for such colleges for tertiary education was to be found particularly in the self-governing territories. It was this need which weighed very heavily as a consideration on the standing committee. Naturally the Bill is not applicable to those territories only; other communities may also make use of it if they need it.

Seen as a whole the first colleges for tertiary education will be unique institutions geared to South Africa’s complex educational needs on tertiary level. That is why the Bill must be regarded as a further demonstration of the Government’s determination to provide tertiary educational facilities for all its communities in so far as this is practicable. Upon its establishment, such a college, depending on the needs of its community, will be able to provide either university, or teacher or technikon training, or all three components of tertiary education.

It should be noted that the Bill enjoys the support of the tertiary education community in general. Both the Committee of University Principals as well as the Advisory Council for Universities and Technikons and the South African Council for Education have expressed their support for this Bill. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Conference of Education Ministers of the self-governing territories accepted the draft Bill in 1986 already. The fact that this body, namely the Conference of Education Ministers of the self-governing territories supports the Bill emphasises the need for this legislation in those territories.

The self-governing territories need these colleges urgently as growth points for tertiary education, which at the same time also create an infrastructure for both university as well as teacher and technikon training in those territories. The question may justifiably be asked whether we in South Africa do not already have too many institutions for tertiary education, particularly teachers’ training colleges. Will the introduction of an entirely new concept, as contemplated in this Bill, not mean unnecessary duplication? The reply to this question lies in the realisation that not all communities can have a university as well as a technikon and a teachers’ training college. The Exchequer will simply not be able to afford this. Hence this conception of one tertiary institution that is able to offer a specific community all three of these components.

You must pay your Ministers far less, though!

As regards the oversupply of training facilities for teachers it is well known that this applies only to specific communities, not to all. It is a proven fact that even if all teachers’ training colleges for Whites, for example, were also thrown open to other population groups, the White teachers’ training colleges would nevertheless be unable to meet the total demand for training facilities for teachers in all communities. The need, particularly the need of a specific community for a specific component or component of tertiary education will therefore be the watchword. In this way the Government will ensure that tertiary training is brought to the communities in question in a cost-effective way.

For that reason the envisaged colleges for tertiary education will seek to make educationally justified higher education available as widely as possible, but also as economically as possible, to those communities that do not have those amenities.

One could dwell on the respective clauses of the Bill for a long time. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister elucidated various clauses in detail. Allow me to refer to a few of them very briefly. The definition of “Minister”, in clause 1(3) makes it possible for this legislation to be applied by all Ministers of Government departments dealing with education. In fact what it amounts to is that the three Own Affairs Ministers of Education and Culture, as well as the Minister of Education and Development Aid, will be able to apply this legislation if necessary.

Furthermore I want to draw the attention of this House to the measure of control that will exist over the colleges in question. It is important, since these colleges are entering an initial phase, for the necessary supervision and control to be exercised by the Minister in question. With this Bill South Africa is entering a new phase in the history of the provision of education on the tertiary level. In particular, it meets the specific needs of our self-governing territories for institutions for tertiary training in a unique way. It is a purposeful step on the part of the Government to bring tertiary training, in a cost-effective way, to those communities in which such a need exists. After all it is impossible for every self-governing territory to have from the word go a university, a technikon as well as a teachers’ training college—three independent institutions. But it will now be possible to accommodate all three of these components in one college—under one roof as it were.

South Africa has an enormous need for trained people, including people with post-school training. These facilities are very expensive and must be established with great circumspection. They must be able to provide tertiary education effectively and as widely as possible but in a way that is affordable. The colleges for tertiary education, for which provision is being made in this Bill, comply with this requirement because they are multipurpose, adaptable and economic institutions.

We on this side of the House expect great things of these colleges. I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the introduction of this Bill. Consequently I gladly support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to hear that I am on the list.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East outlined a number of aspects of the Bill. I would like to return to some of the comments he made earlier in his speech. He referred to the fact that the Constitution provides for a certain amount of flexibility in respect of education. He also said that the main demand for these colleges for tertiary education would in fact be in the self-governing homelands. If that is what he believes, does he also believe that the self-governing homelands have requested segregated tertiary education colleges?

They want the colleges.

He says they want the colleges. The NP’s rule for 1988—1 might say they have operated according to this rule for many years—is that if one wants something, whether one is a self-governing homeland or anybody else, one will get it in the way they choose to give it. Theirs is a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. “You need the education, and we know you want it desperately,” they say. “You can take it in the form in which we are prepared to provide it, or you can leave it.”

As the hon member for Pinetown pointed out, if they had wanted to allow these self-governing homelands to establish colleges in the form in which they wanted them, we could easily have had own affairs Bills. This general affairs Black education Bill could then have had no restriction and could in fact have entrenched what they would have wanted, rather than what this Government wanted to force down their throats.

When one looks at tertiary education in 1988, one sees a number of characteristics. I would like to mention three and relate this Bill to them. The first is the enormous demand for tertiary education in South Africa, a demand which is difficult to satisfy. The second is the shortage of money and the third is the fact that our tertiary education institutions, with the dishonourable exception of teacher training colleges under the control of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, are increasingly multiracial or, in many cases, non-racial.

There is no doubt in our minds that this Bill helps to meet the demand for tertiary education, and that is the positive side of this Bill, but when one looks at the other characteristics, one gets a different picture.

Firstly, the shortage of money manifests itself within educational institutions in a number of different ways, and I want to mention just two. The first is the question of staffing problems. Our universities are being squeezed financially—this is beginning to apply to schools as well, but I am referring here to tertiary education institutions in particular—and this is impacting on every aspect of those universities, staffing being one of the main problems.

We have recently seen reports of the fact that the incomes of university professors, compared with those of other people in equivalent positions— these are positions which certainly used to be considered equivalent—have fallen further and further behind. I have no doubt that it has become increasingly difficult for our universities to attract and retain people of the highest calibre, whom we desperately need at those universities.

In relation to staffing, I think we also have to give serious consideration to the danger of spreading the available talent too thinly. It is difficult to know how to handle this problem, but I think we must be aware of that danger that unless one has within a university faculty enough people of the highest calibre interacting with one another, research and teaching standards will eventually begin to fall.

The second aspect arising from shortage of money is the question of physical facilities. It is one of the crimes of this Government against education that a number of physical facilities for education in this country are going to waste and are not being properly utilised. White teacher training colleges alone, even the ones that are functioning now, have empty places in those colleges. To provide equivalent spaces in teacher training facilities the capital cost will be something like R170 million. That is the situation which is simply being brushed aside with the attitude: “Do not worry, we will keep them White and let R170 million’s worth of facility go to waste.”

We are rationalising, and you know it!

Nationalising!

Then the hon the Minister is of course contradicting the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

He has just closed down three colleges.

Yes, I know, but there is still R170 million going to waste. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture said that there was no intention to close down any more. Is that correct? Is the hon the Minister planning to close down more White teacher training colleges?

Not at this very moment.

Not at this very moment! In fact, I think the hon the Minister went further not so long ago and said that no colleges were going to be closed down in the foreseeable future either.

It is exactly the same.

It is interesting to hear that “not at this very moment” and “not in the foreseeable future” mean the same thing! [Interjections.] It follows then that R170 million will be going to waste in the foreseeable future as well. [Interjections.]

In addition, what are the closed colleges being used for? In many cases they are just being taken up for non-educational uses. They are available—up for grabs—to anyone who wants to use them, be it some other department or for some other usage. In many cases those colleges which were previously used for education are now just half used for something else, sometimes even for education, but still remain half-used facilities.

The hon the Minister has spoken about rationalising demand, but he is rationalising on the basis of apartheid or segregated demand. He is not rationalising the department’s facilities on the basis of straight educational demand. He first looks at the colour and, once the skin colour has been designated, the next thing is education and then comes rationalisation. He does not start with education, proceed to rationalisation and then try to sort out his skin colour psychosis. He does it the other way round. That happens time after time.

Undoubtedly, in terms of this Bill, that is exactly the sort of thing that is going to happen. In many places the whole logic behind this Bill is to provide for areas in which there is not sufficient demand to justify either a full university, a full technicon or a full teacher training college for an individual race. The whole thinking behind this is to provide for a tertiary education college in those circumstances. That amounts to a racial basis again. What is going to happen if, in fact, the combined demand of the various races in an area justifies a college like this—the hon member for Pinetown asked the question and, I think, mentioned Kimberley as an example where one may have Coloureds, Blacks, Whites and maybe Asians as well—and the races separately cannot justify one of these colleges? Under which Minister is the control going to fall?

Undoubtedly, this Bill and comments made by hon members on that side in their speeches give great credence to the statement by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture last year that apartheid is an expensive policy and, if one wants it, one must expect to pay for it. That is the truth of the matter. One can mutter about rationalisation for as long as one wants to but the fact of the matter is that apartheid comes first, it is expensive and we all pay for it at the cost of top quality education in this country.

The third trend I wish to refer to is the question of increasingly open institutions. In the standing committee we requested that these institutions be open to people of all races. We know that in almost every tertiary education institution, other than White teacher training colleges, the trend is towards opening those educational institutions.

This goes for most Afrikaans-medium institutions which will be Government or CP supporting institutions as a totality.

It applies to all English-language tertiary educational institutions that I am aware of. The Coloureds and Indians have said the same themselves. The Coloureds have opened their schools and university. The trend throughout the country is towards open institutions, but now we have a Bill before us in terms of which institutions may be created which are not necessarily open.

This is not just a minor point. We know for a fact that education in this country is unequal, and for people who are not White it is inferior. If we have had eyes and ears for the past decade or so, we will know that that is a very sore point in this country which goes beyond the educational sphere into the political and social sphere.

These colleges are supposed to be grasping the spirit of the future. New educational institutions of this sort are being created and instead of doing away with apartheid, we are providing for the possibility of new educational institutions based on apartheid. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to see that, in the standing committee as well as in this House, on this issue the CP and the NP are actually ad idem and that they are two sides of the same coin. They are the ones, against the wishes of everybody else, who want to provide for segregated tertiary educational colleges. [Interjections.] They dp not differ as a matter of principle. The NP will argue that there is a certain flexibility in the Constitution. They will say it is impractical and that opening the institutions to all races cannot always be applied as they are experiencing resistance here and there. However, they do not say that they disagree with them in principle, or that they believe that, even if only at tertiary level, it is in principle in the interests of this country to have open tertiary institutions. They do not say so because they do not believe it. Because they do not believe it, they are on the same side as the CP. They agree with the CP in principle. They want White tertiary educational institutions if they possibly can. [Interjections.] The more one listens to the NP speakers inside and outside the standing committee, the more they remind me of the old United Party. They are exactly the same. They do not offer a vision. They do not say that they have this vision. [Interjections.] I can understand the hon member for Turffontein being sensitive when I talk about the old United Party …

You are a true-blue Prog.

Am I a true-blue Prog? [Interjections.] Well, I am pleased to be a true-blue Prog if that is what I am. It is better than being a stupid old United Party or NP member or anything else. [Interjections.]

The NP offer no vision. They do not actually tell people that their own universities, universities such as the University of Stellenbosch and others which are opening their doors to people of other races, are doing a good thing or that they believe it is in the interests of this country. They run away from those things. They will not sell the benefits of the freedom of choice in education, or the benefits of improved race relations that can come from opening these institutions and having non-racial tertiary institutions where students can get to know one another and where they are going to have to work together, live together, play sport together and govern this country together. I was pleased that the hon member for Bloemfontein East supported the PFP in regard to the way in which this would benefit the country financially as it would mean some rationalisation. The hon member for Bloemfontein East spoke about the wastage in education and expressed his dismay about what the Government has been doing in the education field when it comes to this sort of thing.

In 1988 this Bill is, I believe, a retrogressive move. It should herald a new era but, on the contrary, it entrenches the old. Apartheid is live and well, and as far as this Bill is concerned, apartheid remains king in education as it does elsewhere.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon this House has witnessed the crowning example of how this urgent legislation has been delayed for almost a year now as a result of petty politicking on the part of the PFP.

It was the NP that caused the problem!

No.

The matter was blithely turned around as though NP policy had caused this. The PFP did everything in its power to delay this legislation, to cast suspicion on it and to stir up feelings against it. I was astonished that they could still have come forward with the request they made here this afternoon, at this late stage, and are still trying to obstruct this legislation.

I have here in my hand a letter from Dr O D Dhlomo, dated 10 July 1987, in which he addressed a serious request to the committee to pass this legislation as quickly as possible because there was an enormous need for such institutions. He said:

This group of teachers addressed a request for this legislation to the Minister of Education and Development Aid. We have almost come to the end of May 1988, and the PFP group is still obstructing this legislation. Their problem is that to this day they have still not accepted the national states as political institutions. To this day they have still not accepted that there are Black communities in South Africa that want to go their own way. To this day they are still unable to understand that, because they begrudge those people having and developing something of their own. All they recognise is their own political selfishness in respect of the existing institutions in the RSA. All they recognise is to cram the existing universities to the point of bursting and see how many more students they can enrol there. They do not recognise the interests of this group of people. If they can destroy them by withholding everything from them, they will be happy, or so it seems to me. Now they are neatly twisting this matter around so that it seems as if it is our policy that was the stumbling-block that prevented this legislation from being passed before today. While that standing committee was sitting—the chairman had a great deal of patience—there was at one stage an exchange of letters between these Ministers, asking whether we could not expedite the matter. That request ultimately caused them to concede, so that we are today able to pilot this legislation through.

South Africa needs this legislation. No one in this House can say today where such institutions are going to be established in South Africa. Nor is there any clarity at this stage as to whether institutions should still be established elsewhere in South Africa. While we are discussing tertiary institutions in the existing metropolises, as they are today, so other metropolises are taking shape, mostly in the national states. That there is a need for such a piece of legislation for the establishment of tertiary institutions elsewhere in South Africa was demonstrated long ago. In fact it was demonstrated as long ago as 1986. That is why I should like to support my colleagues, the hon members for Walmer and Bloemfontein East, who explained the background to this legislation in detail. We hope that in this way we as legislators have given the authorities an efficient and flexible instrument for the future creation of institutions of this nature in places in which such a need exists. I gladly support this legislation. I think it is a wonderful piece of legislation which has given us vast scope for all forms of tertiary education, besides those we have today, in committees where such a need may arise.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and everyone who worked on this legislation on the way in which it was prepared and for its flexibility. I honestly believe this is the answer for us in future, in regard to tertiary education in South Africa. I gladly support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all the hon members who participated in the debate very sincerely for doing so. I also thank the CP for their support for this legislation. I want to thank the three hon members on this side of the House who spoke, the hon members for Walmer, Bloemfontein East and Brentwood, because they distinguished themselves as the only three speakers who participated and who based their arguments on educational, need-oriented and sound administrative principles. [Interjections.]

The other two parties merely talked politics in connection with a Bill which makes a new type of tertiary institution possible and which will meet a specific educational need in this country. That is why my reply to hon opposition members must also be of a political nature in order to expose their politicizing of this issue and to rectify the misconceptions which they brought forward, derived from their political philosophies, which colour everything they see to such an extent that they can never again perceive the reality. [Interjections.]

Let me also say, by way of introduction, that there is a tremendous need for this kind of institution. If one looks at the situation in practical terms and at grass-roots level one will see that at present adequate provision on tertiary level is being made for the White population group. If one considers the matter of space, an argument which is frequently used against us, one sees that the provision being made on the tertiary level is even excessive. As far as the other population groups are concerned, there are specific backlogs.

If one considers teachers’ training one finds that there is a basic network of teachers’ training colleges for all population groups throughout the country. These colleges are well-situated and properly distributed. This Bill makes it possible for tuition in the two other spheres to be provided at each teachers’ training college, by means of an agreement with a specific university or by incorporation under the Technikons Certification Council and with the assistance of a specific technikon. This will be done on a satellite basis, but sometimes directly on a campus. This opens doors for people who have a need for this kind of tuition.

That is why I honestly want to say that I expected far more from the PFP, in the positive sense. Let them have the minor pleasure of their criticism, but in the positive sense I expected their support for what this Bill could mean for the population groups that have such needs. Today they again proved themselves to be typical liberals who pay lip-service and say how concerned they are, but who do not in the long run carefully consider the real needs of the people involved. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brits supported us, and I thank him for doing so. However, he mentioned three basic points to which I want to react. The one reason he mentioned for supporting the legislation was that it would alleviate the financial burden on White education. Why did he say that? He said it because their case is based on this Government ostensibly placing a financial burden on the Whites when it comes to the education of the other population groups. [Interjections.]

In tertiary education the acceptance of this argument and the removal of Black students from White campuses is not going to make a cent of difference to the Whites, because the formula in terms of which tertiary education is financed takes a number of factors into consideration, including the number of students. If those students are relocated the subsidy paid to the institution where he was, or would be, is withdrawn, and will be paid to the institution to which he goes. It is a non-discriminatory formula.

For that reason the present system does not prejudice the Whites, but it will not give the Whites an advantage either. It has no advantages or disadvantages for the existing institutions. It creates opportunities and is a positive Bill.

Furthermore the hon member complained about the existing universities which were in fact opened to a certain extent. Universities are classified into two categories. The one category has always been open, and hon members of the CP, who have come a long way with us in politics, must accept co-responsibility for that. They never initiated a campaign to the effect that we should retrospectively make Wits, the University of Cape Town and the Natal University closed institutions. It was never the policy of any leader of that party that this should be done, and I should now like them to rise and say that it is now their policy and that they are going to make all institutions, whether they were open in the past or not, closed institutions. Is that their policy? The hon member is their main spokesman.

We shall explain it in our own good time.

The hon member said they would explain it in their own good time. Very well, we are waiting for that explanation.

The second category consists of the Afrikaans-language universities in particular, which traditionally admitted students of colour by way of the greatest exception, and then very few, and which are now as a result of a specific need carefully admitting such students. If one considers their total numbers, it would appear that they are doing this without jeopardizing their nature or character. They are reluctant to do that.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens said that we did not say that we supported it. I have already stated in this House that where a specific, particular need exists I welcome it, that it is far better that a Coloured or a Black person should go to a university at which he will not come under the wrong political influence, which is often the case when he goes to Wits or to the University of Cape Town. I said that in this House.

The fact of the matter is that the autonomy of the universities is recognised by this Government, and if hon members are dissatisfied with what Tukkies or Potch or the Free State university are doing in this connection, they must take up the matter with those universities. It is not this Government which prescribes to them whether they should be open or not. [Interjections.] The Government says we think that they can render a service by way of exception, but it remains their own decision because they are tertiary institutions which may justifiably lay claim to autonomy. For that reason they must take their decisions themselves as autonomous tertiary institutions.

Who is governing this country?

There is no law which prevents or requires hon members to be friends with certain people, or to eat or drink with them.

That is not the point.

It is the point, because the hon member is asking who governs this country. After all, it is dangerous to accompany a Black person. It is seditious to have a drink with a Black person. [Interjections.] We must prohibit this and protect whoever has an urge to do that against himself. That is the logical consequence of the hon member’s argument if he asks who is governing the country.

You can do much better than that.

If the hon member for Losberg still adheres to the principles in which he believed when he was with his previous employer, I want to remind him that the principles of the whole sphere of life is that there are various existential disciplines, that one recognises the autonomy of each sphere of society and that in any country the State has a limited role to play. Is the CP perhaps in favour of an absolutistic state? Is that the hon member’s philosophy?

It is not I who said that.

Then I understand why they have no problems with Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche. The basic purpose of the State is to maintain order in a country. Surely the hon member knows that. The purpose of the State is not to be prescriptive in each sphere of life in respect of each detail of the life of every person, the affairs of each institution and company or the constitution of each organisation. That is the Calvinistic view on which the hon member prides himself.

What about the group areas?

He must therefore state whether he wants an absolutistic state or whether he recognises the principle of individual sovereignty.

Our view on tertiary education is based on the principle of individual sovereignty. There are certain fundamental matters which can be a threat to order, which can destroy the existing values and value systems in this country and which can jeopardise the inherent right of each people and group to remain themselves, preserve their identity and not be dominated. That is why we maintain our differentiating legislation in those spheres.

The hon member complained that we have accused them of begrudging others everything, and then he referred to their support for this legislation as a demonstration of how favourably disposed they actually were towards the other population groups. I am pleased that they support this measure and recognise this need, and I am not doubting his bona fides, but let us take this matter a step further. He does not begrudge Blacks and Coloureds their own tertiary institutions. The question is where. Where they are, or where they are congregated? He probably has no objection, Sir.

Are you going to give Lichtenburg a university too?

Let us go a little further. Does he grant them the right to exercise political control over the institution, wherever it is? Do they grant them that right, Sir? Do they grant them the right they demand for themselves? [Interjections.] No, Sir, he cannot say yes, because then he must admit that he grants them political rights wherever they are!

Do you grant them political rights wherever they are?

Yes! We are going to give them their own institutions where they do not have them, and this includes the urban Blacks, and surely that hon member heard what the hon the State President announced—that we want them to exercise control over their own education and have their own Ministers in this connection, and that during an interim phase consideration can be given to incorporating such people. If the CP says that they grant these people the rights they claim for themselves, why do they not grant people of colour, for example, the right to sufficient political rights, wherever they are, in order to control these own institutions of theirs?

[Inaudible.]

Then the CP says that they must move to another country, which must become independent. The hon member and his party grants those people rights only up to a point which they think is good for them, but the CP does not grant them what they demand for themselves, and that is the difference between us and the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to clause 12 (2), and two hon members on that side interpreted it in the same way, and both interpreted it incorrectly. [Interjections.] No … Clause 12 (2) is stated in precisely the same way in the present Universities Act as well. Clause 12 (2) does not prescribe that an institution must be a closed institution, nor does it prescribe that anything must be open.

Just like the NP!

The hon member say they are satisfied with this provision. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow a constant running commentary to be kept up from the benches of the Official Opposition. We cannot carry on like this. The hon member may proceed.

Clause 12 (2) simply states what the existing legislation states, and that is that a power ought to be vested in an autonomous tertiary institution to refuse prospective admission under circumstances for which no absolutely detailed provision can be made in any law, and it is basically up to that institution, if it is autonomous, to determine those circumstances itself, and it is not for us to be prescriptive. That is basically the philosophy with which we are dealing with this matter.

What about the NP’s amendment?

As regards the NP’s amendment, I was not present, but I trust it was an attempt on the part of my colleagues to give expression to this in any case, and to try to eliminate the suspicion that had been sown around that clause. Ultimately, however, the question is what is stated in the Bill which we now have before us, and whether it had the support of all three majority parties. The answer is yes. That is what we are discussing, Sir. All this talk, which boils down to a rehash of things that happened there … If we had to do this regularly, we would wear the Official Opposition down to a frazzle.

You cannot even wear yourself down to a frazzle!

The charge has already been made against the CP this afternoon that they make long speeches here, where the newspapermen are present, and yet on the standing committees they have been “zipped” …

Yes!

… and again had nothing to say about it, and did not present these standpoints. They did not lift a finger to influence the actual course of this Bill. They are not interested in that process, because they are only interested in party-politics and not at all in the welfare of this country and the communities that will be served by a Bill such as this. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Pinetown raised two main objections. The first was that these institutions should fall under one single Minister and that there should be unified control. Then he even went so far as to say that this should have been own affairs legislation because I had nothing to do with it.

I merely asked whether that was not the case!

If I were a teacher and I had to give him marks for that, I would give him precisely nought.

Zero!

Yes, zero! That is the mark I would give him for his analysis because he is absolutely wrong. [Interjections.] Has the hon member forgotten that we have a Constitution in this country? We have a Constitution which clearly defines that education at all levels is an own affair, but is subject to general law in relation to, firstly, norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education.

With regard to the financing of running and capital costs of education at these institutions, I am the only Minister responsible for deciding on and laying down norms and standards. With regard to the salaries and conditions of employment of the people who will lecture at these institutions I will be the solely responsible Minister. So we do have one Minister responsible for education with regard to what is defined in the Constitution as of general interest to all population groups.

I will remember that! It is not true elsewhere!

In relation to the rest, it is an own affair and therefore this Bill also makes provision that the Minister who may establish a particular institution—that is not my function— will be the relevant Minister. The hon member must look at the definition of “Minister” in that regard.

Let me refer briefly to the question of a single Minister. Why this obsession with centralisation? Under how many Ministers do universities and tertiary institutions fall in America? Only one? No! Under how many Ministers do these institutions fall in West Germany? Is there one central Minister? [Interjections.]

Order!

Why then this obsession with centralisation in South Africa? [Interjections.] There is a single ministry in relation to what is of common interest to all groups. Furthermore, there is diversification in relation to the realities of South Africa on the basis of group and of culture. [Interjections.] Yes, it also results in race.

You are a racist!

The Zulus and the Xhosas do not have one single Minister of education, do they? Yet they are all Black.

They should have!

Why should they have a single Minister? [Interjections.]

Order!

Why do the people of Hamburg not have the same minister of education as the people of Westphalia?

For geographic reasons!

But in our case geographic reasons are also relevant. Furthermore, it is also of a nationalistic nature in relation to the Zulus, Xhosas, Sothos, Tswanas etc.

You are a racist! [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon member should ask President Mangope to close down his university and to forget that that university is also an expression of the national pride of his country and of his people. [Interjections.]

Order! We are not in the market-place. I am not going to allow this debate to descend into the chaos of a market-place. The hon the Minister may continue.

I suggest those hon members also approach KwaZulu and request them to relinquish all control, responsibility and interaction regarding their own university and allow it to become part of one single, unidentifiable whole. Let them ask KwaZulu to forget about that university as their own institution. [Interjections.]

What about the Zulus living in Johannesburg? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, I am still replying to the debate.

I want to say that tertiary institutions are also symbols of which people and communities are proud. I am proud of my alma mater. I would not like it to change its character. It has come a long way and it has a long history. By the same token, the alumni of each and every university in this country do not wish to see their universities change their character. Every nation, every group, and particularly the various Black nations in this country, all want this type of symbol. This Bill makes it possible for them also to have access, within the framework of own institutions, to all forms of tertiary education.

Furthermore—this expands upon a point I have already started to deal with—the hon member for Pinetown wants tertiary institutions to be open on a compulsory basis. He agrees with that, as does the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. [Interjections.] I want to ask them if the PFP believes in freedom of choice and freedom of association.

Not with public money.

Not with public money? So must there be compulsory integration?

No. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir. In other words—he wanted this written into the Bill—a tertiary institution of this kind must be forced to be open at all costs, irrespective of what its board or its supporting community wants.

It is the same as post offices and pavements.

Therefore they do not recognise the autonomy of universities either. [Interjections.] Let me continue my argument. They say a university should be fully government-controlled, and that it is just an institution run with public money. [Interjections.] That is the logical consequence of their argument. I say, with regard to these tertiary institutions, that we put the emphasis on their autonomy, their freedom of choice and their decisions as to whom they want to associate with at that institution.

Then you would remove the quota clauses!

What about schools?

I draw a distinction, because the absolutely generally accepted educational principle—the PFP ignores this totally in its arguments about education—is that school education must be the logical extension of the home and of the community, must be based within the community and must have its roots within the community and the own cultural environment. That is a generally accepted educational principle world-wide.

Are you going to allow grey schools in the grey areas?

The PFP rejects that principle because they want to enforce integration at all costs. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to answer any questions.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

Order! The hon the Minister has indicated that he does not wish to answer any questions at this stage.

I do not think he is being serious, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Two hon members of the PFP took part in this debate and had fairly long turns to speak. They could have put all the questions they are asking now in the course of their speeches, and the hon the Minister could have replied. I simply cannot allow them to ask the hon the Minister questions across the floor continually.

The hon the Minister is posing questions.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

One of the arguments of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens was that the Government should give people what they want in the form in which they want it. He then went on to decide which form they would want. I have already dealt with that facet, but let me use a fairly frivolous argument simply to take that argument to its logical conclusion. The PFP would deal with the ANC as it is—that is their stated policy—if they were to come to power. They would invite them to their national convention. [Interjections.]

No. [Interjections.]

Not as it is?

Not if they pursue violence.

If they agree to renounce violence. [Interjections.]

I see. However, the ANC wants a socialistic type of state with communism and communist organisations unbanned. Would the PFP give the ANC what they want? I said it was a frivolous argument. [Interjections.] However, that is the argument which the hon member advanced.

That is misrepresentation.

His was also a frivolous argument. He has a psychosis with regard to the Government’s educational policy. Where would the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians be if we had not taken the initiative and given them their own institutions at tertiary level? [Interjections.]

Good paternalism!

No. The hon member must tell me if Wits, Natal University, Rhodes and UCT would have been able to cater for the full need for university education.

They try!

One just has to count the numbers of students to see that they find it impossible. They just skim off the cream.

Oh no, that is not true.

The hon member knows that it is true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, they create a picture that these community-based institutions are unacceptable to those communities and that they have all been opened fully to all people in South Africa. That is not true. I maintain that the Coloureds and the Indians, particularly those to whom the hon member referred, all maintain a policy of catering for their own communities first. They have a right to do so. It is wise of them to do so. It is in their interests to do so. It is in the best interests of their youth to do so. That hon member must stop telling them to cut their own throats because our education system, despite its imperfections, has opened up opportunities for all the people of this country and this Bill will also open up opportunities for all the people of this Country.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Order! I now grant the opportunity to every party to state its position in respect of the division in not more than three minutes.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Standing Rules have given me three minutes in which to make a speech declaring the position of this party. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, since this Vote follows immediately after the debate, which is probably not the situation for which this measure was originally devised, I do not intend to take the full time.

I wish to reiterate that the PFP is against the question and I hereby submit our declaration to that effect:

1. (1) place the proposed tertiary colleges under the Minister of National Education; and
2. (2) explicitly prevent the restriction of the admission of students on grounds of their race, colour, creed or sex.

The PFP has listened to the arguments of the hon the Minister. We have many arguments to raise against them and will no doubt do so in the time we will have at our disposal in other debates.

Mr Chairman, the NDM will also oppose this legislation.

The House divided:

AYES—101: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzee, H J; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Ville, J R; De Villiers, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Kriel, H J; Langley, T; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Maré, P L; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, JF; Prinsloo, J J S;Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Uys, C; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk, W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—16: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I want to address the hon the Minister on various aspects today. I will start with the Coetsee triangle.

The what?

The Coetsee triangle: the involvement of the public, the local authorities and the legal fraternity. That is my Coetsee triangle.

We all know that we have a shortage of administrators of justice. We all know, too, that we have initiated the small claims court which has functioned to everybody’s advantage and, I think, to the benefit of society at large in South Africa. I want to know from the hon the Minister today whether he is prepared to extend the procedure which is operative in a small claims court to the magistrate’s court. I do so for a number of reasons. Firstly, by the inquisitorial system which was introduced into the criminal courts we have been enabled to save valuable time and a great deal of costs, and it is imperative that a similar system be introduced in our courts as far as a civil action is concerned, because it is senseless for a person who has been involved in a motor car accident to have to wait for months for a claim of damages to be settled. He has to engage attorneys and various pleadings have to be filed before the matter can eventually be settled one way or the other in court. It would be easier for that person to approach a commissioner with his quotation for a quick determination of the matter. The commissioner should be drawn from the legal fraternity which embraces the magistrates, the Bar and the other legal practitioners. We can also consider ending the various Justices of the Peace throughout the country with the power to act as commissioners so that the whole concept of “commissioner” is broadened. As a matter of fact, we could create the office of “commissioner” and every district could then appoint its own panel of commissioners who could then adopt this inquisitorial system to try to settle civil disputes between citizens far more cheaply and in a shorter time. All the time-consuming effort will then be avoided, the various court procedures which result in exorbitant costs will also be avoided, and justice between man and man will then be brought to the public.

In doing so we can make use of not only the courts, but also the local authorities which are scattered throughout the country. Civil hearings between people of Bonteheuwel can then take place in the civic centre at Bonteheuwel, with the presiding officer being the commissioner. I have already touched upon that subject. In this way we will see in operation a system of justice which has been proved in the small claims court, and which can be extended far beyond the small claims court. I think the time is ripe for the introduction of such a system. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to address that matter in order to see if it could not possibly work in South Africa.

I would also like to address the hon the Minister with regard to section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977. In terms of section 300 a magistrate is empowered to issue certain orders in order to compensate certain victims. However, this never happens in practice for the simple reason that once the magistrate issues an order in terms of section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he has to follow up the matter administratively. It now becomes an administrative task which is open to inspection by various other members in the civil service. It also becomes an administrative albatross around the neck of the magistrate who issued the order. Hence magistrates refrain from issuing such an order.

*The magistrate does not wish to make a rod for his own back, therefore he refrains from issuing an order in terms of section 300. I want to ask the hon the Minister to look into this matter and to establish how many such orders were issued in terms of section 300 and what administrative components this involves. Why do magistrates all over the country refuse to issue orders in terms of section 300? This section was included in the Act for the benefit of the public. However, because the magistrate suffers when orders are issued in terms of this section, he is no longer prepared to come to the rescue of members of the public. Can the hon the Minister tell me whether something can be done in this regard? An order issued by a magistrate in terms of section 300 becomes a civil order. This should be taken away from the criminal court and the magistrate should be relieved of the administrative duties involved. The order should be filed with the clerk of the civil court and a magistrate in charge of civil cases should then follow up the matter so that the magistrate dealing with criminal cases may feel free to issue such orders in future.

Another aspect I want to take up with the hon the Minister is the independence of our courts.

† I have touched on the topic concerning the independence of the magistrates who preside in criminal cases in previous debates. However, I do not wish to touch on the question of independence in the same sense as I did in last year’s debate. I want to discuss the independence of the magistrate insofar as the inspection by various judicial officers is concerned. The work of a magistrate is subject to scrutiny by various other personnel at a higher level—it could be the chief magistrate and inspectors who occasionally do their rounds—and he is therefore inclined not to show any initiative in departing from the procedures outlined to him by his superior officers. This is important as he is then not in a position to exercise the independence of mind which he should be able to do because of the administrative functions that he is subjected to. Therefore, it has a subjective influence on a magistrate to exercise a free and open discussion which he should exercise in a court of law. Why must a magistrate be saddled with the administrative functions of other officers? If that matter is addressed and our magistrates are allowed to operate more freely, we will have broadened the concept of justice in South Africa.

I once again wish to touch on the question of the three-year degree which was advocated in this Chamber on a previous occasion. A prosecutor undergoes a three-year course. He obtains a B Juris degree and is allowed to prosecute in our courts of law.

Why can we not introduce a three-year degree which will replace the four-year B Proc degree? The person who obtains that three-year degree could then be allowed to practise only in criminal courts. In that way we will assist those criminals who desperately need assistance. As the hon the Minister knows, a large percentage of criminal cases go undefended. These graduates with the three-year degree can operate through a registered firm of attorneys. Perhaps the time has even come for the State to create its own panel of legal defenders in the same way that they have a panel of legal defenders in every city in America, so that justice can be brought to the man in the street, the man who can least afford it. It would appear that in our criminal courts today justice is only for the privileged and the rich. By using this method we can perhaps save innocent people from going to jail.

The other aspect that I want to address—I shall continue to harp on this subject until it is finally laid to rest—is the question of Latin. There have been suggestions in the past—I was present at a seminar in Johannesburg where this was suggested as well—that Latin be retained only for people who are aspiring to become advocates. If, therefore, one wants to practise at the Bar, it is essential for one to have a first course in Latin. If, however, one wants to practise at the side-Bar as an attorney, one should not have to pass a course in Latin. The sooner we pay attention to this matter, the better for everybody. As hon members. know, there are only about four Coloured schools at which Latin is taught as a subject. As a result the vast majority of the component represented in this House are excluded from ever becoming attorneys. That matter has to be addressed; and it can be addressed quite simply— Latin merely needs to be made a prerequisite for the LLB degree only and not for the B Proc. In that way hon members of this House can also qualify as attorneys. After all, the magistrates who preside at these trials do not have the Latin qualification and nor do the prosecutors.

They need to do Beginners Latin only.

Why should our people be the victims of a British system that has been obsolete for years?

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

But I have not even started, Sir.

Order! Yes, but the new Rules are now in effect, and in terms of the new Rules a speech may last no more than ten minutes.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to make use of the time allotted to him.

No, man.

Order! The hon member for Mamre must contain himself.

Paul Kruger’s monkey.

Order! Will that hon member as well as the hon member for Mamre please stop. I have no time for games. The hon member for Border has been afforded the opportunity to speak for another ten minutes. He may therefore proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

† A commission should be appointed as soon as possible so that everyone who wants to have a say about this matter of Latin, can have his say. I think, however, that we should put the interests of South Africa first. Just about every Latin textbook—including those of Cicero, Plato and Aristotle—has been translated into either English or Afrikaans. We do not have to go and look at the original Latin text. In the Appellate Division this matter was referred to only eighteen times—fourteen times by the same judge, because he happened to have an honours degree in Latin. That is why he referred to the original text, if my memory serves me correctly. So, the need to refer to the original Latin text has long since disappeared. If this matter of Latin can be addressed, I shall be extremely grateful.

I now come to another matter.

*When we debated the legislation on bailiffs here, the hon the Minister said the time had come to divide the cake. I, too, think the time has come for us to divide this cake. As far as I know there is not a single Coloured messenger of the court on the Cape Flats. More than a million Coloureds live on the Cape Flats, and now it would seem that there is not one among them who is fit for this type of service. I ask: Why should the money go into only some pockets? Why can that cake not also be divided so that appointments may be made from competent people in our ranks to fill those positions? I am merely asking.

The last aspect I want to touch upon in the short time at my disposal is the question of legal aid.

†Mr Chairman, we have seen the curbs that have been imposed and the circumstances under which legal aid can be granted. The time is ripe for us to have another look at the financing of legal aid so that legal aid can be extended instead of curbed.

There are various ways of asking for a contribution, or means of devising ways for contributions to be made towards the increase of the legal aid budget. One of the ways I suggest is that whenever our courts handle a traffic or municipal matter, instead of all that money going to the municipality, every municipality be levied a certain fee for the handling of these transactions by the courts and that any extra money derived in this way be diverted into the legal aid fund. In that way the legal aid fund can be extended instead of curbed.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the Justice Vote, I just want to mention one point, namely the problems we are experiencing in our townships because of certain machine devices. In the olden days we used to call these machines pinball machines. In principle I have nothing against these machines. In fact, I enjoy playing with them myself. We find these machines—“pacman” and various other games— not only at hotels, but also at game shops and railway stations.

The problems the community is experiencing, however, stem from the fact that certain shops, some of which are situated near churches and schools, have these machines. I have nothing against these machines in central business districts, or even the centre of town where they can be controlled. In our townships, however, some shops have a very small floor space, which is then taken up by these machines. In fact, some shops have so little floor space, the shopkeepers are forced to put their machines outside on the sidewalk or stoep. Customers wanting to buy something from the shop have to squeeze past children congregating around these machines to get to the counter. Children who sometimes go to the shop to buy bread for their families, are robbed by other children wanting to play these pinball machines. Some children even steal their parents’ money so that they can go and play with these machines. There are no overheads and so some 50% of the takings from these machines go to the shop owner. This results in some shop owners trying to get as many machines as possible onto their premises because they want to make a quick profit. Some shop owners have even built on pool “clubs” with billiard rooms—in residential areas! These shops have now become drug centres for our children. Some of our children who have never taken, or even known drugs or drink before, have learnt to take drugs and to drink at these pool and billiard clubs in our townships. It is imperative that we look at legislation to curb this problem. The hands of our municipalities, as well as the hands of the provinces, are tied. We need legislation to ban these machines from our residential areas.

As far as prisons are concerned, I am pleased to say that, in spite of gang problems in our communities, we are having a lot of success with people released from prison who are taken up in the community again. I am nevertheless worried, because a handful of community leaders cannot reintegrate everybody released from prison into the community on their own. I want the hon the Minister to make more money available for this purpose to ensure the reintegration of released prisoners into our communities. A person who has been released from jail should be able to feel that he has paid for his crime, that his crime is something of the past and that the community will accept him again and make him feel part of them.

I repeat, this must be done so that a person who has been released from prison will feel that he has paid for his crime and that it is something of the past. The community must let him feel part of that community again. That prisoner must feel that the community has forgiven him. If that is not the case, he will be back behind bars in no time. This department must please do more in this regard, because I think they are not doing enough as far as the reintegration of prisoners into the community is concerned.

As a welcoming gesture back into the community, a community leader could perhaps meet with a prisoner even before he is released. Often released prisoners feel lost once they are back in the community; and before the end of a weekend they are back in prison again.

In terms of section 5 of the Prisons Act the Minister appoints a Release Board. This board performs a very important function. Therefore, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister—ie, if there is no representative from the Coloured community on that board—seriously to consider appointing a person of colour to that board. One of the cases in which the Release Board can consider the early release of a prisoner is if his health is involved. In this regard I have submitted a person’s name to the hon the Minister. I will not mention his name here. I should like the hon the Minister to look into the matter because the person concerned is dying, and if he is released earlier, he could spend his last days in the circle of his family.

I now want to turn to the question of the construction and establishment of special prisons, such as those at Leeukop and in Pretoria and Johannesburg. I think we need to look at Pollsmoor and maybe even the Brandvlei Prison, where many of the children from our community are serving sentences. We would like to see them being taught certain basic skills there, in those early years of their lives. I refer, for example, to bricklaying and woodwork. When that juvenile is released, he will feel that he can be useful in the outside world. Because they do not feel wanted and because they feel that they are not contributing in any constructive way to building the society, our young children end up going back to prison. In this special type of prison to which I refer our young children could be taught the value of life. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the present number of prisoners from the various race groups in our prisons, one cannot help but notice that the smallest number comes from the Indian group, while the Blacks form the majority. I should like to know whether the hon the Minister’s department has ever studied this aspect. Why is it that we have so many Blacks in our prisons? Why is it that we also have so many so-called Coloureds in prison? I do not like the fact that during the past year 4 184 Coloured children under the age of 20 were in prison. Furthermore, 9 274 Coloureds between the age of 20 and 25 and 13 677 Coloureds over the age of 25 were in prison. I should like to ask why this is so and what is being done to reduce this number.

We appreciate the standard of the South African prisons. We also appreciate the way in which our prisoners are being handled.

However, we should never have to read in our papers about the kind of things we read about late last year in a newspaper. It was reported that about four persons who were accused of being South African spies and arrested in Zambia, were put into cells so full that when one person turned everyone else had to do the same. [Interjections.] The toilet, it was reported, was a hole in the ground in one comer, and there was no drinking water. [Interjections.] A lot of bad things have been reported about us in overseas countries, but they cannot say that about our prisons. I feel that the hon the Minister should try and tell the world and South Africa about the high standard of South African prisons and how our prisoners are treated compared to those in the rest of Africa.

Those are the things I would like to have the hon the Minister to have a look at during this debate, and I would appreciate it if he addresses these aspects in his reply.

Mr Chairman, on 26 March 1987 the Legal Aid Board had been in existence for almost two decades and only from 26 March 1969, when it was established, up to 1973 did it operate fairly comfortably as far as the allocation of funds was concerned. Since then there has been a scrimping and a saving and one long uphill struggle. This is one board that is really worthwhile and is actually serving the purpose for which it was created. Unfortunately, hamstrung by the lack of sufficient funds as it is, it certainly cannot operate to its full potential. As a consequence of this, many an indigent person who with legal aid stood an outside chance of success in an action now has to be turned away. What a pity, Sir, for the indigent ones are normally those who are not White; the poorer ones, the under-educated ones—those who are either unwittingly falling foul of the law or are robbed of what is legally theirs. The result of all this is that at most times these people fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons, who exploit them and the situation in which they find themselves to the full. It is indeed a pity that the weak financial position of the board obliged it to suspend legal aid for certain services. Thus we find legal aid for criminal and civil appeals being done away with from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987. How many persons who could have been assisted during the said period are today serving jail sentences or are paying costs which they cannot afford?

Apart from this suspension, legal aid has been restricted in respect of divorce and related cases to a maximum of R500 since 1 April 1986. I am not a protagonist for divorce, but I have come across a multitude of incidents in my contact with the electorate where, especially in the case of battered wives, it would have been better for each of the spouses to have gone their respective ways. This is especially so once one has witnessed the scars left on the minds and bodies of such women. It is never good to see a family being broken up, but at such times this is the only way in which a killing can sometimes be averted. [Interjections.] However, with this restriction, many a woman who would otherwise have been assisted will have to continue suffering the indignity of being battered and even risk the spectre of death, which at all times stalks such unfortunate persons.

For want of a few cents, it seems, we must allow such diabolical evils to exist.

One is, therefore, heartened by the fact that the hon the Minister has seen fit to begin fashioning the organisation to provide a spearhead for meaningful assistance to those people so badly in need of it, by appointing a working group under the chairmanship of the hon Mr Justice C L F Eloff to investigate and report on ways and means of supplementing the board’s income from private resources and, in general, to revise the legal aid guide. From all this it is obvious to us all that the board is finding itself in a financial bind. I am aware that the group will be tabling its findings very soon. I hope, though, that it will still consider all suggestions or submissions made during the present series of debates, especially with a view to preventing any further erosion of the original aims of the Legal Aid Board.

In line with the thinking of the hon member for Border I say let us look at the legal aid system in the country as a whole. At the moment we have the Legal Aid Board, established and financed by the State. Next to that one has an amazing number of groups performing more or less the same function. In this category we have community advice offices, the Black Sash, legal aid resource centres and—hon members can ask the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture—even the Surplus People Project, among others. These people are all there to give assistance. These organisations, it seems to me, have the infrastructure to control and administer their services and finances quite effectively and efficiently. They are doing their own thing, and no matter what happens, as long as they are funded as they are, they will continue to do so.

*Mr Chairman, is it perhaps controversial to submit that the Legal Aid Board’s funds should be channelled from Government control to the organised legal profession, naturally with the understanding that they will take care of the interests of the indigent? Let the legal profession administer the scheme. Permit them to make allocations and to appoint legal representatives. Without any doubt this must be done independently so that the Government will not be seen in the first place as the accuser that is laying the charges, and in the second, as the provider of the legal aid that is to defend such charges.

†These two roles should be and must be apart at all times so that the doubt one finds in the minds of people at the moment is removed. It must be removed from the mind of the unsophisticated, often overwrought accused that he or she is being set up for a job. If this allocation is added to the funds of these organisations which should be encouraged and assisted to obtain and attract non-State funding as well, the financial hurdle which confronts us now will be overcome. Should further measures of control or conditions of operation be required by either category, this can be hammered out by the parties concerned to the satisfaction of all.

I personally do not see any major obstacle that can stand in the way of this. For, apart from the stated intent of Government to deregulate and privatise, the factual position is that we all have, or should have, the same objective. The main concern of all parties in this matter should be legal aid for all South Africans in need of it with special attention being given to the plight of the indigent. This should be our ideal. However, the Legal Aid Board alone, especially with its inadequate funding, will never be able to attend to its commitments. This has been proven by the fact that whilst we spent R30,9 million on legal services for the financial year up to 31 March 1985, England, with only twice the population of South Africa, spent £400 million on legal aid in 1986.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise his allotted time.

Thank you. That is practically two hundred times as much as we spent on legal costs in 1985.

Finally, without going into too much detail I wish to submit that there is a large reservoir of untapped legal assistants which we could perhaps utilise. Why not utilise the large number of aspirant jurists, for example the final year B Proc or LLB students to do elementary defence work in the lower courts, ie the magistrate’s courts. Such a utilisation will serve a dual purpose: Firstly, the rendering of assistance to the accused and, secondly, the gaining of valuable practical experience. At this stage these students only require a course in the law of evidence to be totally equipped for the task, as evidence is only presented as a final year course. All preparatory work could be co-ordinated by the relevant legal aid directors at the universities or academic teaching staff could supervise the preparation beforehand. They could perhaps even lend a helping hand or a guiding hand in court itself. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am a little disappointed to see that there are so few Coloured officers who come to listen to the speeches in the House of Representatives.

Order! I cannot permit statements of that kind. Who is sitting on the gallery has nothing to do with us. The responsible official, the Minister, is here.

I put my point, Sir. Crime is part of any society in the world and that is why a prison system is imperative worldwide. South Africa cannot do without the service of a prison system. Unfortunately it is true that prisons are the last option for dealing with people who do not fit into society and inevitably, because of the presence of these elements in prisons, people subjectively form a negative perception of the prison system as a whole. Hon members must not become obsessed by this view, however, but should rather consider the important task that is done in this connection and how the South African Prisons Service goes about performing its task actively.

With reference to visits to prisons, discussions with senior staff members of the Prisons Service, the reading of annual reports of the South African Prisons Service, as well as those from other countries, and also close liaison with the prison personnel, I have come to the conclusion that the system of the SA Prisons Service is one of the most effective in the world. I had beneficial discussions inter alia with the CC Staff Services, Lieutenant-General P A Reitz. He personally wrote to me with reference to our discussion, and I should like to thank him for this.

At the same time I want to thank the commissioner for the co-operation I have received whenever I have approached him with a problem. I read in the newspaper recently that Genl Reitz is going to retire soon. I want to wish him a well-earned rest, although I understand that he has started a hobby which will involve a great deal of travel. I wish I could accompany him, because I told the hon the Minister last year that he should make some kind of plan for us to go and see what overseas prisons look like. I hope, therefore, that Genl Reitz will have an opportunity to go and look at more prisons now.

One can justifiably ask why the prisons service is so effective. It is clear that South Africa has the same kind of criminals as the rest of the world. Consequently the SA Prisons Service does not have an easier task than other countries do. I have statistics of crimes which prisoners were sentenced for, and I should like to mention these to hon members. On 29 February 1988, prisoners were serving sentences on 6 000 murder charges, 8 000 rapes and almost 16 000 robberies. I am not even talking about economic offences, such as theft, fraud and drugs. The prisons service therefore has to have the right calibre of staff to perform this kind of task. Judging by the details in the annual report and the way in which prisons are run, the Prisons Service also has an excellent personnel corps. I must say this, I want to say it and I am going to say it. [Interjections.] That is why I said what I did today.

The only deduction that can be made, therefore, is that the personnel corps of the SA Prisons Service is the greatest contributory factor to the effectiveness of the service. The reasons for this reside in the excellent training of the staff. I want to invite hon members, when we visit the training college at Westlake again, to go along to see what kind of training our young people receive there.

In my liaison with officials in the prisons service, I have found that the SA Prisons Service is a very popular employer. I can assure hon members that that is the case. Many hon members are struggling, just as I am, to get young matriculants into the employ of the Prisons Service. This is because so many of them are thinking in the direction of the Prisons Service. If this service was not a popular employer, young people would not want to join it. I hope, however, that more money will be made available so that more of our people can be used to fill the posts in the Prisons Service. There are many young people who want to work, but unfortunately there are not very many posts. I know that finance also plays a very big part here.

I said the Prisons Service was a very popular employer. This is confirmed by the numerous applicants who apply to the Prisons Service for employment. I cannot even remember how many letters and applications I have received from people in my constituency who wanted to join the Prisons Service. This might be because it is a select institution with an excellent membership. In this connection we can think of the Prisons Service’s band. We do not need to look any further than that.

Yes, but they want to lock me up.

The dedication with which these people do their job is clearly reflected in the well-kept prison grounds.

When hon members talk about being locked up, they must go and see how neat those prison grounds are. [Interjections.]

With regard to prisoners’ treatment, the services of psychologists, social workers and religious workers are placed at their disposal, and on the academic level they are encouraged to study. One need only look at the number of released prisoners who are in possession of documents to the effect that they are bricklayers, cabinetmakers or shoemakers, because those are the things they are taught in prison.

For that reason I feel that if any of the hon members here feels he wants to make a contribution in this connection, he must help me to ensure that these people are employed when they are released from prison. After all, the problem we have is that these people do not find it easy to find employment, because people always look at their records. That is a great pity, Sir, but it is a problem that one has to address, because it is the truth.

In the 1986-87 report year, for example, a total of 129 degrees, diplomas, scholastic and technical certificates were obtained, thus enabling prisoners to obtain better positions upon their release. With regard to prisoners’ training in labour and diligence, it is enlightening that on 30 June 1987 there was a total of 2 279 prisoners who had received vocational training—I think that is an excellent achievement!—with a view to eventually obtaining artisans’ status. Even if the prisoners do not obtain their trade diplomas while they are in prison, they get a certificate as proof of their training, which they can build on upon their release. Apart from vocational training, the prisoners are also trained in a variety of specialised fields, such as dressmaking, flower arranging, various facets of agriculture, etc. This training makes it possible for the prisoners, upon their release, to compete on the labour market in these specific fields and also to take their place in the community.

I want to appeal to hon members once again to help ensure that these prisoners who are released from prison get a place …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to utilize the remaining part of his allotted time.

Order! There is still some time. The hon member for Robertson may proceed.

Sir, there is proof of the benefits of these people’s work. I should like to read to hon members a section from a letter written to the Commissioner of Prisons by a former member of the Prisons Service who is a social worker at present. This person said the following:

Yes, the discipline and routine of the Prisons Service was clearly visible, and with regard to discipline, it looked as though something had taken root. In order to perform this difficult task effectively, the management of the SA Prisons Service has had to make adjustments for decades to adapt to changed circumstances and to manage prisons in the most effective possible way. The effectiveness and seriousness with which the management of the Prisons Service tackles its task is manifest in the fact that the Commissioner of Prisons, Lieutenant-General W H Willemse, was recently honoured by the State President with the award of the Order of the Star of South Africa, Non-Military, Class I, Grand Cross, Gold.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the commissioner on this achievement. The Prisons Service definitely has the interests of the all its members at heart. Proof of this that since 1 March this year there has been parity among the various race groups with regard to salaries and other concessions.

It has always been possible to measure effective management in terms of a strong and effective personnel corps. This important factor is acknowledged by the Prisons Service, and since its inception this has been one of its objectives so that its personnel structure could be built on a sound basis. The Prisons Service sets and maintains high standards for the appointment as well as the promotion of a candidate. That is why such high demands are made on those who undergo their training in the Prisons Service. When we consider the objectives with regard to manpower development in the Prisons Service, it is clear that the development of the personnel corps is a long-term investment. For this reason constant and purposeful attempts are made to develop the abilities and skills of the staff to their maximum as far as possible. The SA Prisons Service’s total development programme is a long-term project to improve effectivity and also to provide individuals with an opportunity to develop themselves. In this connection we have to distinguish between management development and functional training.

Management development must be purposeful. That is why it is the SA Prisons Service’s policy and philosophy to give all supervisors and managers an opportunity to extend their knowledge and develop it so that ultimately they will be capable of doing their task thoroughly—and according to the demands of each post—on the level of management. Naturally qualifications and merit also play an important part. This philosophy to which I have referred has been defined in a management development programme which was approved by the SA Prisons Service. In order to equip supervisors for specific management tasks on various levels, they have to undergo certain courses, viz management orientation, the handling of stress, communication skills, etc.

With reference to functional training, a variety of courses are presented on a regular basis to keep up with the increasing workload and the demands of a sound administration. Functional training is not static, and in order to keep up with the development of the SA Prisons Service as a whole, one constantly has to determine whether these courses still comply with the existing requirements. In this connection I want to request that the Prisons Service attempt to present courses in languages that the officers have a command of and that they understand. In the past officers who attended courses in Pretoria, Johannesburg, or wherever, experienced problems because the courses were presented in a language which they did not have a command of. Question papers were drawn up in English, for example, whereas the candidate had full command only of Afrikaans. I want to appeal to the commissioner to ensure that question papers are drawn up in a language the member can understand.

I am pleased to hear that the courses that are to be presented next are being revised and redesigned at present and that they will be finalised during the course of this year. These courses include courses for caterers, nursing assistants, prosecutors, dog trainers, investigative officers and record keepers. Ultimately this will ensure that all centralised functional training courses throughout the country comply with the same high standard. To this purpose a central examination board has been established for all functional courses.

Over and above the development of manpower, which takes place on a continuous basis, constant manpower planning also takes place with a view to placing the correct person in the correct post at the correct time, as well as to give purposeful attention to his development. In my opinion, therefore, the effective placing and utilisation of employees should hold the greatest possible benefits for the organisation and the individual.

I want to ask the hon the Minister once again to try to negotiate more money for the Prisons Service so that more of our people can be employed by the service. Members of the Prisons Service must keep in mind, however, that an unwritten contract exists between the employer and the employee. It is not only the Prisons Service that has to achieve with regard to the member; the members must do their share as well. When one looks at the dedication members display in the work sphere, by working long hours—in addition they often have to perform their task under provoking conditions—it is clear that they are doing their share in this sphere.

It seems that very few articles that have been sent in by our own people are published in the magazine—I think it is called Nexus—of the Prisons Service. I want to appeal to our own people in the Prisons Service to make use of the opportunity to send in articles for publication. I say this, Sir, because our people enjoy reading these articles.

My time has expired, but I want to say that it is clear that the staff of the South African Prisons Service deserve only the highest praise for the unselfish contribution they make to the sophisticated prison service we have in South Africa.

Once again I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider whether the time has not come for prisons to be integrated. After all, a prisoner is a prisoner, irrespective of his colour.

I also want to request that the commissioner ensure—I have raised this matter before—that it be specified that when someone lives in the Western Cape, he has to go to a training college in the Western Cape. It should not be necessary for one to go to Sonderwater from here simply because one is Black, or to come to Cape Town from Durban simply because one is an Indian, in order to undergo one’s training. In the present economic climate, I think it will be to the advantage of the Prisons Service, which has such limited funds, to have one training college where all it members can be trained. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, …

Come on, Oom Hansie! [Interjections.]

Hon members must please give me a chance; I am very dubious today.

Sir, I hope I am not going to clash with the hon the Minister today. We have clashed in the past, but that led to good things. Later, when I talk about prisons service matters, I shall thank the hon the Minister, but first I want to start with Justice.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his department’s annual report. It is a wonderful report. Yet it does contain certain things that are misleading which I shall write to the hon the Minister about. My time is too limited to talk about them today. We should like these matters to be rectified. We want to co-operate for the sake of building a better South Africa.

In our Coloured community, when people die intestate and their estate has to be administered, it takes years before one gets a report from the Master of the Supreme Court. We Coloureds do not all know how these things work, and we do not have so many social workers that they can inform all our people on the procedures involved. Nor do our people read the newspapers every day. They do not always know where to obtain information. There was the case of a small White boy who ended up in court because of a turtledove that he was not allowed to keep. The magistrate said he should have known he was not allowed to keep the bird. The little boy then asked: “Sir, tell me, where am I supposed to find out all these things?” The magistrate said he could read about them in the newspaper, but the little boy’s answer was that he did not read the newspaper every day.

I want the hon the Minister to realise that our people are suffering a great deal. They may have some money, but if the husband dies, the money is frozen. The poor wife has children, yet she has to sit without money. I realise that the Master has a lot of work, but nevertheless something must be done so that people do not have to wait three, four or five years to receive his report.

I want to pay tribute to certain policemen in Ravensmead, and I want the hon the Minister to take cognizance of this. Before Christmas we had four gang members who wanted to kill one another. They made sure that they would disrupt Ravensmead, but, after speaking to their station commander, these two policemen came to me in their private capacity, and I got these gang members together in various places where we spoke to them. Policemen like these two, who even give up their free time to help one to keep one’s town in order, deserve to be praised. We spoke to these men, and told them that we knew what they wanted to do. One of those gang members has now joined the SACC. These constables did good work, and I wish them everything of the best. One of them visited me yesterday; I am sorry that he cannot be here today. Once again I wish them everything of the best. There are three of these young constables in Ravensmead. They are well-bred. There is only a little land left in Ravensmead, and I am waiting for the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to make the land available …

Order! The hon member is deviating too much from the Vote under discussion. The hon member must confine himself to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I am talking about Justice, not about Prisons.

Order! The hon member was also talking about the police.

Are the police not discussed under this Vote?

Order! No. The hon member may proceed.

That has set me back a little. I do want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that these men have joined the SACC, and I believe that we must appreciate such people.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for his assistance in getting rid of shebeens. We differed the last time we spoke about this, but it had good results. I want to thank him. Good work is being done in that connection.

With reference to the Department of Justice, I see in the department’s annual report that there are promotion posts, but when we came here, the different population groups were separated from one another. All the population groups are dealt with together now, however, and now we do not know whether or not there are promotion posts for our people. I hope the hon the Minister will ensure that our people are promoted as well.

I want to come back to prisons, however. I have visited a number of prisons, but I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact, as I did last year, that our people are picked up at Pollsmoor at 10 am, but that sometimes they have to wait until 3 pm in wind and rainy weather. I want to ask the hon the Minister once again to have shelters erected in Pollsmoor. There are waiting-rooms in other prisons, but Pollsmoor has nothing. Our people have to go and sit on the plains, far away from the site. I think the hon the Minister should do something for those people.

The accommodation of prisoners is dealt with on page 2 of the department’s annual report. I see that some prisons have been opened, whereas others have been closed. According to the report, with reference to unsentenced prisoners, there is still an overpopulation of prisons, however.

Now I wonder—the hon the Minister must help me here—whether these are people, our children and others, who are being detained without coming to trial. If that is the case, I ask with tears in my eyes why these people cannot be brought to court. Can they not be tried? If they are found guilty, the people must be put in prison. Then the others can be released so that we do not have overpopulation in the prisons, because that would lead to diseases and all kinds of other things.

If a prison does not have its own hospital, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether a prisoner who falls ill sleeps among the others who are healthy, or whether he sleeps in a separate place. I have not been to many prisons. I do not always like waiting until a tour is arranged, and I want to know from the hon the Minister how one can make a personal visit to a prison as an MP. Will they permit people there or not? One cannot always go on a tour. I have a lot of work, and last time I could not go on a tour.

I visited Pollsmoor a few months ago. I am not unfriendly with people in the Prisons Service or the police; they are my friends. I want to request, however, that they be a little more courteous at Pollsmoor. I do not like telling them who I am, because then their attitude changes immediately. I never say who I am. I telephoned them and said I had to come and fetch a certain person. They said the person had just arrived, but that they were going to keep him there. I experienced the most unfriendly things there, and I did not like that at all. I hope there will be more courtesy when one goes there in future.

I also noticed—the hon the Minister must correct me; I do not always know the ranks very well— that there were Coloured officers with the same rank as Whites, but that they were subordinate to the Whites. It looks as though this is the case everywhere in our country. Something must be done in respect of this matter, however. Another question that I want to ask is why our Coloured officers cannot man our police stations.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to utilize his allotted time.

Thank you, Sir. I want to request that our people also be granted an opportunity to man police stations, because sometimes there are two lieutenants, a Coloured man and a White man, and then the Coloured man is subordinate to the White man. When are our people going to be trained for ranks so that they themselves can be in control? The hon the Minister must correct me if I am wrong. I ask this without wanting to be unfriendly. The hon the Minister must please tell me why this is not how it works. Even at the courts I see many White clerks, and then I wonder if our people are so unskilled that they cannot fill posts there too. These are all things that cause our people to be embittered. One sees how many Whites there are in posts, but what happens if a Coloured goes there? I do not want to exercise apartheid. I am merely talking about what happens. I should also like to be served by Coloureds at a counter. I am proud when I see them working there with the Whites on an equal basis. That improves the conditions in our country.

I want to confine myself to these few words. I am not talking as I always do today, because I do not feel very well, but I hope that the hon the Minister and I will not need to argue again. Where I am wrong, the hon the Minister must correct me. There are other matters that I shall draw to the attention of the hon the Minister personally, because I feel that he and I can go a long way together. I want to thank him sincerely for the assistance he offered.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethelsdorp elaborated at length on legal aid and I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking him very much for the legal aid which is granted in our areas. I should also like to know when it will be the turn of the other areas where legal aid offices are to be opened and that also includes Bellville which has not been mentioned in the annual report.

There are a few things which I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister. Firstly I want to know whether Coloured magistrates such as those of Mitchell’s Plain and Athlone are limited only to Coloured areas or whether they can also officiate in other magisterial districts. I want to know whether they can be appointed in any area regardless of their colour, because it vexes us that one only finds these people in Coloured magisterial districts. As I understood the hon the Minister, we are moving away from that and I think the time has come for these people also to be able to work in larger courts. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give us a final answer on this matter. If they are to be restricted to these areas forever it will lead to frustration, and those who have chosen to become magistrates might rather decide to qualify themselves for other careers in law.

The next point I want to put to the hon the Minister relates to the family advocate. I had a case in which the court ordered in a divorce case that the house had to be sold, but the problem arose that the children would then be left homeless because the mother could not get hold of another house. After enquiries I established that although the legislation had already been passed, it would only become operative in two years’ time. I urgently want to ask the hon the Minister to look into this, because it is causing our children to suffer. Every day we read about child abuse and I should be delighted if the hon the Minister could spell out to us the extent to which this legislation grants our children the necessary protection. In most cases the court requests that the house be sold and one finds that so many more people are left homeless. I therefore want to request that the hon the Minister expedite the appointment of a family advocate.

Hon members spoke about our prisons this afternoon. One aspect made a strong impression upon me. Our prisons are overcrowded and I am alarmed by the thought of what would happen if Aids were to break out in our prisons. What measures can be taken and what are we going to do about this? Many people will die if Aids breaks out in our prisons. It is a serious matter and I ask the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of releasing more people on parole, for example.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the establishment of the small claims courts. From the reports I have read, they work very well. That is also apparent from the department’s annual report.

I now want to come to a very contentious issue and I know the hon the Minister does not like to talk about this. We have also spoken about this issue in the past and I think the time has now come for an investigation to be launched into the special “vehicle insurance court”. [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister is laughing. I know that this is an area which the advocates protect in a variety of ways. However, if one takes a look at the number of cases recorded— unless I am wrong, it was in the region of 38 000 last year—one will realise that we have a problem because the cases are taking longer and longer to be finalised. I know that they have to be tried by a highly specialised court. Nevertheless I think that a dividing line must be drawn so that cases which can be decided in an ordinary court can be finalised there in order to expedite these cases.

Mr Chairman, by your leave I should like to reply now, because the number of subjects dealt with has increased to such an extent that if I reply now I shall be able to do more justice to hon members who participate in the debate subsequently. I am sure you will permit me the liberty of participating now, Sir. An approximate record has been kept of the number of subjects discussed so far, but those keeping the record for me could not keep up with the number of subjects dealt with. The hon member for Mamre will forgive me if I attempt to deal with the various subjects first.

Mr Chairman, it will interest you to know the number of subjects on which you have had to adjudicate today. According to my own record the figure is about 20 by now. It could also be more or it could be less. Those who are keeping score for me have handed me a note indicating that 25 subjects have been broached thus far. Sir, I have no objection to the rules of the House. I am not criticising the Chairman, Mr Speaker or the rules of the House. What I want to say, however, is that an opportunity should be created for the discussion of the subjects which interest members. They have prepared themselves very thoroughly and have made excellent contributions. A debate of outstanding quality has been conducted and we must do justice to the items that have been raised. If I were to devote two minutes to every subject raised, I would be speaking for 50 minutes, and then the time allocated to me would have expired. There are seven or eight subjects which each deserve to be debated for an hour. I am therefore going to have these matters studied, and if I do not reply specifically to an hon member now, I shall do so in writing, as is customary, after the debate has been concluded. Hon members can attest to the fact that this is so.

Let me come back immediately to today’s debate. I want to start with the hon member for Robertson. He referred to the retirement of Lieutenant General Reitz. For me this is actually a sad afternoon. One comes to appreciate the officers in the Prisons Service and one feels it is almost unfair that a man who is still fair of face and has become a man of refinement and distinction, a diplomat, someone who is held in high esteem in all communities, should reach the stage at which he must retire. Yet the time comes when such a person is in a position to retire or has to retire.

†General Reitz is a highly-decorated senior officer with particular distinctions. Besides matriculating at the Sentraal Hoërskool in Bloemfontein—he is thus a Free Stater, which elevates him to a level above all other strata of public life— …

That is so; the Free State always takes the lead.

… he obtained a master’s degree in Criminology in 1963. As recently as in 1982, when he was already 49 years old, he obtained a postgraduate diploma in Museum Art. From 1 June 1988 General Reitz will be the Secretary of the South African Agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is indeed an achievement. It is a pleasure for me to convey the Government’s gratitude and appreciation to him and his wife for their valuable service and for what they have meant to the Prisons Service and to the country.

It is also my pleasure to welcome General Reitz’s successor today. He is Major-General Deon van Wyk, who has been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-General with effect from 1 June 1988. He will serve as Chief Deputy Commissioner: Personnel Services.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Border made a valuable contribution in many respects, including the topics I have to discuss. He made a significant contribution, in terms of both quantity and quality. Let me hasten to add that his suggestions with regard to section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act will be studied. We will extract the necessary statistics and study his speech to see whether we can improve on the application of that provision.

I may also say at this stage that we are studying the application of all those provisions that enable a magistrate to issue orders of such a nature that they will prevent people from going to prison. This section falls within the category of alternatives to prison sentences. It also falls into the category of, for instance, community service. We are studying the application of these sections. Some of them are already in operation. There are, however, certain hurdles that we have to cross and certain obstacles that we have to overcome, and we are indeed doing so. Nevertheless, some very interesting sentences have already been passed. I am referring to sentences mentioned in this House and I am referring to a judgment handed down by a Mr Justice Hartzenberg in terms of which he referred the matter back to the magistrate to reconsider the possibility of a community service sentence. This whole project, therefore, is still in the embryo stage. Nevertheless, I thank the hon member for his contribution.

With regard to the issue of an alternative system and alternative procedures to be applied in our courts, the hon member is correct. The Small Claims Court has served as a crucible. The experience that we have gained in that regard can now be used as a basis on which to consider further development. As far back as 24 April last year I had a discussion with a number of attorneys, advocates and academics. At that stage I made certain proposals relating to an alternative procedure in the magistrate’s court. In effect, what the hon member said today endorsed my ideas and my approach. I am going to consider his speech and perhaps react to it by going into more detail tomorrow.

*The hon member addressed us on the independence of magistrates. I have previously expressed an opinion about this. The Hoexter Commission recommended that magistrates should be removed from the Public Service in order to demonstrate their independence. The hon member referred to the question of inspections. We did not accept the Hoexter Commission’s recommendation about this. According to us that could mean that every finding by a magistrate could be placed under suspicion, the implication being that he drew a salary cheque and was therefore speaking on behalf of the man who supplied his bread and butter. That is not the case. Our magistrates are above that sort of thing. Who signs their cheques is irrelevant. Judges receive their cheques from the same source, but their conditions of service are somewhat different. We did say, however, that we should work towards having magistrates acting independently in the administration of justice. Unfortunately we cannot summarily detach them from their agency obligations. Hon members in this House would be amongst the first to insist that magistrates’ offices furnish a good agency service. In this spirit we have developed a certain image—according to a report of an implementation committee— which boils down to the fact that as far as possible we must attempt to make a magistrate available for every magisterial district. On the other hand, the administrative work must not be neglected. The administrative arm of any magistrate’s office must therefore be strongly developed too, and as far as that policy is concerned we have already made great strides. I aim at providing the best possible administration of justice by making the best qualified magistrates available in the rural areas. In that connection, in fact, we have reversed a policy which was still adhered to 10 years ago. Magistrates have already been appointed in 24 out of the 34 magisterial districts which qualify for the appointment of a magistrate. I am talking about areas which did not have a magistrate when the Hoexter Commission’s report was published. In cases where a magistrate is appointed for more than one district, the arrangement has already been implemented in 30 magistrates’ offices. The feasibility of the recommendations of the implementation committee is continually under scrutiny. On the one hand we are geared to furnishing a service, but on the other hand we aim to have magistrates who can divorce the administration of justice from their agency work. It is the agency work, in particular, which is subject to inspection, because in terms of agency work a magistrate has to perform a quasi-judicial function, he has to do bookkeeping, fill in forms and, over and above that, deal with the interests of various departments. That is one of our reasons for wanting to divorce those two aspects and, as I said previously, we have already made great strides in this regard. Before we implement a recommendation that the administration of justice in a magisterial district be solely in the hands of a magistrate, each instance will have to be investigated individually. That is a tremendous task. The court hours are taken into consideration, and in certain instances it is not always possible to separate the two posts, because the number of court hours do not justify doing so. In such cases the two posts are virtually maintained as one, that of an administrative officer on the one hand and that of a magistrate on the other. In the final analysis our endeavour is still to separate the two posts. I concede that point to a certain extent, but unfortunately I cannot do so in every respect.

As far as Latin is concerned, let me tell the hon member that I am aware of the fact that he has raised the matter on a previous occasion. The truth of the matter is that it is not the attorneys but rather the advocates who, in the final analysis, are the interested parties. The whole question of Latin relates to the Admission of Advocates Act which provides that a qualifying course in Latin should be taken before a person is admitted, not to the LLB course, but as an advocate. For that reason it is possible for some universities to offer an LLB degree without Latin. With that LLB degree it is possible to become an attorney and to appear in the lower courts. The whole question of Latin rests largely on the standpoint adopted by the advocates.

Hon members know that on the basis of certain Supreme Court and Appeal Court decisions we passed a law to determine a cut-off point for the extension of time granted to those who did not take Latin so that they could be admitted as advocates. In accordance with an investigation I instituted, it appears that the cut-off date could be as far distant as 1995. That is quite a few years into the future, and this raises very serious practical problems.

†Therefore, it is my duty to point out that the members of the Bar requested me last year to reinstate the Latin requirement as intended by the Appellate Division by the end of 1988. However, they have informed me since that the profession will reconsider the matter carefully at its next annual general meeting, in June/July 1988. Since this profession has a major interest in the matter, I felt that it would not be desirable to act before the profession’s viewpoint is known. I have indicated that I shall make a decision once this profession’s viewpoint is known.

*The hon member is also wrong in saying that all sources are translated. I have a list of sources here which have not been translated. It is perhaps not necessary for him or for me to wait for that, but our courts still have recourse to many of these sources. I can attest to the fact that during the past few months I have had to fall back on old sources in solving very tricky problems on no fewer than two occasions. If I had not had people who knew Latin, they would not have been able to check the translations either. We should therefore not simply proceed from the standpoint that no one else has any interest in this.

In the House of Delegates yesterday I indicated that I would reply to proposals involving financial matters which were submitted to the department by the Legal Aid Board. It is therefore a pleasure for me to be able to make a statement in reply to enquiries from the hon members for Bethelsdorp and Border. I think the hon member for Bethelsdorp was a teacher. Sir, after having listened to him this afternoon, let me say that his decision to enter politics was a net loss to education. I am tempted to say … I also said what you expected, Sir, ie that something like that should have jam on it! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that he made a brilliant speech. It is a pleasure for me to react to it.

The general statement that the legal aid provided is inadequate is made with monotonous regularity. An objective evaluation of the matter, however, proves irrefutably that both the State and the legal professions do their share in this regard. In assessing this aspect, it should be borne in mind that legal aid is not the first and only matter that needs attention in the Republic. It is also true that relevant requests have to be weighed up against what the country as a whole is capable of doing.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind, it has been proved irrefutably that in the past the State has shown its bona fides in this regard and is still doing so. After the establishment of the legal aid system in 1969, for example, the State voted R50 000 for legal aid. Perhaps people thought at the time that that was a great deal of money. Notwithstanding the fact that the board had not paid out any money during that year, the amount was tripled to R150 000 the following year. During 1977-88 the State voted R1 million for that purpose. For the 1980-81 financial year the State contributed R2,359 million. For the 1987-88 financial year R9 million was voted, an increase of 400%, compared with the previous figure. I am comparing this with the figure of approximately R2 million for the 1980-81 financial year. For the 1988-89 financial year R12 million has been budgeted, again an increase of 33% on the previous year. The fundamental problem, however—and this is also discussed in the annual report—has been that the board has obligations in regard to court cases it has approved for the future, because some of these court cases last several years. In a case in which a third party claim has been instituted in regard to a back injury, for example, specialists could possibly only determine the actual damage once the injured party has reached a specific age, which could be five years hence. There could also be other kinds of court cases in which it is only possible to assess the damage after a long period.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

Hon members had so much to say about legal aid that I really feel like resuming my seat if they are not interested in this. In this regard the State has just evidenced its bona fides once again by approving the Legal Aid Board’s application for funds for the next five years. This means that a unique situation has developed, ie that a study group under the direction of Mr Justice Eloff approached us with a five-year plan which we, in turn, can administer in conjunction with the Department of Finance. They granted approval for us to work in accordance with a fixed programme for the next five years. As a result R12,9 million has been budgeted for the 1988-89 financial year, as I have indicated. For the 1989-90 financial year R15 million will be budgeted; for the 1990-91 financial year R17 million will be budgeted; for the 1991-92 financial year it will be R19 million and for the 1992-93 financial year an amount of R22 million will be budgeted. We therefore envisage a doubling of the amount, in other words an increase of 100%, within five years. In my opinion, therefore, it is important for hon members to note that their representations about legal aid last year did not fall on deaf ears. [Interjections.]

That is not all, however. There is something else I want to point out. The State’s contribution to greater accessibility to the courts—in particular for those who are less well off—is not merely confined to its contributions to the funds of the Legal Aid Board. For example, the following are items which were highlighted at the recent conference of advocates. During the present budget an amount of R1,9 million was voted for the pro deo system. The office of the Advocate-General is another body maintained by the State to grant assistance to injured parties. Then there is also the system of automatic review which applies in South Africa. It is a unique system involving the fact that under specific circumstances a lower court’s finding are automatically reviewed. It costs us R4,6 million per year, and it explains many of the differences between our system and the British legal system. Then there are also the legal aid clinics of the universities and the respective legal aid bureaus. The University of the Western Cape, RAU, Wits and the University of the Orange Free State have legal aid clinics manned by students who grant free advice under the direction of a professor of law. They assist people in small court cases and can also give other forms of advice in any type of case. Who pays for the students? We know that their parents make a contribution, but we also know that the State makes the major contribution to the maintenance of our universities.

But that is not the end of it. The hon member contended that the money that we voted should be given to the legal profession so that they could administer it.

†I could not resist looking at a list of witticisms I have here, which may apply to his suggestion. It says a man left the bulk of his fortune to his lawyer; if everybody did this a lot of time would be saved.

*I trust the legal profession. I trust them as I would my own brothers; I myself was an attorney. In the rural areas and in the cities I propagate the part played by the attorneys on the Legal Aid Board. Over and above that, I am in favour of their participation in the activities of the Legal Aid Board. They are already participating, because as a profession they are represented on the Legal Aid Board. The chairman is a judge and we do not interfere in the decisions taken by that Legal Aid Board. There is no question of interference.

I have frequently had to listen to the argument that the fact that we provide the money and also institute legal proceedings and prosecute gives cause for suspicion. Somewhere in the Hoexter report, however, it was also stated that “Independence is in the state of mind.” It is in the minds of our people, and that is why we, as a department and as a Ministry, go out of our way to encourage freedom of thought in our legal system. One finds that in the Legal Aid Board. I can therefore tell hon members, in regard to their proposal that we hand this over, that I will have to re-examine the issue. There was a time when I felt that we were unfairly criticised, because that was the only aspect of the Department of Justice which did not run smoothly. At one stage I even said that I was going to recommend that it be dismantled, because I could not administer something that would not function smoothly. Now things are much better, however, and we can lift our heads high and puff out our chests. We have gained new courage.

I am convinced that the private sector—that is perhaps what the hon member for Bethelsdorp wanted to say—can also make a contribution. I envisage recommending that the Government contribute, on a rand-to-rand basis up to an annual maximum amount of R5 million, for every equivalent amount unconditionally voted for the reserve fund by the private sector. The reserve fund would also be supplemented by amounts drawn from the Legal Aid Board’s annual savings. I hope that hon members will support me in this view on legal aid. Then we would really build up a substantial fund. In Britain at one stage legal aid simply grew to such proportions that it ultimately totalled billions of rand, and when Mrs Margaret Thatcher introduced her cost-cutting measures in Britain, that was the area she focused on first. I am under the impression that that is the case. Hon members may correct me if I am wrong. So much for the very positive development.

I hope hon members will tell the hon member for Bethelsdorp that he has missed a very good reply. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the whole question of what the hon member for Bonteheuwel raised. He spoke about pinball machines, amongst other things. Hon members who do not know pinball machines know about as much as I do. I really did not grow up in any close proximity to pinball machines. Nor am I a gambler. Politics gives me all the diversion I want. [Interjections.] We should also know, however, that our young people need some place to give expression to their desire for a social life. Our young people like challenges, communication and so on. The hon member for Bonteheuwel must therefore know that there are two sides to the picture. There are also many people who would say that these machines keep children off the streets. There are many people who would say that we should rather clamp down on the dens of iniquity where drugs are sold. While the hon member was speaking, I noticed certain hon members shaking their heads.

My approach would be that in the case of both pinball machines and discos we should clamp down on the drug pushers. We must therefore tackle crime at its roots. An open question, of course, is whether drug abuse does not take hold on other occasions too. Drug dealing can also take place at soccer matches or on any other social occasion. The fact is, however, that legislators have singled out this aspect by requiring that some degree of skill be involved. Provision is made for all the points in the Gambling Act which we amended recently. That Act empowers the legislator to prohibit certain games which do not require any skill. There have been numerous court cases about pinball machines. There has even been a case that went as far as the Appeal Court, but at present the regulations prohibiting pinball machines are still in force. The view is that electronic games do require a certain degree of skill and should therefore not be prohibited. If, however, the hon member is of the opinion that some electronic games fall within the definition of pinball machines, he is welcome to put his case to me and I will convey the information to my hon colleague, the Minister of Law and Order, so that his department can examine the situation. I would be the first to tell the hon member, however, that we should not be killjoys. I would be the first to tell the hon member that we should keep our children off the streets, and yet still give them an opportunity to develop their intellects and their skills, but not their desire for gambling. Let us therefore examine this soberly and objectively.

The hon member also gave the Prisons Service a fine testimonial and bore witness to the standards and norms applicable there.

Order! The hon members’ conversations are proving very disruptive. Would hon members please speak a little more softly. The hon the Minister may proceed.

If time permits I shall come back to this subject. I merely want to point out to hon members that our standards comply with international rules and norms originating in the UN.

That hon member and the hon member for Bishop Lavis have given me an opportunity to speak briefly about our children. How seriously do we view the matter of our children? I have ascertained that in American politics it is very fashionable to make a great song and dance about how children are treated. This caused people to fall into the habit of seeing where they could champion the interests of children. On occasion it has also been intimated that we in South Africa do not look after our children properly. I asked the Law Commission to sum up our position for me. They came to light with the document Memorandum on the Protection of Children in South Africa.

It is a very informative document. It deals with certain legislation initiated by the Standing Committee on Justice. In this context, for example, let me mention the Children’s Status Act, Act 82 of 1987. I also want to refer hon members to the administration of the Immorality Act—which now has a different name—in terms of which specific categories of children and imbeciles enjoy special protection. Let me also refer to a whole series of protective measures, for example in camera hearings, mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Act when the interests of children are involved. Let me also refer to the fact that it is prescriptively stated that children can only be imprisoned if there is no other means of accommodating them. When they are detained, we take special pains with them. It is my intention to hand over this document to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a document which is the result of a comprehensive study of what, from a legislative point of view, is being done in the interests of children in South Africa, so that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs can make use of this document in his overseas missions—in America and various other places—when the interests of children come up for discussion. As far as the treatment of our children is concerned, we do not play second fiddle to any country in the world. Hon members present here have helped to place these progressive pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. So much for my reply to those two hon members.

When children who have been sentenced are, in fact, held in our prisons, they are not dealt with on the same lines as ordinary prisoners. The hon member is aware of that. He also put a question to me about that. At Leeukop we have launched a special youth project which commenced on 1 April 1986. From 1 August 1987 a special youth project was launched at Pollsmoor. If our finances permit, we also envisage other specific projects. Sir, if the Bible tells us that the least among us are important, it is also important for us to look after the least among us, and they are certainly our children. The commissioner, the Director-General, the Prisons Service administration and I myself are therefore geared to ensuring that the steps we take are properly implemented and monitored. In this regard there are inspection services which are maintained by the Prisons Service administration. Hon members may obtain the relevant statistics in the annual report.

We have special judicial requests in regard to juvenile detainees. In terms of the Prisons Act and certain regulations we have empowered judges and magistrates to visit prisons at any time to examine the food that is being cooked and to speak to any prisoners. All of this places us at the very forefront of measures aimed at the civilised treatment of prisoners, juvenile prisoners in particular. The hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Deputy Minister of Education recently announced special projects aimed at providing unsentenced juveniles with a better livelihood. Under the circumstances even sentenced juveniles can go to such institutions if they are referred to those institutions by the magistrate. He is empowered to do so. We shall be amending the relevant legislation. The fact remains, however, that we can hold our heads high, as the hon member for Bonteheuwel rightly said. I thank him for his very good contribution in that regard.

The hon member for Bonteheuwel referred to the parole system. I shall reply to him in greater detail at a later stage. At this stage let me say that I agree with him, but our funds do not permit us to develop too rapidly.

There is one point I should like to make: In regard to bodies such as Nicro and others, in some cases we—I mean the Government, not the department—subsidise slightly more than 70% of their budgets. We do not tell the world which bodies are involved; they function independently and we do not interfere. They do their job in the realisation of the responsibility they have towards the public; they do not do so as bodies which are dependent on the Government or which are puppets of the Government. I want to tell the hon member that we do more than our share in any event. The whole matter is in the embryonic stage at the moment, and we are developing this system in such a way that a person can be freed earlier to look for work. He can return to prison and ask for accommodation if he cannot find accommodation elsewhere. [Interjections.] I cannot let this opportunity slip by without saying something else about this. There is a very good relationship between the Prisons Service and the prisoners. That is why I cannot understand why the hon member for Ravensmead did not get a very good reception. [Interjections.] I want him to inform me about that in private. I can assure the hon member that Lieutenant-General Willemse will be the first to take up that matter. After all, we do not want our friend to feel that he is unwelcome. Our doors are wide open to him. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon member serves on the Standing Committee on Justice, but he must make sure that he goes on tour again. I think it is very important for all of us that the hon member for Ravensmead should get a different view of this service, and I shall go out of my way to make him happy in this regard.

As far as the question of promotion in the Prisons Service is concerned, time does not permit me to go into that in great detail. Let me firstly reply to the hon member for Robertson who is a very good friend of ours. This is, of course, his field of interest. Last time I said he was a specialist, not from experience, but from the point of view of interest. Let me tell him that up to the end of March this year a large number of Coloureds were promoted. The hon member will remember that there was a year in which I could not report that anyone had been promoted even to the rank of lieutenant. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to be able to say that four people have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant. It is also a pleasure for me to say that 29 people have been promoted to the rank of warrant officer; 65 to the rank of sergeant; two to the second leg of the salary scale for lieutenant. What is more, in the fine arts field two individuals have been promoted to chief musician or the second leg of the warrant officer scale; one to the rank of senior musician; and three to the rank of warrant officer. This is a total of 12 people. Amongst the artisans no fewer than 14 people have received important promotions. This brings me to the nursing staff. One person has been promoted to chief nurse and captain and one to the rank of lieutenant. Hon members know that those posts are in short supply; there are not many people filling those posts. What I found particularly gratifying was the promotion of one person to lieutenant: psychological services. That is very important to me, because I know that there are social workers, sociologists and psychologists who are wandering around as civilians when they actually belong with us. Hon members must persuade them to approach us for a job. This brings me to the religious services. One person has been promoted to senior chaplain, something which makes me very happy. That is a tremendously important promotion. I am very glad to be able to report progress.

This brings me to the hon member for Ravens-mead. He complained about an estate. I should like him to give me the name and number of that estate. I shall attend to the matter. The Master’s Office in South Africa has a proud record. I have here in my possession the latest report dated 7 April 1988. It indicates that all the offices—Cape Town, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, Grahamstown and Kimberley—are up to date with their work. They are up to date with their work, but it is possible for the administrator of an estate not to be up to date with his work. He could perhaps be a professional person, or perhaps a novice. The fact remains, however, that he may not be up to date with his work. I think that the Master’s Office would very much like to know if a file has perhaps been overlooked. I would be surprised if that were the case.

These days I get nothing but praise about that division, which has developed into an excellent division. I should like the hon member to give me more details so that we can follow this up. The best advice, however, is for one to make use of the services of a chemist so that there is no necessity for an estate.

†The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked me about the so-called family advocate or family counsel. I am indebted to the hon member for his support. Finance, however, is an obstacle.

*Nevertheless I do not intend to have it remain a stumbling block for me. At the moment both the draft regulations and the establishment, which have to support the system as a whole, are being examined. I shall soon be in a better position to reveal the date of implementation. I personally think—and this is also the way the department feels about it—that we should launch a suitable pilot project, in other words at a locality where we can determine experimentally what the problem is, what can be rectified, what should be omitted and what we can do to make this succeed. We shall be making an announcement about this in the foreseeable future. I want to thank hon members for their lively interest. There are still one or two points I should like to refer to, particularly in regard to the hon member for Bishop Lavis who referred to magistrates, but I shall reply to him at the end of the debate.

Mr Chairman, it is not easy to speak in the debate on prisons, because prisons are not run as open systems. They are fairly removed from public scrutiny, and generally not all of us are acquainted with the situation in our prisons. We know, however, that the clients of the SA Prisons Service are not the easiest people in the world to deal with. For that reason we must have a certain degree of understanding of the exceptional circumstances involved.

Order! The hon member for Southern Free State must please return to his seat before he makes interjections. The hon member for Mamre may proceed.

Sir, I appreciate what the hon the Minister has done recently to improve the image of our Prisons Service. I know that the public has specific ways of addressing soldiers, policemen and those in the Prisons Service. The Prisons Service is a proud institution in our society today, however, and many of our young men and women aspire to join the Prisons Service. That can only be ascribed to the fine image of the Prisons Service. I also want to thank the Public Relations Division of the Prisons Service.

I am also delighted to be able to say that far more visits are permitted in our prisons these days. One need only look at how much free access there is, even to the Press—there were several articles I was able to obtain from the library—and at the fact that it is realised that our prisons furnish a service to those being held there. As an ex-teacher and educationist, my concern is the children who are being held in prisons. I took the trouble to ascertain the position in this connection.

I again want to congratulate the department. On the basis of a study which was conducted, in which questionnaires on prisons were sent to 70 countries, it can be stated that South Africa does not take a back seat to any country.

Our country is criticised from all quarters, particularly in the Western World. That is why it is good to read what an international body, the Alliance of Non-Governmental Organizations, had to say in September 1987 in a document entitled “Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice”. It was an independent study in which the treatment that people received in prisons, amongst other places in South Africa, was highlighted. The situation was compared with that in America, Canada and other parts of the world. It was clearly apparent that we are on the right track as far as our treatment of prisoners is concerned.

From January to December 1987 there were 17 White children in prison with their mothers, 2 238 Black children, 435 Coloured children and 17 Asian children. That makes a total of 2 707. The number had decreased to such an extent by 31 December 1987 that in the case of Whites there were only two children; in the case of Blacks only 140; in the case of Coloureds only 34 and none in the case of Asians. So there was a constant decrease. At the end of the year there were very few children in prison with their mothers.

What happens to the babies, Sir? I am delighted to see that the Prisons Service is concerned about the children and that where possible children are not separated from their mothers before they have been weaned. A prison is not a place in which one would like to see children, of course. One knows how important the bonding with the parents—particularly with the mother—is to the child in his educative years. I am therefore glad to see that mothers are allowed to keep their babes in arms with them and that in certain prisons provision is already being made for crêches with all the necessary facilities. It is a good thing to have the child kept there for some time—at times for a period of almost two to three years—before steps are taken to take the child away from the mother.

The Prisons Service provides everything—from bedding, food and medical treatment to toys. In an interview intended for the South African public the DPR intimated that the Prisons Service was actually regarded as a place where work was done as it ought to be done.

In January I had the privilege of having a pleasant discussion, in a comfortably secluded spot, with a certain Dr Hassler from Switzerland. I obtained his views on South African prisons. It was very informative to speak to him. According to him the Western World is not always prepared to publish everything which is contained in various reports. They are not always honest enough to concede that there is little that is wrong here. It is difficult to say anything good about a prison, because it conjures up a negative image. It is a place in which one is deprived of one’s freedom.

No one wants to speak about it; everyone knows that it is a place where one does not want to be. It is a place where people are kept under lock and key, and as a result it cannot be a good place.

In the light of the task entrusted to the Prisons Service, this service deserves to be complimented. Last year 40 foreigners visited our prisons. My plea is that the hon the Minister pay heed to the recommendations of that group so that we can see whether we cannot accommodate the children who are in prison with their mothers in more homely surroundings. We must not remove them completely from their mothers, but we should try to be more humane as far as the accommodation and education of the children are concerned.

The hon the Minister said that enough chances were taken in politics and that therefore he did not gamble. It is true. I also believe that at times the hon the Minister gets a low blow, politically speaking, but that he simply has to take it. I think that everyone in this House is accustomed to low blows from the Official Opposition, but today they are fairly quiet and cannot actually participate in the debate because there are so few hon members of the Official Opposition who are still present. Some of the things we say are beyond them in any event, but I shall leave the matter at that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not regard what I am going to say now as a low blow. I think it is only right for me to do so. I am referring to a letter written to me from a certain prison. It is addressed to the “Leader of the House of Representatives for the President, Parliament House, Cape Town”. I do not know how the prisoner managed to have the letter posted, and the State paid for the stamp too. The address on the letter is “Goedemoed Medium B Prison, Private Bag X1007, Aliwal North’”. I should like to quote from this letter:

Order! I regret having to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allotted to him.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I thank the hon member for Opkoms. I quote further:

Oh, what is happening to the Free State! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Southern Free State must return to his seat and make his remarks from there. [Interjections.]

I quote further:

I shall not mention the names of the people who wrote this letter. I am certain—this is perhaps a low blow—that it is information such as this that harms our image. I want to request the hon the Minister to institute an investigation. The hon the Minister cannot reply to everything, but he is the one who is accountable, the one who has to take the knocks. Let us try to ensure that there is no necessity for such letters in the Prisons Service. This letter reached me in Parliament, and I wonder how many such letters do not leave the country and get into the hands of people who use them to harm the good character of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I request your protection. When I start speaking, hon members refer to a goat, and I am asking you to give the next hon member who refers to the goat an opportunity to take the floor and tell the story of the goat.

Order! The hon member may proceed. He must take his own medicine. [Interjections.]

It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the community of Riversdale, and in particular the Voorwaarts Primary School, the management committee and the municipality of Riversdale, to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for having made available the Pollsmoor Prison Orchestra, under the baton of Chief Afrika, to add lustre to the 150th anniversary celebrations with a beautiful concert. [Interjections.] The concert was of a high standard, and the hon the Minister can be proud of his men.

Were they given goats?

Order! Was the hon member referring to the hon member for Riversdal as a goat?

No, Sir, not at all.

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether you should not allow the hon member for Southern Free State to tell the story of the goat right now. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the men of Pollsmoor were worthy ambassadors for the Prisons Service.

The community of Riversdale appreciates the fact that in spite of the orchestra’s heavy workload, the hon the Minister nevertheless made them available to us. I can tell him that the orchestra’s performance was one of the highlights of our festivities at Riversdale.

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on these singular Votes, ie Justice and Prisons. This is probably one of the most interesting departments in the political field. It is interesting in that this department is always on the receiving end. They are always on the receiving end and may never say no thank you, we do not want any more. The hon the Minister of Law and Order sends his clients to the hon the Minister of Justice empty-handed. When the hon the Minister sends them along, the hon the Minister of Finance never wants to give them anything to bring along. [Interjections.] That is why this hon Minister’s Vote is probably the most interesting in the whole political sphere.

People from all levels of society are imprisoned. According to the department’s annual report, on 30 June 1987 the following numbers of prisoners were in custody: 4 741 Whites, 700 Indians, 27 139 Coloureds and 81 084 Blacks. During the 1986-87 financial year, the daily averages for sentenced and non-sentenced prisoners were as follows: Whites, 4 567 men and 180 women; Indians, 731 men and 30 women—in spite of what the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates says—Coloureds, 25 708 men and 1 090 women and Blacks, 78 091 men and 3 701 women. It gives me cause for concern that so many of my Coloured people are in prisons, as many as 27 000, as against only 700 Indians.

Indians have good lawyers.

Rajbansis. This problem must be tackled by everyone in the Coloured community.

Last year I had the privilege of visiting the Victor Verster Prison and was amazed to see what was being done for prisoners there. What did I see? Just people—fat and healthy people, neatly dressed and with a shine on their shoes. At one stage I asked whether they were prisoners. I saw the warders walking round without firearms or truncheons. I also saw people being trained in various trades and listened to beautiful choral singing. I visited neat, beautifully decorated sleeping quarters.

Sir, I was served by waiters who compared favourably with those in five-star hotels. I also saw, however—and this was disquieting—that in the Victor Verster Prison there were no people of my age. There were no people in the hon member for Southern Free State’s age group. There were no people …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allotted to him.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member. Free Staters really are fine people!

It was disquieting to see a prison population consisting of people in the 18 to 20 age group.

It was wonderful to see what was being done in the Victor Verster Prison. It really was an experience to hear a young man, who was engaged in some building work, say that he had to kill a girl before he could find out that he could also be of use to society. One appreciates the efforts made by the Victor Verster and other prisons to make useful citizens of law-breakers. Rehabilitation should not be the task only of the Prisons Service—it should be the task of all of us. Parents must learn to discipline their children from an early age. Clergymen should learn to minister to our young people’s spiritual needs. Teachers should know how to teach children what is right and wrong. As politicians we can contribute greatly towards preventing our young men and women from ending up in prison.

We must furnish the comparative figures from public platforms so that the Coloured component can see how our figures compare with those of the Indians and the Whites. [Interjections.] Our politicians must not spend all their time at public meetings on abuse and recriminations about apartheid, group areas and discrimination. We must motivate our Coloured people to be law-abiding citizens.

We can prevent having 27 000 of our Coloured people in prison each year, as against a mere 700 for the Indians. If the Indians can restrict their numbers to 700, we can do the same. We shall all have to put our shoulders to the wheel to bring about a drastic decrease in the Coloured prison intake.

Sir, I still wanted to talk about the treatment of contagious diseases, but I do not know whether I am going to have time to do that. Tattooing is a common practice amongst prison gangs in South Africa, and that is how Aids is spread in prisons. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure that hon members know that Command-Chaplain Dries Erwee has been called to the Victor Verster Prison. I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on that. Command-Chaplain Erwee is from my constituency, and he has rendered valuable service in our community in Paarl. His leaving is a loss to the congregation and the community in Paarl, but a gain to the Department of Justice. We wish him well. May he continue the fine work that he did in the congregation and in the community, in prison.

I am profoundly thankful that one of our school principals and his staff can be of service teaching prisoners at Victor Verster. I receive quarterly reports from them and I am glad to hear that they are doing a good job in the Prisons Service.

Then I also want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the tour that was arranged. I was one of those who was able to visit the Victor Verster Prison. My hon colleague sitting in front of me here expressed his appreciation and he spoke well of what took place at Victor Verster. We have a high regard for the officials of the Victor Verster Prison.

There are four prisons in my constituency. Therefore this matter is important to me. That is why it is a privilege for me to tell hon members what happened there, not only because I am pleased about it, but also because I feel a touch of sadness. As soon as possible I want the hon the Minister and his department to rectify instances of discrimination that are still taking place against Coloured warders. Whether we want to know it or not, such cases still occur. At the outset I want to tell the hon the Minister that, just as he has a constituency in which he holds meetings from time to time to inform his voters of his activities in Parliament, we have our constituencies and voters. The hon the Minister must remember that the Coloured warders to whom I referred previously are our voters. They ask questions at meetings and expect us to reply to them.

According to the report of the department, 45 ex-members were again reappointed to the department. We wish to thank the department for this and for their assessment that these people can still be of service to the department, as well as to our country. Some of our matriculants have also applied, however, only to be informed, not infrequently, that the posts had been frozen. We cannot quite believe this or understand how it is possible that 45 ex-members can be reappointed, while young men who wish to join the Prisons Service are told that the posts have been frozen.

I also want to refer to officers’ courses. The hon the Minister has already replied to certain questions I wished to ask him, but I should nevertheless like to know how frequently there are officers’ courses for Coloured warders and whether the warders qualify to attend the courses.

I also want to refer to the question of firearms. It is alleged that White warders who have been issued with firearms may take these weapons home for their own protection, but that Coloured warders are not allowed to do so. They may only take their truncheons and whistles home. I should like to know whether this is in fact the case and whether our people are being discriminated against in this way.

I learned with a touch of sadness that when a prisoner approaches a White warder, he is often told that he is a “kaffer-predikant”. These are hurtful little jibes. We should like the hon the Minister and the department to look into this question. This must receive attention, because it is a source of frustration amongst the prisoners and also amongst the Coloured warders in prisons.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the department. Brandvlei is one of the prisons in my constituency, and I respectfully want to request that the sports facilities for our men there be upgraded somewhat. When we look at the White section we realise that there is a vast difference. These are the things that foreign countries, radicals and leftists use against us. Hundreds of our young men report for duty to the Prisons Service. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his budget. The increase for the financial year is minimal if one takes all the circumstances into account.

There is a matter which falls under the department, and one which I should like to raise this afternoon. It concerns the activities of the Attorney-General. The reason I want to raise it relates to a news report which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday, 8 May, under the heading: “Bitter families demand justice.” I quote briefly:

That is why I am raising the matter. Section 3(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides as follows:

I want to ask the hon the Minister to look into the matter. These families are very bitter because the police who shot and killed their children have not been prosecuted. I went to Wynberg this morning to study the post-mortem report. The case numbers are 493, 494 and 495 of 1987. They are too long to study thoroughly; I therefore only took a cursory look. The evidence which was submitted covers 328 typed pages and the representations, the argument and the findings cover a further 181 pages. I am not going to discuss the evidence, except to say briefly that on 15 October 1987 there was unrest in Belgravia Road. The police drove past there …

Order! The hon member is digressing. He must return to the Vote under discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am discussing the Vote, because the Attorney-General refused to prosecute the Police. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The result was that the police hid in some crates. A truck drove past—it was not a pick-up van—and turned at the top of the road. The police hid in the crates and when the young people, students or whoever came past, they jumped out of the crates and shot at the people. They said they had heard the vehicle being pelted with stones, and that a window had broken. That is what they said. [Interjections.] According to the evidence, the investigating policeman only found three stones. That is what the evidence states. [Interjections.]

I briefly want to refer to the evidence concerning the death of these people. The pathologist, Dr Duncan Lourens Lemont, said that bullet wounds had caused the death of the first boy, Michael Miranda. The same applied to the other two, Shaun Magmoed and Johan Claassen. What I find remarkable is that the policemen were evasive in their evidence before the magistrate, Magistrate Hoffman, concerning the questions which were put to them, because they were afraid of incrimination. They refused to reply to certain questions; they were uncertain; they could not remember and so on. They could remember other things, however. A great deal of evidence was submitted in this case.

The conclusion was that the magistrate had to decide whether the death was caused—and I quote:

The magistrate found it to have been negligence on the part of lieutenant Vermeulen and his men. As usual the matter was then referred to the Attorney-General and for reasons which are probably well known to him, he refused to prosecute the men.

What I also found remarkable was that the Police were asked by the advocate who appeared on behalf of the families, as well as by the State Advocate, what kind of ammunition they had been given and by whom. They could not furnish satisfactory answers, because in this case they had not used buckshot as is usually the case. Here AAA was used—that is ammunition which one uses when one goes hunting in the bush. [Interjections.] I do not believe the men could have walked or run for more than one yard, because according to the pathologist … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it appears that I have barely 20 minutes to reply to the many points which were raised and I give the hon member for Daljosaphat the assurance that I shall reply to him in full as soon as possible. I am not going to sidestep the difficult and interesting topic he raised because of a time limit.

I said I would come back to the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I am referring to the question of Coloured magistrates. His question was whether they were only used in certain areas. Most definitely not. He merely has to look at the diffusion of Coloured prosecutors in the cities and in the rural areas. The magistrates of the future come from their ranks. It is a pity, however, that over the years so few Coloured officials have remained in service to reach that higher position. I want to appeal to hon members to influence their voters to utilise the opportunities which are available for promotion in the Department of Justice as well as in the Prisons Service.

We have found that our Coloured officials, just like all other officials, are not fond of leaving home and hearth, and their transfers are treated very sympathetically. It has been our experience that they do not like being transferred from the Western Cape. In other words, the Western Cape and the George area are the most sought-after areas when it comes to transferring the officials of the Department of Justice and the Prisons Service.

This is the case for obvious reasons. The climate is pleasant and these areas are also near fishing waters. There could be a variety of reasons.

However, I also want to refer to the fact that there are no fewer than 48 Coloured State prosecutors today. I am not saying that that is enough and hon members should assist me in appointing more. One of the hon members said that he saw too few of his own people in the Department of Justice. There are 157 administration clerks in the Department of Justice and two estate controllers—those are posts with the Master of the Supreme Court. There are too few with the registrar of the courts; in fact, there is only one. There are six court interpreters and five registration clerks. We also have far too few typists, namely only one. I want to appeal to Coloureds to make use of the opportunities which exist.

There are many opportunities for academic improvement as far as the SA Prisons Service is concerned. The prisons service club makes bursaries available from its own funds to further the studies of people from its own ranks. I want to ask hon members to bring that to the attention of their voters so that we can improve the situation. It must come from all sides, but we shall do our best from our side.

The hon member for Rawsonville asked me whether there were enough promotional opportunities. A while ago I said that four lieutenants were promoted this year. They would not have been able to receive that promotion if they had not completed promotion courses. That is merely an example. Such courses are available.

As far as the question of parity is concerned, there has been complete parity in the Department of Justice as well as in the SA Prisons Service since 1 March 1988. I think that ought to please hon members.

Hon members also asked me about the whole question of Aids and how it is dealt with. They can be assured that the Prisons Service is dealing with this delicate matter with great circumspection. I heard somewhere that a conference was held at a particular university under the pretext that Aids would be discussed, but they discussed everything but Aids. That made me wonder whether the next political party we shall hear about might not perhaps be the Aids Party. [Interjections.] The fact remains, however, that this is a very sensitive matter and my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, has dealt with it fully. As far as the Prisons Service is concerned, many strict control measures have been introduced. Obviously the disease can be combated much more easily within a prison because of the control measures, the separation of prisoners and the identification and isolation of carriers and sufferers. People can be tested at their own request and at their own risk. The warrants and documentation of new intakes are checked for contraventions which relate to Aids, and they receive special attention. Consideration is given to illegal entry into the Republic, immorality, homosexuality, drug abuse, especially where it has been administered intravenously, and I now hear that tattooing is also receiving attention. I understand what the hon member is trying to tell us and I think the commissioner and his staff will also give this matter the necessary attention. Suffice it to say that we have a very sensitive approach with regard to this matter in prisons and we understand hon members’ concern about a possible outbreak of this and, of course, other diseases. The hon member for Riversdal was just about to speak about that before his time expired. I merely want to say that just like any other contagious disease, this disease must be dealt with with the greatest degree of hygiene and circumspection, and that is in fact what we are doing.

The hon member for Mamre made a very valuable contribution about the civilised way in which the issue of babies in prisons is dealt with. In this regard I also want to refer the hon member to a question which was put in another House about the management of a prison and the great number of prisoners. I should like to emphasise a particular principle. It is important to remember that children are not simply placed in prison with their mothers, but are in fact, upon the recommendation of a medical officer permitted to stay in prison with their mothers for as long as this is necessary for medical reasons or purposes of feeding. In other words, babies are allowed to remain with their mothers for humanitarian reasons and not because we want them there. If a physician recommends that they remain with their mothers, this is done. Hon members must remember that infants who are in prison are treated very well and that clothes, food and medical services are provided.

A while ago Brigadier Erica van Zyl held a very informative interview with the Press, in which they had to take cognisance of her ability to elucidate a matter properly. I should like to recommend literature on this topic to hon members. I want to repeat that the public is just as involved in this matter as the Prisons Service itself.

The hon member for Mamre referred inter alia to foreign visitors, and said that we should utilise these opportunities to uphold the name of South Africa and of the Prisons Service. That is how I interpreted the hon member’s words. The hon member for Mamre was merely being modest, because I know that he himself is a sought-after interviewer of foreign visitors. Perhaps this is not common knowledge, but he makes a very good impression upon such visitors, as other hon members certainly do as well.

The hon member for Mamre availed himself of the opportunity of reading out a letter to the House—and quite rightly too, because our department does not only want to be lauded. There is another side which we must take into consideration as well. I want to give the hon member the assurance that we are definitely going to investigate the matter. I also want to adopt the standpoint that if there is anyone with a legitimate complaint, we shall protect him and ensure that he receives the necessary protection against any possible intimidation. I realise that that is always a real fear on the part of complainers. Having said that, we must reconsider the matter objectively.

I find it strange that in this morning’s post I received a typed letter which corresponds exactly with the quoted letter. The hon member is welcome to pop into my office from time to time to help me open the mail. He will be able to see how often a variety of people write to me. I must say it sounds as if Houdini himself wrote that letter. I find it very interesting that something like this could happen on the same day. I do not want to draw any further conclusions, however, except to say that this is a matter which must be investigated.

The commissioner sent me a note in his own handwriting. He wrote that prisoners must know that there is a policy and there are standards which we are proud of, and that we shall protect that policy and those standards. Prisoners have sufficient opportunity to lodge complaints and make requests and it is not necessary for them to make use of irregular channels. The commissioner gave the assurance that those channels would remain open via continuous explanation and communication with his officers and members. Assaults will not be tolerated. Assaults on members are not tolerated and neither are assaults on prisoners. Violence among the prisoners is not tolerated either. In such cases—it does not matter who the perpetrator is—the SAP is called in and justice takes its course.

Hon members know that our members are very proud of their spruce public profile. They would not make themselves guilty of irregular behaviour without reason. On the one hand the suspicion always exists that something gave rise to such behaviour. Unfortunately, on the other hand, incidents do sometimes take place, as was the case at Barberton. We always take care that such incidents are not repeated, however. I can assure hon members that no one is prouder of their record than the members of the Prisons Service. Any complaints are always thoroughly investigated; these are followed by departmental investigations and action, and although such files do not often reach my desk, that does happen from time to time. Such cases are definitely not merely left at that, but we must retain our perspective. We must never forget that we are dealing with people who have behavioural problems and that at times it is necessary to discipline them. It is possible that a person who complained or protested in a particular case was deviant in some way, but nevertheless I want to assure hon members that we shall leave no stone unturned in replying properly to the hon member for Mamre’s letter. I am very glad that the hon member said that the case mentioned could be an exception and that it does not necessarily reflect the style and methods of the Prisons Service.

I received a letter as well as an apology from the hon member for Tafelberg. She apologised for not being able to be here today. In the letter the hon member said that drugs were damaging to our social order, our family life and the education of our children. This problem is destroying the religious foundation of our people, and above all, it is turning our people into criminals and murderers. The hon member made certain serious and sharply worded proposals in her letter and in some cases she even propagated the worst form of punishment. I shall study her letter and reply to it later. I want to assure the hon member that we shall give the matter the necessary consideration.

I have already replied to the hon member for Rawsonville as regards the officers’ courses. I also said that parity does exist in this regard. That brings me to another point which the hon member raised, namely the question of firearms. Firearms are entrusted to all members to take home, regardless of the race or group to which they belong, provided they have lock-up cupboards available. This is a regulation in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act. A firearm must be kept in a safe place; otherwise it becomes a dangerous weapon which can be used against people if it is stolen by accident or through negligence. I want to emphasise, therefore, that there is no discrimination in this regard.

The use of abusive language is definitely not tolerated. If the hon member knows of a concrete case, he is welcome to bring it to the attention of the Prisons Service. No prisoner needs to address an officer in any way other than by his rank. Visiting MPs are aware of this fact.

That brings me to the hon member for Ravensmead, who referred to visits to our prisons, and I should like to spell out our policy in this regard. Hon members are able to visit prisons in their constituencies without having to contact my office or the office of the commissioner, provided they have made arrangements with the commanding officer.

He would be happy to act as host. That is why it is necessary that one contact him. That is the policy, and therefore it applies in the hon member’s constituency. In a wider context, where it is a matter of a special visit to a specific prisoner, the usual rules apply, namely that it depends upon the prisoner’s visits, whether he is prepared to receive a visit, and whether the necessary permission has been obtained. As far as visits to prisons outside hon members’ constituencies are concerned, we have created ample opportunity to enable hon members to join groups. If the need exists, we shall arrange more such visits— also in other provinces, and not only the Cape Province. We have every reason to be proud of the conditions in our prisons and we have nothing to hide.

The hon member for Riversdal made a very positive speech. I could find no fault with it and I enjoyed listening to his beautiful use of language. In fact, I felt a little guilty when I heard how beautifully he speaks Afrikaans.

That brings me to the matter which the hon member for Daljosaphat raised. He referred to the Attorney-General’s ruling on the Trojan horse case. I have the Attorney-General’s report here in which he explains how he arrived at his ruling. He made an effort to ensure that his ruling was correct.

It is true that certain stone-throwers were prosecuted at first. After the case against the stonethrowers was suspended, the Attorney-General received a letter from the attorneys to issue a certificate of non-prosecution, nolle prosequi, with a view to private prosecution. Because of the confusing evidence the Attorney-General decided to undertake a judicial enquiry in terms of the available legislation first. The judicial enquiry was initiated on 7 December and concluded on 3 March when Magistrate Hoffman published his detailed findings.

The incident is concisely set out in the first three pages of the finding. I should like to share the finding, based on a specific law, which is set out in these documents, with the hon member. In his judgement the magistrate blames Lieutenant Vermeulen and the policemen under his command for the deaths. The Attorney-General indicates, with all due respect, that the magistrate acquitted himself in an exemplary manner of the task entrusted to him, but points out that the magistrate was not called upon to publish a finding which was tantamount to a penal court judgment. There was no hearing and therefore no accused appeared before him.

After all the investigatory work and the gathering of information had been finalised, the Attorney-General convened a committee on which he and four members of staff served. They thoroughly investigated the matter—with a view to prosecution. From the investigation it appears that neither the investigation nor the evidence at the original hearing, including the findings arising from the judicial post-mortem, indicated a causal relationship between the conduct of a specific policeman and the death of a specific deceased.

As a lawyer, the hon member knows that in order to make a prima facie case, there has to be a causal relationship, even though the consequences only arose at a later stage. Without that, criminal accountability cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are also other legal problems which make prosecution so problematic that it is not warranted.

The Attorney-General went on to say that a civil claim based on the death of the three persons could possibly succeed. A claimant must of course prove on a balance of probability that the other party was responsible for the damage caused.

That does not mean that this ruling is incorrect. The Attorney-General of the Cape has a good, impressive and objective record. The hon member asked me to become involved, because I have the authority. On various occasions, but especially recently, I have given a complete analysis of the policy which applies in respect of Attorneys-General, as well as how I apply it, and in this regard I refer hon members to Hansard: House of Delegates, 1985, col 1151. I indicated that only in highly exceptional cases would the Minister of Justice interfere with an Attorney-General’s ruling. Although I have the power to do so, I shall use that power only in the most exceptional cases. This was only done in a single case in the twenties, and after that I myself—by way of exception— intervened in order to bring about uniformity in respect of the prosecution of parking meter offences. The question of non-prosecution has wide implications. For example, the Attorney-General announced at the weekend that he was not going to prosecute certain clerics who had contravened the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act of 1973 which relates to the defined area around Parliament. I have also been informed that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal does not have sufficient reason to prosecute there, because there was no unrest. [Interjections.] By clerics I mean Desmond Tutu, Naidoo, Boesak, Chikane and others. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon Minister prepared to reply to a question put by the hon member for Border?

Mr Chairman, I shall come to the hon member in a moment. The fact remains that hon members must not read something into this which does not exist. An Attorney-General’s duty is to introduce a prosecution after having considered all the possible facts, if there is an indication that it could possibly lead to a successful prosecution. To launch an unsuccessful prosecution concerning something which is already a delicate matter is enough to place his office in jeopardy. [Interjections.] If the Attorney-General should refuse to prosecute, there is another remedy. That remedy is the nolle prosequi remedy. He can issue a certificate, and anyone that is of the opinion that he has made an incorrect ruling can take that certificate and take that matter as far as the Attorney-General would. That is incorporated in our law, and that is how reasonable the Act is. This remedy is available to people who are dissatisfied with the ruling. It is not a challenge to attorneys or whoever; that is what is available, and I shall be the first to recommend strongly that hon members who feel strongly about this or know about it should bring this remedy to the attention of the attorneys involved for consideration and investigation. The Act further provides that if it appears that this prosecution could be successful, and it can be deduced from that that the Attorney-General could take the case further, it falls within his discretion to take over the prosecution. That can be done. He can take over the prosecution at his expense, the State’s expense. That is why I want to tell hon members at once that they must accept that I keep a jealous watch over the good name and the status of our administration of justice in South Africa.

We have proven that we do not protect people who are attached to the State if they have committed an offence. Nor must we give in to the feeling that we would apply the administration of justice arbitrarily in order to validate our own point of view, because we might also be wrong. I therefore appeal for faith to be placed in the officials who have to take these decisions and I tell hon members, very objectively, that I shall be the first to insist that the nolle prosequi remedy be investigated if hon members are of the opinion that they would be able to promote such a case. Hon members must not read anything more into this than that it is a purely objective legal matter.

Mr Chairman, the Attorney-General is not under attack here, but I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether it would not have been better for the court to have ruled that there was no nexus. Here the public on the one hand …

Order! The hon member should just put his question. I cannot allow a discussion.

With all due respect, Sir, one cannot put a question without laying a foundation. In the eyes of the public, on the one hand, there is the inquest verdict which points a finger at some guilt by some party, but on the other hand there is the professional reasoning of the Attorney-General which precludes the prosecution. Would it not have been better if the Attorney-General had presented all the facts at his disposal to a court of law for the court to make a pronouncement?

Mr Chairman, if an Attorney-General were not to make this primary judgment, the number of cases which would end up in our courts would be multiplied five or six times. I am talking about a factor of 20 times as many cases. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but surely the Attorney-General does not prosecute in every case. There would be such an increase in our work if the courts were asked to do the Attorney-General’s work as well, that we would not be able to deal with it. The hon member, who is a lawyer, will immediately concede that the Attorney-General and every prosecutor have a primary task, namely to decide whether or not they have a case. If they do not have a case, they must not go to court. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

The hon member must give me an opportunity to raise the following point. The Attorney-General judges a very broad community from a position of experience, insight and responsibility. I am not making excuses in this case for his not having served the interests of a specific community according to hon members’ experience. I am not condoning that, because that is what a few hon members have been trying to infer by their attitude and so on. The Attorney-General has to serve a broad community, as well as the legal community in South Africa, which views his decisions critically. I know the Attorney-General and he has much empathy and sympathy and a love for your and my people, our people. If hon members want to tackle me personally on that matter I shall bring the evidence. However, I do want to make the point that as the Attorney-General he has to answer to the legal community of South Africa if he makes a decision merely to satisfy a particular community—which could have happened in this case. Furthermore, however, he has to deal with practical considerations such as possible malicious prosecution where the facts are not available at all.

Mr Chairman, before I put my question, I should like to say that I do not think the hon the Minister is aware of the fact that there are experienced judges who also misinterpreted the facts and that when the accused goes to the Appeal Court, the court’s finding could be that the judge—an experienced person who was an advocate, then a senior advocate and is perhaps a judge or a judge president now—might have made a mistake. His ruling is then overruled.

All the policemen acknowledged that they were armed, and that they went to the scene in what the magistrate called a ghost truck—a spooktrok—because it was not a pickup van. They hid in the crates and according to one policeman—I think his name was Poegert—they jumped up and started firing at the crowds. I now want to know from the hon Minister whether that is not a case of “common purpose”. They were together, and they fired together. That is what the policeman said. Everyone admits that shooting took place.

Mr Chairman, I am enjoying the hon member for Daljosaphat’s argument today. He sounds like one of the legal fraternity with whom I can argue, but he has given me a very nice opening. He mentioned advocates who had become judges and were later proved wrong on appeal.

†This reminds me of something I once heard, viz that the definition of an appeal is the contempt that one court shows for another.

*The hon member sounds very self-assured. How on earth can he be so self-assured if he may be proved wrong or may be wrong and there is someone else who has to make a decision and does not agree with him? That other person has the responsibility, but he does not agree with the decision. The hon member argued that an appeal provided a person who had made a wrong decision with a remedy. Such is the balance of our system. Here we have a remedy.

†I urge you to use that remedy; apply for a nolle prosequi. I urge you to use it so that your sense of justice can be satisfied. I would be the first person to say that the decision was not the correct one if the nolle prosequi succeeds. Under the circumstances, however, I cannot justify intervening or breaking the age-old policy of not interfering with the Attorney-General’s decision.

There are obviously many more questions to come, Sir, and I will take them gladly.

Mr Chairman, I have one further question. I want to re-emphasise that we are not attacking the integrity of the Attorney-General. However, there has been a finding by an inquest court. What is the department going to do in order to correct that finding which is an incorrect one in terms of the hon the Minister’s argument?

Mr Chairman, the Inquest Act does not stipulate that the presiding officer has to make a finding of guilt in regard to a particular person. It has to make a finding as to the cause of the death and whether this could be attributed to any one person.

It is therefore not his duty to come to a decision, because the Inquests Act specifically prescribes that the record be sent to the Attorney-General who then has to come to a decision. In this particular case the Attorney-General has fulfilled the obligation to study the record and he has come to a decision. The question now is whether we are, in fact, well-equipped and well-placed, on the strength of a newspaper report, to challenge this decision of the Attorney-General. No one, however, has come forward and told me that they are going to advise the interested parties to request the Attorney-General to issue a nolle prosequi certificate. Why was this not done? Why do the hon members for Daljosaphat and Border not advise these people to apply for a nolle prosequi certificate? The hon members would be well advised to recognise the balance in the system. If there is a possibility of a wrong decision on the part of an Attorney-General—not this particular one—the very remedy in such cases is a nolle prosequi. In other words, the nolle prosequi balances out the wrong decision.

Sir, I want to correct the hon the Minister when he said I did not come forward.

Order! The hon member cannot correct a statement made by the hon the Minister. He should ask the hon the Minister a question.

Sir, I want to correct the hon the Minister, because that is what was said.

Order! The hon member is only allowed to ask a question.

Sir, the hon the Minister should realise that these people will now have to employ attorneys and advocates to apply for this nolle prosequi certificate. This will cost them money.

Order! The hon member must please ask his question and come to the point.

Sir, it is a question.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, perhaps in a lighter vein, I have announced a five-year programme for legal aid, but I cannot commit the Legal Aid Board to assist in this particular case. As I said earlier, they are an autonomous body, but this could be an avenue to pursue. It is for the Legal Aid Board to decide whether they want to become involved or not. If we are dealing with indigent families, that is how matters of this nature should be dealt with. I understand what the hon member was trying to say. He should perhaps have asked whether I was aware of the fact that these people will have to employ attorneys and advocates to take their case further. Yes, I realise that and that is why I mentioned the Legal Aid Board. Secondly, I also mentioned earlier that if it appears that there is a possibility of success, the Attorney-General may then take over the prosecution. If the hon member wants to advise the interested parties to make use of the remedy and apply for a nolle prosequi, he should proceed to do so. The Attorney-General will be only too willing to keep track of the case and take it over if there is a possibility of success.

Therefore, they do not have to go the whole way and spend all that money to get a prosecution. I do not want to repeat myself too often, but I want to emphasise that it may be taken over if in the process it appears that it may lead to a successful prosecution. That is perhaps another answer.

Finally, as regards a civil case, I am not here to give advice, but the Attorney-General points out in his report—which he perhaps should not have done, but that only proves his objectivity—that there might be a civil case. However, the onus of proof is perhaps not so heavy in a civil case. It is possible, but at this point in time I want to be very emphatic and I do not want hon members to get the impression that we are not fair and objective. However, I must emphasise that the Attorney-General has made a decision and that I am not prepared to intervene in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. I am prepared to do my duty, Sir, and to see to it that the hon member is satisfied with a proper explanation—which is what I am doing now. I will keep track of the case and still do my duty in my own peculiar way.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I would like to say to hon members that we have gone through the Trust Property Control Bill and that it actually emanated from the investigation the South African Law Commission made into this matter and from its recommendations. This Bill, being a Trust Property Control Bill, is highly technical and we also learned more about trusts. However, what was also interesting in the Bill was that it endowed the Master of the Supreme Court with more powers. The Master can, for instance, now also appoint a trustee in the case of a vacancy and he can remove a trustee if he feels there are sound reasons for doing so. The Master can also arrange that the trustee be remunerated for his services. I have gone through this legislation and we have no objection to it. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as my hon colleague said, the legislation before the House is the result of the recommendations of the South African Law Commission in terms of the protection of trust property. The legislation concerns the procedures which have to be followed in respect of trust property—the appointment of a trustee, the authorisation of security, the powers and authority of the Master of the Supreme Court, and so on.

The only clause which caused us some concern on the standing committee was the question of the audit, but we eliminated that. Consequently we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their contributions.

I think our legal fraternity stands to benefit most by this, in that the legal community will in future have greater clarity as to what should be contained in deeds of trust. One of the problems concerned the continuance of trusteeship. The question was whether a trustee could be replaced by someone else or whether a trustee could name someone else to act on his behalf. I think the compilers of the deeds of trust will know that in future the Master will pay very careful attention to trustees’ exercising their powers. In terms of clause 20, a trustee may be removed from his office in specific circumstances which are clearly set out.

The hon member for Daljosaphat gave me the impression that he fully understood the Bill. Therefore I cannot understand why he is experiencing difficulties with the question of auditing. After all, it is a well-known way in which to ensure that the administration is run properly. Consequently I do not believe there are any problems in this regard.

In conclusion I want to say that in the previous debate we touched on no fewer than 60 topics. In my opinion we had far too little time to discuss everything. Now it looks as though we have unlimited time to discuss this Bill. According to the rules, if I understand them correctly, I can spend half an hour on my reply to the debate. Yet I think cognisance must be taken of the need which hon members felt to discuss the previous item at greater length.

This Bill was studied very thoroughly by the standing committee. The committee made several amendments. I think that this year they had a significant share in legal reform. Apart from the two Bills which are still due, this is the last Bill which we shall deal with in this way this year.

Once again I want to thank hon members for the fact that they do not simply accept proposals, but examine them in depth and decide for themselves.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like an explanation. Am I to understand that in view of the fact that the hon Ministers are not sitting in their accustomed places—places allocated to them officially—they have now resigned as Ministers? [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to inform the hon member Mr Nowbath that the Chair does not involve itself with seating arrangements in the House.

May I, then, enquire whether the hon Ministers will be allowed to speak from their present positions?

Order! The Chair will allow the hon Ministers to speak from the seats where they are sitting at present.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In moving the name of the hon member Mr M Thaver, I need to explain to this hon House that the hon member Mr Thaver presently holds the office of Deputy Chairman of Committees, and merit alone is the consideration of this side of the House in seeking to elevate the hon member Mr M Thaver to the Chairmanship of Committees.

In his duties as Deputy Chairman he has come up to the expectations of this House and he enjoys the confidence of all hon members.

It is therefore my very great pleasure to propose that the hon member Mr M Thaver be elected to the position of Chairman of Committees of this House.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting that the motion that the hon member Mr Thaver be appointed Chairman of Committees comes not from the hon the Leader of the House, who is a senior member of the NPP, nor from the hon the Chief Whip of the House, who is another senior member of the NPP, nor from the leader of the NPP, who is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

However, it comes from a Minister of this House who is no longer a member of the NPP. This is the significance.

Order! I should like to inform the hon member for Reservoir Hills that he will be permitted to speak for only a few minutes because I do not have a list of speakers before me in respect of the first Order of the Day. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall not be more than a few minutes.

The significance lies in the fact that 11 members of the NPP no longer have any confidence in their leader. In other words, they have told their leader to “voertsek”. [Interjections.] Their leader does not want to …

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills must please withdraw the word “voertsek”.

Sir, if it is an unparliamentary word then I must withdraw it, and I do withdraw the word. I did not realise that the word was unparliamentary.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

They said to the leader of their party: “Get out!”. They told him to resign and no longer to remain Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Reservoir Hills is now dwelling substantially outside the scope of the notice of motion and I respectfully submit that he be prevailed upon to come back to the topic under discussion.

Order! I want to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that he should kindly confine himself to the draft resolution before the House.

Mr Chairman, the relevance of what I am saying lies in the fact that the position which is under consideration at the moment has been vacant for some time and the reason why that position was not filled was because certain people plotted …

Order! I must advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the question before the House is that the hon member Mr M Thaver be appointed Chairman of Committees. The question before the House is not to discuss the reasons why a vacancy has existed for quite some time. Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills kindly confine himself to the question before the House.

Mr Chairman, having regard to the ability and the calibre of the candidate for the position, he is one of those who was so disgusted with his leader that he left the NPP. He did so because he is a man of integrity, and a man of integrity could not remain in that party any longer. I support the draft resolution.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as is customary whenever someone is elected or appointed to a position, irrespective of which side of the House he belongs to, because knowing the House of Delegates, especially from that fateful day of 17 September 1984, concerning which the hon member for Reservoir Hills is quite aware due to the fact that on that important morning he was waiting on the steps of the H F Verwoerd Building …

Come to the point! [Interjections.]

…I want to congratulate the hon member Mr Thaver on the occasion of this House having elected him as its Chairman of Committees.

He is no doubt a very able person.

And an honest man! [Interjections.]

I think all the hon members on this House are honest. [Interjections.] If anyone talks about honesty and emphasises honesty, I think that reflects to others whether he is honest or dishonest. However, I want to assure the hon member Mr Thaver of the full co-operation of hon members on this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I also want to wish the hon member Mr Thaver well on his appointment. I wish to add my congratulations and to say that in this House the Chairman has a responsibility to treat everyone equally and fairly and to protect those who need his protection. I am certain that the hon member has those qualities.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Please allow me to motivate the proposal I have made in the name of Mr P I Devan.

Outside this House Mr P I Devan has had an illustrious career. He has served the community well in various fields of human endeavour. He is an educationalist who has had the welfare of the community at heart, and in recognition of his qualities, the community elected him to various steering committees, etc.

Therefore it is my pleasure to request that Mr P I Devan be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I want to support the candidacy of Mr P I Devan, the hon member for Cavendish, for election as Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Of all the Parliamentary positions, besides those of the Whips—elected Parliamentary positions and certain nominated Parliamentary positions— that of the Deputy Chairman of Committees is the lowest. I take note of the fact that the hon the Minister of the Budget, in proposing the name of the hon member for Cavendish, placed emphasis on the “illustrious career”—to quote him exactly—of the hon member for Cavendish. He is, of course, a well-known educationalist who was elevated to the rank of Inspector of Education, and he was also a member of the Southern Durban Indian Local Affairs Committee. I also learned, however, in regard to placing people in certain positions, that the shadow Cabinet was very widely publicised throughout the country. When a person on one side of the House stands up and places emphasis on the “illustrious career” of an hon member, and he is then offered the lowest position in the vacancies that have to be filled …

Nonsense!

Order! I should like to tell hon members that we are not going to permit any debate on this particular question. The question here is that of filling vacancies, a question which does not deserve the kind of debate that we are witnessing here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I please seek your guidance? Is it proper for any hon member of this House to stand up and to have the audacity to denigrate any office of this House? [Interjections.]

Order! It is improper and therefore the Chair will not permit such a debate. [Interjections.] Order!

I want to place on record that I am not denigrating that office. It is a matter of protocol. The hon member for Reservoir Hills must realise that there are certain levels. [Interjections.] I was referring to levels. The hon member for Reservoir Hills must realise that there is a word such as “rubric.”

Order! I am not going to permit any further debate on this question. The question before the House is that Mr P I Devan be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the nomination of the hon member to that particular position. In supporting the hon member, I should like to take this opportunity of referring to some of his very fine qualities. One of his qualities is that he is not position-orientated. I am aware of the fact that the hon member …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Did you not rule that you were not going to allow any further debate on this matter?

Order! I want to make it very clear that I am not going to allow any debate which denigrates any position. The hon member for Stanger must kindly be very short and to the point.

I abide by that request, Sir. To be short and to the point, the hon member is not position-orientated.

Order! I want to advise the hon member for Stanger that he is now making insinuations about position seeking. I do not believe that is going to contribute to a good debate. I request him to curtail his speech.

Mr Chairman, I merely wanted to place on record that the hon member had been offered positions before, and he did not accept them.

Order! The hon member is making the same remark again, only in a different context. He must please resume his seat.

I wish to conclude by saying that the hon member deserves that position. The House can only benefit by this election and the appointment of the hon member to that position. Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Order! On behalf of all hon members, I would like to place on record my congratulations to both hon members—the hon member Mr Thaver, as well as the hon member for Cavendish—on their appointment to these positions. As colleagues, we have come to know each other quite well. I am certain that they will uphold the traditions that have developed over the years here in Parliament. I hope they will uphold everything that the presiding officers have stood for in the past. I congratulate them.

Mr Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon member for Cavendish on being elected as Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Mr Chairman, the changes that have been experienced in the economic and political spheres must also be reflected in classroom practices. Any form of education has a high value attached to it, and therefore educational reform must become part of a total system of reform.

The Allison Commission of 1949 made some positive recommendations, some of which were incorporated in the Bantu Education Act of that time. Since then we have come a long way—to such an extent that the Government’s White Paper that was released in November 1983, expressed a strong desire for the acceleration in the rate at which parity in education is to be attained. More effective co-ordinating mechanisms at national level and a management structure that would be acceptable to all users of education in South Africa, were also introduced.

Probably it would be most significant to compare the enrolment of Black pupils in education over the years. In tertiary education between 1983 and 1984 we have had an increase of almost 12 000 students. In secondary education we have during the same period had an increase of 14 000 pupils, as is shown on this graph.

The statutory framework for parity and uniformity in standards has already been established. Educationists of all population groups can today take joint decisions on syllabus, examinations, conditions of service for teachers and financing policies of education.

In April 1986 a ten year programme was announced to upgrade education, especially for Blacks. It is estimated that by 1996 a design to improve the qualifications of teacher and teacher-pupil ratios and to accommodate the expected increase in the number of the masses, especially in Black education, will have succeeded.

The only aspect that bothers me is that at the moment we have only one facet being monitored of school fees collected by school committees. There is no proper control as to what happens to the funds that are being collected by these school committees. All the stationery etc is provided by the State. New legislation was introduced late last year and early this year to bring rural education up to par. A Bill is under consideration by the standing committee in which a standard type of uniform for all schools is welcomed. However, I would like the hon the Minister to give attention to what I said earlier on about the collection of school fees and what such fees are being utilised for.

Mr Chairman, the atmosphere that prevailed earlier on this afternoon was not really conducive to a very happy discussion. However, I wish to shrug this off and come back to reality.

I am very happy to be able to speak in this debate on my colleague’s Vote and judging from the very fine report I should not only commend the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister, but also their department. They have done an excellent job and they have gone into great detail to present to their department and to the public at large this fine report. I am very encouraged. It is not possible for me to speak on the various aspects of the report, but suffice it for me to say that progress continues and education grows from strength to strength. This we have noticed at first hand.

We are aware of the fact that while added funds are being made available, they are not really adequate for the purpose for which they have been allocated. I am aware that our colleagues in the Ministry from time to time do their utmost by way of input to get the most for their department. However, with the cake being what it is they have been apportioned a fair share so that they will be able to implement those programmes that they have in mind.

In political circles it is a well-known fact that the appointment of a Deputy Minister of Education is on the cards. I personally am very happy about that announcement, but I would like to be a little critical by saying that had this been done a little earlier, it would have served a much better purpose. Although there is the old saying that it is never too late to mend, I want to hasten to add—without any reflection on those who are holding the reins at the moment—that I personally feel it would be very difficult, even with the intention to replace them, to do so at this moment. My criticism is the question whether such an appointment should not have been made at a time when the incumbent could be groomed and trained alongside those who are still serving, so that they would benefit from their experience until such time as the incumbent takes over.

It will be a process of trial and error, I am sure. At the same time I also want to hasten to add that it is not that we do not have able people amongst our Black counterparts. We have them, but they will of necessity require the necessary training with regard to the administrative part as well.

At the same time I also want to mention once again the wonderful work put in by the Ministries of the Administration and we want to compliment such people as the Director-General, Dr Fourie, and his colleagues for this wonderful presentation of the report. Both the reports are outstanding. Those who are learning to make reports on the various aspects of education should take a leaf out of these wonderful reports. I know that in the past we have showered much praise on these people but they well deserved that. It is not that we are just saying this for the sake of saying it. This Ministry really deserves the praise that is being showered on it.

As far as education and training is concerned it can be crystallised in this line: Every effort is made to ensure that the department carries out the function of educating and training in a meaningful way and in the most cost-effective manner. This point is stressed.

Macro-planning which also included regional and circuit staff, on-going evaluation and, where necessary, adaptation of projects once again enjoyed high priority in 1987.

After the experience of the past years I am sure that the department will put forward plans to improve on what has been done. As far as macro-planning is concerned, a unique model for career education implemented as a pilot project in 1986-87 already involves more than 200 000 pupils in 1 000 schools. I say that that is wonderful indeed. I hope that much will come to the forefront of that pilot scheme on which improvements for the future could be made.

I am not sure whether I should go on to development and training but if I may do so I do not expect my hon colleague to reply at the same time, but it could be shared.

It overlaps, so do not worry.

At the same time I want to say that I am aware that a training programme in keeping with the increased monetary allocation is continuing. However, here again a word of caution and advice about family planning is necessary. Therefore, in planning the future teacher training needs in the different directions of study-—and I say this out of experience—there would be a need to keep an eye on the family planning of the community. I say this with circumspection, with the rising educational and social standards—in any community for that matter, I am not particularly referring to the Blacks but as we are aware, the Black community still has bigger families than any other group in this country—that family planning should naturally be taken into account and sight must not be lost of the drop in numbers lest we be caught out in a similar situation as we had been a little earlier on. At the moment we are in a bit of a predicament. I therefore pass this on so that when the time comes there will not be a surplus of qualified teachers on hand who cannot be put into jobs as is the case at present. They will then be pushed into the hands of the radicals and then we shall have a problem.

As far as development aid is concerned, vast strides have been made. Here again I want to refer to the wonderful report that has been presented. I have scanned through the whole report and I was really thrilled when I read portions of it. Vast strides are being made in various fields, such as farming, animal husbandry, housing and the provision of not only the necessary funds but also the expertise to assist in the building of the infrastructure and other related matters with the aim of achieving the ultimate, namely whatever the combined effort can produce.

The main aim of the department continues to be to make self-governing territories become responsible for their own development. I think that is a very wonderful aim indeed. More and more land is being made available for agriculture and for housing, both for self-help schemes and for mass housing projects. The general aim is to promote home-ownership, to create stable communities and to enhance the general living standard of the Black man—not only in the urban areas, but also in the rural areas, in the towns and in the trust lands as well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with the appointment of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, Minister Viljoen, the much needed recognition and accommodation of Black education assumed a realistic dimension that is worthy of note. With the help of his able hon Deputy Minister the educational needs of the Black community are promoted, although within limitations. Many inadequacies from the past have been corrected. It is not usual for me to pay compliments to Ministers but I want to place on record the work done by this Ministry in particular. I think I am supported in this by a large portion of all the people in this country, including the Black community, who were dissatisfied in the past. This hon Minister has created order out of the chaos through his dynamism. In the past education was dreaded and looked upon with suspicion but under his system matters have greatly improved. He has been able to demonstrate that education can provide a community with a vocation and can improve its quality of life.

I would like to call upon the Black community from this forum that it should take note of the change that has been brought about. It is a change for the better. I want to call upon the Black leaders, whatever their personal persuasions may be, to give recognition where recognition is due and to give their co-operation and assistance where educational matters are concerned. Education is of the utmost importance for the future of a community because an educated person is an asset to a community and to a country.

In that regard, if I may, I should like to request that in terms of its budget—although its budget has been increased most conspicuously in recent years—it votes more money, because money voted or invested in education is of tremendous long term and future benefit for this country. This is an area in which, I am sure, all reasonable people will agree that much dissatisfaction and tension must be defused, especially among the youth of this country, for the good of all in this country.

Whilst I am on this subject, I wish to say that I have noticed in the course of my communication with the various organisations in the country and with various people that White men and women have in various areas banded themselves into small groups—I include the commercial firms in this category, let alone the private schools— which are endeavouring to foster education among the Black people. Many of these people, I know, are doing this out of absolute concern to educate their Black counterparts, and without any ulterior motive whatsoever. I think this is extremely important, and I would like more people, more firms in the private sector, to help South Africa, particularly at this juncture when the country is going through difficult times.

I also recognise and I wish to express my indebtedness to them—the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the sums of money that they are—shall I say—giving as gifts to this country. Again, this is not done with an ulterior motive, but rather to assist this country during the transitional period to overcome its problems. I think that this is something which, despite the criticism from countries outside, we must recognise and encourage.

I am sure that the hon the Minister is fully cognisant of the fact that one of the key problems in Black education is the shortage of teachers. At some time last year, together with the Department of Education and Training, we made an excursion to a number of primary and secondary schools. I want to vouch for much of the contents of the report. I have seen for myself and been very positively impressed by the standard of education in both primary and secondary schools. I want to say that it compares very well with many of the schools that I have seen in the United Kingdom. One of my colleagues asked in passing whether these were not special schools selected for our visit. Notwithstanding that, the fact that Black teachers are able to tutor their charges to the level and standard of work that I have seen in Black schools, is commendable. I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and his deputy, the Director General and the entire staff. In particular I want to convey a message of hearty congratulations to the principals, the teachers and the inspectors in that department for the commendable work which they are doing despite a trying situation.

When I say “a trying situation”, I want to point out an area in which there has been, shall I say, a setback—here again I know that the hon the Minister is fully cognisant of this. I refer to the pupil: teacher ratio. We know, of course, that this cannot be overcome in a day, but with more money and more teachers—trained, qualified ones—this problem can be addressed.

I do not wish to mention the farm schools where, again, a significant improvement has been brought about.

The question of a Minister for Black education—either a Minister or a Deputy Minister—is a question on which this Minister will write history, and I feel sure that with the blessing of the hon the State President this could come about very soon if not tomorrow.

There are certain areas which are in need of attention. Let us admit it. There are many areas, for that matter. At the same time, however, let us recognise the tremendous degree of positive change and improvement that is taking place among the flourishing Black communities by way of education, training and schools.

Addressing the subject of the shortage of teachers, I want to say that I am aware that a great deal is being done through holding crash courses and in-service training for various categories of people and we would like this to continue on. Then again, that can only adequately be done to the extent that they have suitable matriculated candidates. It therefore becomes necessary to improve the standard of work at the secondary school level.

The other point I should like to address is the accommodation of school sports on a non-racial basis. I think this is an area that has to be exploited. There was a time when one community or race group looked upon the other as an outcast, as a pariah, but I think a tremendous change has come about which augurs well for the future. [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, we in this House have talked a great deal about Black education. This has not only been done in this House but in the other Houses as well, and rightfully so because Black education has always been an area for criticism, ill feeling and suspicion and has been a bone of contention to the Black people.

Before I begin my speech I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the good work they are doing. I can say before I start that I support his Vote.

I wish to make a few comments. The major recommendation of the De Lange Commission is that education for all races should fall under a single Ministry, and this recommendation was rejected by the Government in a White Paper. A historic fact in the past has been that of underexpenditure as well as overcrowded classrooms and shortages of teachers, particularly qualified teachers. The majority are unqualified, either academically or professionally or both.

A further distinction existed between the provision of education in the urban areas and that in the rural areas. Most of the improvements, particularly under the present hon Minister, have been made in the urban areas although, as I have said, this is a commendable task and this hon Minister and his department should be praised and congratulated, not only for that but for the overall care and provision for Blacks which has improved tremendously over the years under this hon Minister.

Although the Government is attempting to overcome the problem of inequality by budgeting more money for African education, the process of providing adequate education is slow, especially given the history of neglect. I should just like to substantiate this statement. In the past, before the tricameral Parliament, that is to say in the 1983-84 financial year, almost R3 907 million was budgeted for education in South Africa overall. Of this 52% was allocated to White education; 29% to African education in White areas; 11% to Coloured education, and 5% to Indian education.

At the same time Africans comprise 70% of the pupils and students of all race groups, whilst the Whites only comprise 16%, the Indians 3% and the Coloureds 10%. As I have said, things have now changed tremendously, and therefore that hon Minister and his department have my full support for this Vote.

In conclusion I wish to make the following statement. Regardless of how much financial input is made by either the State or the private sector, the chances of equality in education ever being achieved are small as long as the system of education remains segregated. Regardless of how much money is spent on African or Black education, or regardless of how sincere the Government is in its efforts to upgrade education, the perpetuation of a segregated education system will mean that these attempts go unrecognised and that ill-will and suspicion persist.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Montford made the point a moment ago that as long as there was segregation and unequal funding for the different education systems, the Black community would be dissatisfied with Black education. We agree with this, and I must compliment the hon member on making that point. I will not take that point any further, but I would, in fact, like to react to something that was said a moment ago by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House. I waited for the hon the Minister at least to have made an honest suggestion to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. The concession that I expected was that he would have told the hon the Minister sitting on the other side of the House at the moment that he would be quite willing to utilise all the facilities that he had at his disposal under the own administration for the upliftment of Black education. He could have made the point that whatever positions might remain unfilled, for example in teacher training institutions under his control, would be made available to Black students. This is something I would have expected that hon Minister to have said, but of course he failed to do so.

There is another thing. I would have expected that hon Minister to indicate to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid that there were fully qualified Indian teachers for whom his administration was able to find employment. I would therefore have expected him to offer those teachers to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid for use in his schools.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member know that on a higher level we have made these recommendations that our teachers be used? Does he also know that I have recommended a national strategy for teacher training to solve all problems involving teachers?

I do not happen to be a member of the Ministers’ Council in this House. Nor am I privy to any of the conversations that that hon Minister may have had with the hon the Minister sitting on the other side of the House. [Interjections.] I therefore cannot say whether that is, in fact, true or not, but implicit in that statement is the acceptance, on that hon Minister’s part, of the fact that there should be proper utilisation of all resources. I would have expected that hon Minister to have made those statements publicly in this House, and I would advise him to do so in future. I am nevertheless grateful for that statement.

This is a debate on the Vote involving Black education. Again, as in previous years, I wish to place on record the extreme irony of our situation. Here, in this Indian Chamber, we have a Vote on Black education being debated by Indian members of this Parliament without the active participation of the very people affected by the Vote.

I have drawn this to the attention of the hon the Minister in previous years when this Vote was before the House. I do this again, because the anomaly remains. I shall continue to do so until all Blacks are fully represented in this Parliament, and until they can effectively take part in this debate which affects them vitally.

This brings me to the suggestion that was made by the hon the Minister, that he would like a Black Minister of Education and Training. Before I react to this, I would also like to record my appreciation for several things that had been done by the hon the Minister’s department. Firstly, we appreciate the fact that the department has continued to grow at an unprecedented rate in terms of classrooms built or planned, the allocation of funds and what I would call an enlightened approach by the responsible Ministers concerned with Black education.

Secondly, I would like to record our appreciation to the Directorate and the staff for their cooperation whenever we have needed them, and especially to Dr Fourie who, I believe, retires sometime in August this year. I would like to take this opportunity of wishing him well. He most certainly has earned his rest. There is no doubt about it—this department has been a very hardworking department. The responsibilities carried by the Director-General in that regard, have been enormous. We therefore want to wish the Director-General, Dr Fourie, well.

Finally, I wish to record our appreciation that the hon the Minister is attempting to involve members of the Black community in setting up priorities, preparing strategies and generally assuming some kind of leadership for educational change in the Black community. For this we are very grateful.

However, I wish to come back to the hon the Minister’s comment to which my colleague, the hon member for Gardens, has already reacted in the other House. Might I add that whilst it is to be welcomed, it will exacerbate rather than solve the problems, because any person who is not a true representative, or is accountable to the Black community, would heighten the problems in Black education. I do not agree with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House that it is to be welcomed.

I believe that reforms in Black education would only succeed if they had legitimacy in the eyes of the Black community, because this is the community that is most important in this regard. It has to have legitimacy in those leadership groups. This cannot be achieved without involving that community fully in all of the political structures that are available to us in Parliament, or without convincing that Black community that their education is not inferior in any way to the education that is imparted to the other groups in this country. Anything less than this will not satisfy them.

The most significant restraint in this path towards parity in education remains this Government’s unwillingness to allow underutilised White facilities to be used by the other groups in this country. This is the core of the problem. Why can we not have a normal 40 pupils per classroom in primary schools and 35 pupils in secondary schools? In 1986 there was a shortage of 30 000 classrooms in Black schools, whilst there was a surplus of some 3 840 classrooms in White schools. In a similar vein, there is a shortage of some 12 000 qualified teachers in schools in the department under the control of the hon the Minister, while by contrast, some 590 White teachers and some 600 Indian teachers are without jobs. White teacher training colleges are either being closed down, or severely underutilised.

It was interesting for me to have to read a reply by the hon the Minister that he was unable to employ more qualified teachers in the schools under his control, precisely because there were not sufficient funds available to employ them. This is a sad state of affairs if we consider that recently the South African Institute of Race Relations undertook a piece of research in which it was highlighted that some R40 million could be saved if the underutilisation of White, Indian and Coloured teacher training institutions could be rationalised in such a way that that kind of money would not have to be spent on capital expenditure.

This is the kind of money the hon the Minister is looking for and my plea to him is to ask his colleagues in the Cabinet… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, am I permitted to speak from here? If not, I shall move.

Order! The hon the Minister may speak from there.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to add to the praises heaped on the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister as well as the hon the Minister’s administration, for the excellent task they are performing for Black education. In a way uncharacteristic of education we, to a very large extent, had to make sacrifices to build our schools. The Black community, mainly due to their economic situation, and their demographic growth in population, were unable to fend for themselves. Therefore, the ability to fund the improvements that are taking place in all quarters in South Africa is indeed a feather in the cap of the hon the Minister, his Deputy and their administration.

Having said that, I believe there is still room where services can be provided for Black education. On the periphery of Durban, in the Inanda area, the shortage of accommodation at schools is such that students are out in the open, under trees and have to sit on piles of wheels instead of at desks and on chairs. I would like to appeal to my colleague, the hon the Minister, to see to it that the situation there be arrested before it gets any worse. We know the present strategy of radicals to exploit situations of this kind. We certainly wish to prevent radicals and troublemakers from exploiting the situation should it get worse.

In the exercise of his duties, the hon the Minister should give this House some credit for the sacrifices it makes in relation to the funds that are made available to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. As a result of an arrangement between the hon Ministers of Education we in this House realise that we should also be making some contribution towards the upliftment of the education of the Black people. When I use the word contribute, I would like to point out to the hon the Minister and to this House that we are doing this even though historically we ourselves need plenty of funds to meet our educational expenditure in the community. Nonetheless my colleague, the hon the Minister as well as his hon Deputy Minister and the Ministry have an assurance from this House and particularly from members of the Ministers’ Council that we will do all that is possible to assist the hon the Minister in the implementation of his programme.

It is also very heartening to know that the Department of Education and Development Aid has built schools to which certain youngsters, who were going astray and who were being led by forces which were not working in the interest of these schoolchildren, were admitted. I think that that too should be applauded by us in this House and due credit should be given to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, with regard to Black education—I want to deal with three areas, ie the urban, suburban and rural areas education. The hon the Minister, his Deputy Minister and the whole team must be congratulated for having brought stability to rural education. I say this with particular reference to the provision of books, stationery and other teaching aids. Because of the distance from urban areas and the distance to schools in the farm settlement areas, the hon the Minister and his team have brought education to the rural masses.

It is of particular interest to note that from 1988 free books, stationery and textbooks have been delivered to all schools in rural areas. What is interesting is that all teachers and pupils were ready for work on the first school day without there being any disruption and without any unnecessary delay. In other words, the school was geared to function from the very first day. As a former headmaster I recall that classes only settled after one week due to disruptions. However, here the rural schools with their shortcomings were able to function from the very first school day without any disruption and that is as a result of the commendable action of the hon the Minister and his team.

Generally these schools belong to the farmers. We must acknowledge with a sense of gratitude that these farmers thought it fit to erect buildings for the children of their charges so that they could be educated. We must not forget them and we pay a special tribute to these farmers who have thought about educating the children of workers.

There was a time that the farm labourers’ children were enslaved to do manual and other menial tasks. Gone are the days when radicals can make an issue of such a topic that is damaging to the education system.

The department has deemed it wise to provide subsidisation for the extension of school buildings, additions and for improving the general physical plant of the rural schools. What is more, I note with interest that water supply—a vital element in any school—has been provided and some rural schools are equipped with electricity, and TV and radio seem to be part of the new methods adopted to teach rural children.

Furthermore, “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,” but “the devil finds work for idle hands”. The hon the Minister and his team have concentrated on the areas of play. I see adequate playing fields have been established and are being established and what is more teachers’ cottages have been provided for those teachers who stay far away from their homes.

Another very important aspect is the concern of the hon the Minister and his department for the unqualified teacher. I note with a sense of anxiety that nearly 43% of those teachers are holders of Junior Certificates or less. However, due attention has been paid to these teachers who are willing to improve their academic and professional qualification and training has been provided for them under the campaign Project Alpha where in-service teachers started in 1986 to improve their level of subject competence, teaching skills and methods. Through this training facility an under-trained teacher can be made a very proficient and efficient teacher after this initial training. They can also continue their training with a view to further improvement to their educational standards.

It is also gratifying to know that a college for this extra-mural training was established at Soshanguve in 1986 and very good progress has been noted.

In conclusion I want to compliment the hon the Minister. His department is involved with a very vital aspect, namely the promotion of education among the less fortunate in our community. Nothing is spared in the provision of education for them and I can only wish the hon the Minister and his department well in the coming year.

Mr Chairman, the 1976 Soweto riots centered around Black education and the justified dissatisfaction with Black education. This was especially as a result of a policy that affected the attitude towards and the development of Black education at the time and in the decades preceding the 1970’s. There is no doubt about the fact that what took place in Soweto reverberated throughout South Africa, especially in the Black townships.

I remember the words of the former Minister of Law and Order, who is now the Speaker of Parliament, when he spoke at the NP congress in the Eastern Province. He quite correctly stated that if we want stability in this country we must provide in the Black townships what is provided in other areas in South Africa.

I want to say that this country has come a long way since we saw the report of the investigation undertaken by the Human Sciences Research Council into education in this country, popularly known as the De Lange report. I know that the educationists from all the race groups do not accept this report in its entirety but nevertheless it contains an important principle, namely that equal education must be brought about in this country. The hon the State President once, on the occasion of the official opening of Parliament, set this country on this course to ensure the equal provision of education for all people in the Republic of South Africa.

The education fraternity plays a vital role in this country. If one examines what has happened in the terrorist arenas of the neighbouring countries, education is also used as an arena to destabilise countries and to create a revolutionary climate. Crisis committees were set up and we all know that people in the political arena climbed on the bandwagon. We had a short period where children were used as cannon fodder until the time when the silent majority in the Black communities became concerned and the slogan “liberation before education” was changed to “education before liberation”. I notice that the hon member who is my ex-teacher is giving me a big smile. [Interjections.] There is a difference between “govern” and “rule”.

Where one finds in a country like South Africa that people who are fighting for political rights lift the level of education, one will find solutions to the many problems of this country. However, I want to reiterate that we have come a long way in this country ever since that fateful year 1976. Of course, arising out of the announcement by the hon the State President, the education Ministers took one of the most significant decisions, by deciding on a formula for the funding of education in this country. I indicated in our own debate, when we were dealing with the Vote on the Ministry of Education and Culture, that that formula was not an own affairs formula. That formula was designed over a period to bring about equality in education in this country.

I have had the opportunity of reading the publications of this department, particularly with regard to what is happening in education in Natal and the Cape, and I want to say that what is happening there is in contrast to what happened Indian education at the time when Indian education was given impetus. When the central Government took over Indian education from the provincial governments, they over-concentrated in the academic direction.

However, when one looks at the annual report of this department one finds that they are now doing the correct thing, which is to train the youth for job situations in this country. The emphasis is on training, rather than over-emphasising the academic part.

At this point I want to say that one of the greatest assets, besides the hon the State President taking significant decisions to uplift underprivileged people in this country, was the arrival on the scene, at the hour of need, of a person of the quality and the calibre of the present hon Minister …

Hear, hear!

…as well as his very hardworking Deputy Minister.

I am aware that at one stage the Education Crisis Committee did not get venues; they actually landed in a hole in my road! After they left there were about 45 petrol bombs lying in my area.

However, I have some Black friends in these circles, and in spite of the fact that they are anti-Government, they recognise the tremendous improvement and the changes that are being made in Black education. This is in accordance with my dictum that no matter how much the rabble-rousers make noises, it is the results that count; it is the delivery of the goods that counts. When one drives past Black areas one can see the difference; one can see the schools and the institutions. I know that all is not rosy in parts of South Africa. However, I do not think that in all areas one has children studying under the trees. That was what the Natal Indian Congress members did to the EPG—the Eminent Persons Group mission—they took them to Inanda and indicated to them that all Blacks in this country are studying under the trees. As if the institutions indicated in the booklets published by the Department of Education and Training did not exist!

I want to read an excellent editorial which I have read in this House previously. I think it is appropriate that I read it in this House this afternoon. It appeared in the Cape Times on 28 April 1988. Now, if the Cape Times praises an hon Minister of this Government…

…it is very bad.

I do not know whether it is bad, but if the Cape Times goes out of its way to praise a Minister, then one can say that that is real praise!

I do not know whether any Cape Times representatives are listening to me but I should like to read this:

This also happened in the Cape Peninsula recently. The report continues:

I do not think I shall read the rest of the editorial, but these are significant words.

Mr Chairman, we have problems. We are a joint partner in this change because in order to enable education in the underdeveloped communities to advance, the co-operation of all Ministries and all education departments is of tremendous significance. That is why we are feeling the pinch in Indian education. We do not mind feeling the pinch if it is for the promotion of fairness in this country and I am glad that the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly is also playing its role.

However, the Indian community is different to the White community in that Indian education progressed as a result of the establishment of a foundation based on the process of self help. At a time when we are beginning to reap the benefits of the take over by the central Government of Indian education we are now facing this crunch. We faced this crunch at a time when the tricameral Parliament was established and I am sure that this would have been the position even if the tricameral Parliament had not been established because the formula system was decided upon long before this Parliament was established.

We do not want to avoid a revolution in one area only to create a revolutionary climate in another area where those who deliberately want to use education to advance their revolutionary aims are now thriving on fertile territory. The impression that is being created is: Because we sent Indians to Parliament, you are paying the penalty. They are even saying that the difference is being used to send children to the border. We are aware of the slogans, the pamphlets and all the materials that are being distributed.

We know how our Indian parents have suffered in order to send their children to teacher-training institutions. I am referring to those who did not receive bursaries from our department. I want to say something about this tomorrow during our debate on the Vote of the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services.

In this editorial it states that the department has set December 1990 as a deadline by which all teachers in this Black education department are to have matric, but those who have matric in the Indian and White education departments cannot find jobs. For the first time since we set up a programme four or five years ago to increase the numbers of our teaching fraternity we have a sad state of affairs in that we are having to refuse them employment. The question one must ask now is: Is there a shortage of teachers in South Africa? The answer is no, because in the single largest education department in this country, in which all teachers will have the minimum standard of matric only in 1990, we must be concerned with quality.

I know—I have said this before in this House— that if one wants change, there is a price-tag attached to it. One has to pay the price for equality, if one wants equality. At the same time, however, this gives one to recognise again the reality that there are groups in South Africa and that Blacks would not want even a Black with a Std 9 qualification to be taken out of a job and to have that job taken over by a non-Black. That is the reality. They want group protection, group security. If it were not for that, we could say that no teachers would walk the streets unemployed if they had their certificates.

I want to make an appeal to my hon colleague. This criticism will grow stronger. I know that there are problems. I know that even in the national states, to satisfy his political constituency, a Black politician would not like to see a Black teacher unemployed and to have Indians coming in to take the jobs. I know what the results of that would be. Let us not beat about the bush. We know what the consequences would be if, for example, a Black MP of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly were to terminate the services of 100 Black teachers and have 100 Indian or White teachers brought in. He would probably lose an election, because nowadays the emphasis is on constituency politics.

I think there are certain areas, away from the townships, where consideration should be given to employing the surplus Indian and White teachers. I know the feeling from the other side. A Black educationist once told me: “Are you Indians coming to serve Black education because you really want to serve Black education, or because at this time you do not have any jobs in your own department?” They are asking questions on the other side. The President of the Teachers’ Association of South Africa once discussed this matter with me, and he actually got the message.

Since we have played a role in this Committee of Education Ministers, we need the assistance of my hon colleagues. I think that we must get together, because in Indian education, if we do not find R10 million by January, we shall have to sacrifice 365 teachers. I hope I am not misquoted. We would have to sacrifice those teachers, but under no circumstances would we retrench. I therefore want to say: Let us not give figures about one department having a large number of teachers who do not have matric. If we are interested in improving the quality of education, we must take in those who are qualified to serve education.

Here I want to make this appeal once again. Reference was made in the House, not so long ago, to priority being given to the development of Black education in the urban areas. I have read the annual report of the department. It contains certain interesting figures. Of the 7 149 schools, 5 483 are farm-schools. A very large percentage of the schools are farm-schools, but they do not have as many school-going pupils as the other schools. A very encouraging feature is the attention the department is giving to farm-schools. For the sake of this country, for the sake of the children who could be misled, we all want to wish the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and his Deputy Minister well. I also want to wish the Director-General of the department everything of the best on his retirement.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to a point made by the hon member for Springfield when he said that we are talking on behalf of the Blacks, while they cannot talk for themselves. However, I want to clear my conscience. We have not always been in Parliament, and when we consider our Indian education, there must have been somebody who made representations to the Government. Now that we have the opportunity to be present in Parliament, we can make certain recommendations for those people who have been denied representation, until such time that the Blacks can be here to voice their own opinions and viewpoints.

I was going over the report, and I tried to witch-hunt for faults. I did find faults. The hon member for Montford mentioned disparity and education segregation. One can find fault with this department. However, when one reviews the amount of input that has been made into Black education, these faults can be forgiven. That is an important point. If one looks at the Budget Vote for Black education, it is R1,6 billion. It is increasing annually.

I want to read a few statistics concerning the provision of schools and teaching personnel. I am not going to go into the provision of books and other things. In 1986 there were 7 149 schools. This number has increased by 114 schools. In 1986 there were 36 969 teachers. In 1987 there were 38 158 teachers, which is an increase of 1 204 teachers within one year. In 1986 the school population comprised 1 457 463 pupils, and in 1987 this figure was 1 504 179 pupils, and increase of 46 716 pupils.

I think this is commendable. The programme that has been set out for Black education in this country is most welcome. I do not want to praise the hon the Minister and his Deputy unduly. I think the Government itself—including the Cabinet Ministers and their departments—is very sincere in tackling Black education, irrespective of the shortcomings. I wish to qualify this statement. There may be shortcomings, but with this programme over a period of five years, tremendous progress has been made. Because of the projects for the years to come, we can safely say that education will be of a very high standard.

There are other factors that control the education of an individual, and I do not wish to go into all those details. However, it is a fact that educational programmes are being designed in such a way that, in the years to come, education will be equal in this country.

If we look at the matric school population during 1981 and 1987—in other words, six years—there has been an increase of 33 943 matric pupils. There has been an increase of almost 100%, if one compares it to the figure of 15 000.

My problem now is that, while we are satisfied with the programme being set, we are worried about the curriculum in these schools. I went over the Director-General’s report and I have found that the curriculum is not any different from the other education departments. The curriculum is in fact designed on an equal footing for all the population groups of this country. However, when these matriculation students come out of school, what is their future and what are the opportunities accorded to them in the form of job opportunities, further education or technical education? That will be one of the biggest problems to confront this department. May I advise, at this juncture, that we should look at the manpower needs of this country and education should be orientated towards finding a job rather than pure academics—as some other hon members mentioned to me.

Even with all that education has been provided with, I must stress that most of us will always aspire to something more. However, it is a good quality in a man to aspire to more. While the department is monitoring the education of our country it should take note of the essentiality of parent associations at ground level. These could make an input into education and by those means parents will have a say in the type and quality of education they desire for their children. I also say this because children can be very easily manipulated by certain elements who will use children for their ends. Although there are objections here and there to these programmes, parents should act in a more responsible way. I am not saying that the Black population does not have responsible parents. I know that quite a number of them are very responsible when I look at the way those children are dressed when they go to school. They are immaculate.

The majority of them are.

Yes. They are very immaculate and very well disciplined too. However, parent-teacher associations could play a very important role in the improvement of quality in Black education.

I must add my quota of praise to the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister for the fine work that they are doing. I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the members of the department and at this rate all augurs well for the future.

Mr Chairman, I would like to make some introductory remarks this afternoon after which my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, will deal with the contributions made to the debate in more detail.

First of all I would like to add my voice to those of other hon members of this House in congratulating yourself, Sir, and your colleague on your elevation to the Chair of Committees in this House and wish you well in discharging this responsibility.

I would also like to record my personal indebtedness to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, who will be speaking just now, not only for the large part of the load which he has been bearing with regard to education, especially on the level of the schools and the training colleges, but also for the quality of the results which he has achieved, which have contributed so very materially to the improvement of the image and, I believe, also the acceptability of the work done by the Department of Education and Training.

I would also like to address a few words to the Director-General and his senior staff. First of all my thanks to the Director-General for a lifetime of service which he has dedicated as a scholar and a scientist—because that is what he basically is, and a person discussing a problem with him becomes aware of that—and also as a professional educationalist adhering to very high moral and ethical standards with regard to this profession. I also thank him as a man who can organise people in a team to get them to do a big job. I would like to thank him for what he has achieved for the department.

I also thank him for what he will be leaving behind when he retires in August. We wish him and his wife a very happy retirement. I hope that the energy and the usefulness which they still display in spite of their age, will be taken up by some further new exciting challenges to keep them busy.

The top management of this department under the leadership of the Director-General has been responsible for a very successful process of team-building and of welding together disparate experts in a tremendously large department into a well-motivated team. I think they have succeeded in selecting outstanding people for the top management posts. I should also like to mention here that the status of the seven regional directors who bear a very heavy responsibility in the decentralised regional organisations has been elevated to that of Chief Director recently and we are very grateful for this well-earned recognition.

I should also like to point out in spite of the complexity of the organisation, how successful the management and the overall control of efficiency in the department is. I think the best evidence of that can be found in the carefully made-up and well-presented details in the annual report. I must say I agree with hon members of this House that it is really an outstanding document.

Moreover, I think the top management of the department has succeeded in establishing a spirit amongst the leaders and amongst the professionals, the teachers, in the department that Black education need not only come along behind and always be on the road of catching up backlogs but that it can also achieve excellence in its own right.

An instance of this is its development of the new career-orientated model and its developing an outstanding set of management training programmes with the assistance of the private sector in this regard. This has enabled the department to upgrade the standard of management and administration very considerably right from the top level down to the most humble classroom.

I should also like to record here the inventiveness with which original solutions have been sought for many of the difficult problems this department has to face. One of the important achievements, which called for great tact, training and motivation, has been the way in which, under the present Director General, top posts have been awarded to Black educationists as well. Black educationists have been promoted to the management level of the department.

We mentioned a year or two ago that in respect of Deputy Directors who are second in command in the regions, at least one Black educationist has been promoted to this post in each of the regions.

In the 59 circuit offices of the department which have recently been reorganised, 22 of the Assistant Directors in charge of the offices are Black educationists and 37 are White. In the course of 1987 no fewer than 91 new posts were filled at the top levels from post level 5 to 7. Of these posts 40 have been filled by Black experts and 51 by White experts. This is a clear indication of the way in which proven merit on the part of Black educationists in this department has received its rightful reward through promotion to top level posts. I am very grateful for the contribution that these educationists are making there and for the leadership of the Director-general and his top management in carrying through these developments. They are essential and necessary to enable the people for whom this department is working to be involved in policy-making on a professional level within the department.

I would like to make a few remarks on the work that the department has recently been doing on formulating a clear mission for the department as well as some strategic objectives. With the tremendous scope and size of the work of this department, our organisational and managerial leadership, as well as the overall planning at the top level, are most important.

As a part of the department’s recent intensive involvement in macro-planning of the provision of education and especially through a series of in-depth workshops and top-level discussions organised among the senior staff, the department has now evolved a mission statement and eight strategic objectives. These are designed to act as a guideline to ensure the effective provision and the continual upgrading of relevant education.

The statement of intent may sound a bit abstract and complicated but I will present it carefully for the attention of the hon members of this House. The aim of the department has been stated as follows:

The statement contains the phrases “care and efficiency”. The one is a matter of understanding and empathy while the other is a matter of good teaching and organisation. These are two key words in the mission of the department. The ultimate goal is “responsible and meaningful adulthood” for the child. The means to be used are emphasized as “innovative and purposeful education.” The characteristics of this education must be that it is “applicable to the child” so that it meets both the ambitions and the abilities of the individual child, and it must also be “relevant to his life-world.”

Against this background eight strategic objectives have been formulated on the basis of the total context in which the department is required to operate. In this context the department has identified the following aspects which influence its formulation of strategic goals. First there is the department’s mission statement which I have quoted to the House. Secondly, there are the seven defined values which the department has formulated in conjunction with its professional staff. These values have been propagated as key concepts which should motivate the work of educationalists in this department. I would like to summarise these values briefly. They are: professionalism; a spirit of really caring for people; empathy or the ability to place oneself in the shoes—I can almost say within the skin—of the people who are the object of the education process; innovation, relevance, commitment and involvement; and, finally, emphasis on performance which must be evaluated. These seven values form an important part of the context within which the department is operating.

The context also comprises the existing community pressures, for example the growing number of people clamouring for education; the rising educational expectations on the part of adults and children; the requirements emanating from the economic and manpower realities within which they are operating.

The context also includes of a number of critical scenarios, eg economic and socio-political influences, physical and manpower resources, and technological influences.

Against the background of all these factors which have been discussed and studied in depth in several workshops, eight strategic objectives have been defined in broad outline. The first is to improve the key outputs of the department. By this we mean that the holding power of the schools should be improved, the examination results should be enhanced and the overall pass rate should be enhanced.

The second objective is to provide relevant education for specific target groups. This means a general formative education of an acceptable standard for all pupils as soon as possible within the limits of available resources, that is to say, compulsory education at least at primary school level within a period that we are presently considering with a view to defining a target date.

Besides this there is the objective of secondary education to meet high-level manpower needs, but in addition we shall have to take into account, in formulating the content of secondary education, the needs and requirements created by operating in the context of the increasingly important informal sector of this country. At present the department is involved in an intensive study on the interaction between the explosion of student numbers at the secondary and tertiary levels on the one hand and the job opportunities on the other. As several hon members have pointed out, the interaction between exploding numbers, also of highly-trained people, and job opportunities on the employment market must be weighed very carefully.

A third strategic objective is to upgrade teachers and their performance through extended pre-service training as well as a variety of in-service training courses, and so to achieve improved teaching and subject competence.

A fourth objective is to develop creative, alternative, cost-effective education methods so as to make education more accessible to those not presently part of the formal school system. It is well-known that it is estimated that more than a million children of school-going age are in fact not at school, and therefore the accessibility of education has to be improved.

A fifth objective is to raise the level of functionality of the existing school infrastructure through large-scale management development, as I have already mentioned, and also through improved management systems.

In the sixth place the objective is to upgrade the functionality of the department’s head office, regions and circuit offices by establishing a measurable performance culture. I mentioned performance and achievement as one of the values which the department cultivates.

In the seventh place, the aim is to secure meaningful parent and community involvement, as several hon members have emphasised, and involvement in the management of schools and in the development of the content of syllabuses and the education programme.

Finally, in the eighth place, the aim is to amend existing syllabi so as to meet the needs of the department’s various target groups.

In order to fulfil the aim as it has been defined and to achieve the strategic objectives as I have set them out, the department has developed a number of strategic plans covering a very wide spectrum. These strategic plans are supported by national plans, each dealing with a specific aspect of the responsibilities and the challenges faced by the department. These plans have been drawn up after scientific investigation by inter-sectoral task groups. At present no fewer than 26 such national plans have been developed to form the guidelines for concerted action by the different directorates of the department, and are annually evaluated and adapted.

I would suggest that before the adjournment of Parliament this year my department present an information presentation to hon members of Parliament setting out in detail, in a more understandable way and with more concrete illustrations, this comprehensive strategy which it has planned to direct its activities.

Based on this strategy, I would say that relevance is one of the most important and urgent matters requiring attention. The responsibility of the Department is to cater for the reasonable educational needs and aspirations of the various Black communities in our country. It is therefore part of our commitment to address requests and expectations of professional organisations and statutory bodies, such as the Council for Education and Training, that represent communities, as well as community leaders and individual parents or groups of parents. I am convinced that our record thus far in communicating with all these authorities and representative groups provides clear proof that such requests have been, and are being, addressed responsibly, sympathetically and effectively.

In some quarters the propagation of so-called “People’s Education” by a vociferous radical minority has wrongly been given the status of the wishes of the Black people of South Africa. The implication, then, is that we are expected to accept this so-called “People’s Education” to be offered in our schools.

It is well-known that “People’s Education” has by its proponents been declared to form part and parcel of the revolutionary movement and that its primary aim is to bring about chaos, disorder and disruption, so-called “ungovernability”, which should be the means for creating a vacuum in which so-called “People’s Power” will be substituted, and as such there should be no doubt that we reject and firmly oppose “People’s Education”. We are, however, also mindful of the quest for greater relevance in education and of the sound educational principle that the contents of the syllabus should reflect the life experiences and expectations of the different communities and population groups, that is to say, of “the people” concerned.

In this regard I have stated on several occasions that syllabi should be made more relevant to the lives of our pupils and to the future that lies ahead of them. I said that Black educationists should be enabled and encouraged—as, in fact, they are— to make a direct contribution to the revision and formulation of new syllabi. I referred specifically to sensitive subjects such as history, religious instruction and literature studies.

By this I meant—and still mean—that I welcome and need the views and the wisdom of Black people, particularly academics, professional people and parents, who are knowledgeable about these matters. The syllabi for these subjects will have to provide a broader spectrum of points of view and a greater variety of choice. The multicultural reality of South Africa and its population composition calls for more room in our syllabi to accord attention to the different experiences, values and aspirations of all groups and communities in South Africa, but also room to accommodate the common experiences and ideals which we all share with each other as fellow citizens of the same fatherland.

I should like to briefly report progress in this regard, after what I mentioned in this House last year. Already three specially appointed committees of the department have met to work on greater relevance in revised syllabi and they have prepared material for submission to the Department of National Education’s new Committee on Pre-tertiary Academic Policy and Planning. As hon members know, the Department of National Education has the umbrella authority for ensuring uniform norms and standards in respect of syllabi and examinations in all education departments.

One of the recommendations of our department’s committee, for example, is that in a subject such as history a certain section of the syllabus content should be common core learning matter applicable to all candidates, but that allowance should also be made for a choice among various commonly approved themes accredited with the new supervising Statutory Certification Council. Such an arrangement with alternative optional topics will allow different cultural or population groups a greater degree of freedom to concentrate on areas that they regard as more relevant to their own needs and aspirations.

In conclusion I should like to remind this House, as some hon members have, in fact, already done in anticipation, that the concept of relevance goes wider than the contents of a specific syllabus because relevance in education also means that the education must prepare and equip the child for meaningful and gainful participation in the economy of the country as a well-adjusted adult. In this respect the unique concept of a special career-oriented education model developed and implemented in phases by the Department of Education and Training is, I believe, an outstanding example of how education has been made more relevant to the needs of the individual.

By means of this new educational model, which has already been implemented and phased in with respect to almost a quarter of a million of our children, the target is that during the course of the next decade we shall raise the present figure of only 1% of all secondary pupils taking career-related subjects and technical subjects at high school to a new level of at least 20% and thereby greatly enhance the importance of relevant education for our children.

In outline, this is the general field of overall management and planning that the department is involved in, and also an illustration of relevance in education and the progress that has been made in that regard.

In conclusion I should just like to thank, very briefly and in general, all hon members for their positive contributions. My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, will reply in more detail.

Mr Chairman, I want to join the hon the Minister in the congratulations he expressed to hon members on their contributions today. In the very limited time at my disposal I should like to reply to a few of the arguments raised.

The hon member for Lenasia Central expressed his concern about the control over school-funds. May I just point out that school committees, which of course are parent-elected committees, decide on the amount of the school-funds to be paid, as well as on the manner in which this money is to be appropriated. School-funds are therefore governed by regulation and must be audited annually. School-funds are used for educational purposes only, for example educational tours, sports equipment and facilities, teaching aids, additional books for the library, etc. I therefore want to give the hon member the assurance that as far as possible we are exercising close and very strict control over these funds. It is also true, of course, but we do not have school-fees in our department. Tuition is free.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture made a very interesting reference to family planning and its bearing on the planning of teacher training. In this regard, could I just refer the hon member to page 323 of the annual report which actually contains very interesting reading matter. What is very interesting are the histograms shown there. If the hon member were to refer to them, he would actually see that the numbers of our pupils, in the Sub A and Std 2 groups, actually levelled off in the period from 1981 to 1987. I think that this is a very interesting indication. I should also like to point out that attention is being given, amongst other things, to the facet of family planning in the subject guidance, but it is always a sensitive matter, of course.

I believe, of course, that there is only one really effective way of ensuring birth control, and that is by way of the upliftment of the standard of living of a people, and I think that that should always be our first aim.

The hon member for Cavendish referred to his visit to our department last year. He participated in a tour to our department which we arranged, and I should like to thank him most sincerely for his participation in that tour and for the interest he displayed in doing so. We always appreciate it when our members of Parliament take such an interest in our activities.

He made reference to teacher training. The hon member for Phoenix also made reference to the importance of in-service training. In this regard I just want to mention a very important fact.

At the beginning of 1988, four departments for further education were instituted at four colleges of education, namely at the Algoa College in New Brighton in Port Elizabeth, at Sebokeng College at Sebokeng, at Soweto College in Johannesburg, and Daveyton College in Daveyton. That is where Mr Chairman and I both come from. At these departments for further education, part-time further education is offered to all teachers with a teachers certificate and standard 10, enabling them to obtain a primary teachers diploma, which will place them on a category C level for salary purposes.

A total of 492 teachers have registered at the four colleges at the beginning of this year. I think this development expands the possibilities for teachers to upgrade their professional qualifications. I also want to mention that for the past few years Vista University has also been offering a course which enables teachers in service to eventually obtain a secondary education diploma.

The hon member for Montford mentioned that there has been a lot of improvement in the education field, especially in urban areas. This might seem to be the case, since education in urban areas is more visible, as it were. However, it is also true to say that after the approval of the recommendations from the report on the provision of education in rural areas, very good progress has been made over the past year. I have dealt with these in the House of Representatives already. However, I would like to emphasise the following improvements.

We have introduced standard six and seven classes at more than 400 rural schools. There has been an increase in the subsidy for the erection of farm schools, and we have also introduced management courses for staff of farm schools. In this regard we are certainly making progress.

The hon member for Springfield made mention of unused facilities. I think it is already our policy that where unused or redundant school facilities are available which we can use for the purpose of Black education, and where these facilities are suitably situated, we are certainly doing our best to acquire these facilities for our purposes.

I wish I had enough time to respond to the hon member’s arguments on teachers’ colleges. Perhaps it will suffice to say that the hon the Minister also dealt with these arguments in the House of Assembly. However, I do not think this is such a simple matter. There are other facts which we also have to take into consideration. One must be careful not to generalise in this regard.

The hon the Minister of the Budget also referred to facilities in Inanda. These schools are situated in the area which falls under the jurisdiction of KwaZulu. For this reason I would not like to comment on that. I also thank him for the kind words which he expressed towards the hon the Minister for his contribution in obtaining funds for education in general. I agree with that. I do not think we could have a better champion for the cause of education in this country than the hon the Minister.

The hon member for Phoenix also made mention of the fact that he had observed that at our schools in the rural areas free books and stationery were available from the first school day. He is the first MP to have made that observation and I wonder how many of our hon members realise how much effort had to go into this achievement. I would like to thank him for this and I wish to congratulate our department for being able to make this possible.

He is a very positive man.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also made mention of the employment of the surplus Indian and White teachers. As far as our department is concerned there is no discrimination whatsoever, but this decision in the final instance has to be taken by the Black communities. When they agree that these teachers can be taken into our service, we will use them where possible.

The hon member for Merebank mentioned job opportunities and I would like to point out to him that as far as technical education is concerned, we have also made major progress. In 1980 we had only two technical colleges with 401 students and last year, only seven years later, 20 colleges exist with more than 8 000 students following a variety of courses. I believe this is a major achievement.

I am sorry that my time was limited and I hope that I have given enough attention to most of the hon members. I thank them once again for their courtesy and for their kindness.

Mr Chairman, South Africa is regarded as a world within one country. I mention this especially with regard to the debate on the budget of the Department of Education and Development Aid. With the First, Second and Third World circumstances this country is indeed emerging, maybe not so much in a political sense, but in the sense of facing the stark realities of development. Looking at history, great nations of this world even after world wars have immediately focused their attention on development. We are aware that the world has its attention focussed on South Africa. South Africa happens to have become the spring-board for many a great politician in the international community. However, those critics of South Africa should also pay a little more attention and visit this country to see for themselves what this country is demonstrating in practical ways for development.

I know that every speaker in this House has complimented this particular department. I also want to compliment my colleague the hon the Minister, together with the hon the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and his department. Looking at this comprehensive report one can see that it bears evidence of the honest intentions of a department and of the Government in relation to the development of those who need to be developed.

This department only came into being in 1985.

Within this short space of time it has made indelible contributions to all facets of development. In the agricultural field no one ever imagined that of all things paddy rice would be grown on the Makatini Flats with the expertise of foreign specialists.

This department has proved that given the opportunity and the expertise South Africa can produce today what other countries have produced. South Africa can stand up to any country in the world. In the field of paddy rice at one time only the Indian community were more or less orientated towards this field and we are proud that our Black brethren on the Makhatini Flats have excelled in it too.

Order! There are far too many discussions on the side. Give the hon the Minister a hearing. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I come from the KwaZulu territory and I have a very close link with the Black states and I am aware of the circumstances. I am also aware of developments which we acknowledge in this House. Therefore, any responsible person in South Africa must naturally have the interests of other people at heart.

In one area near the Eshowe District in the last few years where the Black people have been given incentives and guidance, in a short space of time there are now 13 000 sugar farmers. This is the result of assistance and guidance.

Let us look at the multi-faceted activities of this department. They range from industrialisation, commercialisation, to education, agriculture and to the total upliftment of the Black states in this country.

Having gone through this report I have made a few observations here: As a result of the development of the self-governing territories and the provision of industrial growth points within, adjacent to and in the vicinity of these areas, the establishment of orderly towns with the accompanying infrastructure has been identified by the Department of Development Aid.

This is an essential action. To achieve this goal numerous towns have been established in the self-governing territories and on South African Development Trust Land.

Provision is also made in the department’s budget to develop these towns. For example, during the financial year that ended on 31 March 1987 about R150 million was provided for this purpose. The land that is bought by the South African Development Trust for the establishment of these towns is to provide for such urbanisation as is properly planned and provided with services such as water, streets, sewerage, reticulation, etc. Provision is also made for proper facilities such as schools, health, recreation, etc, as well as business and industrial development.

Although the education debate is over, having some experience in this field and as a result of certain requests I want to make a comment here. I say this with respect, but there is tremendous concern amongst the Black school children in many parts of the region that whereas all other races are being provided with free pupil transport, in some areas Black school children are not provided with this. I should like my hon colleague to have a look at this aspect. Until the end of 1983 the Department of Development Aid also seemed to have erected some 150 000 homes of which approximately 100 000 were sold to the inhabitants of the town.

Thereafter sites were provided with full or rudimentary services, allowing people to erect their own houses according to their needs. A self-built housing scheme was also introduced. Individuals who earn less than R500 per month could apply for loans up to R5 000. They could either take the cash or be provided with building materials, and they could also make use of building contractors. It is a noble deed on the part of the department to give such encouragement to the underdeveloped communities.

The private sector is further encouraged to get involved in the provision of housing and infrastructure. For this purpose they are allowed to undertake council developments on serviced sites or even on barren, undeveloped land within the townships.

The towns situated within the self-government peripheries have been transferred from the governments of these areas and they now have full authority over the planning, establishment, maintenance and administration of these town-ships. Some 13 towns remain that are situated on trust land where these functions are still performed by the Department of Development Aid.

I also wish to make special mention of the KwaZula-Natal Planning Council who investigated and reported on ways and means to improve the quality of life of the Zulu people in the KwaZulu-Natal area, with special reference to the Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Pinetown metropolitan areas.

I want to make an appeal to my hon colleague that when it comes to the identification of commercial and industrial development within his exercise, I would like to see that these developments are not duplicated. With regards to training, it should be co-ordinated with all the other facets of activities such as agricultural training, commercial training and industrial training. With this I want to thank my hon colleague and his department. I am quite sure that with his vision South Africa as a country will win wide recognition.

Mr Chairman, in the very limited time that I have at my disposal the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech. There is another reason why I cannot comment on the speech made by the hon the Minister. I tried to listen to the arguments that were advanced but I must say quite honestly that I could not follow his arguments.

You have not got the brains!

The hon nominated member Mr Nowbath has made some reference to a lack of brains. I agree with him entirely. He does not have any brains—he never had any brains. That is why he is here as a nominated member. [Interjections.]

I did not fiddle elections!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to refer to another hon member by saying he never had any brains? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Springfield may continue.

I do not blame the hon member who has just now assumed the position of a Whip in this House, because he does not know the Rules of this House. [Interjections.] If he did know them, he would have been aware that I can call the hon nominated member Mr Nowbath by his name. The rules of debate of this House preclude me, of course, from calling the hon nominated member what I would really like to call him. [Interjections.]

You have not got the guts!

Hansard records that I also referred to that hon member as having been castrated by the leader of his party, and the hon member did not deny it.

Order! The hon member must return to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for drawing my attention to the Vote before the House. The importance of this Vote as far as I am concerned—we support the Vote—lies in the fact that of the R976 million asked for in this Vote, an amount of R884,139 million is being allocated to the self-governing states.

Inasmuch as I oppose the idea of the fragmentation of this country, nevertheless we believe that the non-independent self-governing states that we have are in fact creations of reality. That being so, we believe that they be provided with as much funds as possible to in fact develop the resources that they have and to provide the infrastructure that will create the development in those areas. Therefore we naturally support whatever funds will be voted in that regard.

In particular I would like to commend the hon the Minister who is present this afternoon and his hon Deputy Minister for ensuring that commercial farming undertaken in these Black territories is something that is being encouraged. I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am very encouraged by the fact that in his report mention has been made of the fact that something like 1 460 commercial farmers were in fact encouraged to farm something like 72 hectares of arable land. To me this is most encouraging, and I welcome this and appreciate the assistance that that department has given to these farmers.

The other point in regard to which I should like to record my appreciation is the fact that it was this hon Minister who was able to put together a relief package amounting to something like R55 million in the recent Natal flood disaster. I come from Natal and I am very much aware of the damage that was done to the infrastructure of KwaZulu-Natal. We would like to place on record our appreciation to the hon the Minister for so quickly coming to the assistance of Natal-KwaZulu in that regard. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I have a ruling from the Chair? What is the difference between “muddle-brained” and “a person without brains”? I ask this because “muddle-brained” in terms of the Rules is unparliamentary. I would therefore like to have a ruling from the Chair on whether there is any difference between “muddle-brained” and “a person with no brains”. [Interjections.]

Order! I think that in the spirit in which both the hon member Mr Nowbath and the hon member for Springfield used it, it was permissible. In any event I should have to call upon both hon members to withdraw those remarks. However, I think it was done in a particular spirit, and we accept that spirit.

Mr Chairman, after the developments that nearly ensued in discussions across the floor between the hon member for Spring-field and the hon member Mr Nowbath, I think I shall confine myself simply to the Vote.

Before I forget, as I did during the last visit of the hon the Minister to this House, I want at the very outset to compliment the Director-General of the department, Dr Van der Walt, and his team on the very able manner in which the department is being run. I can say from experience that whenever it has been necessary to call on the Director-General and his team they have been available and they have been more than accommodating. To put it in a nutshell, they have been very helpful. For that we are very grateful, and it goes without saying that when one compliments the Director-General and his team, the hon the Minister and his team come into the picture too. When one takes cognisance of what has been said in this House it is clear that it is this hon Minister and his team who are doing our country a great service.

I believe that in order to allow hon members of this House, as Parliamentarians, to make effective and constructive contributions in respect of difficulties being experienced by independent states and the TBVC countries it is absolutely essential, as I think was stated last year during a debate in this House, that representatives of these states realise that in order for us as Parliamentarians to make meaningful representations and meaningful contributions to debates that affect them, we have to be kept abreast of developments in these states.

I say this with respect. I mentioned at one time that we had had the good fortune to visit Kwa-Ndebele, where we were able to see at first hand the developments there and subsequently to make what I believe were meaningful contributions to a debate when we discussed the Rust der Winter episode in this House.

I was pleased to receive in the post yesterday an edition of Ikwezi, which is the newsletter of the KwaNdebele government. Reading this newsletter in conjunction with the department’s report, I think it is very encouraging to note, and I want to quote from the first page where it says that a great homecoming reception was afforded the Chief Minister of KwaNdebele on his return from Taiwan. What I should like to quote, is the following:

It goes on to say the following:

What I want to highlight in this regard is the fact that one has commuters leaving home at 2 o’clock in the morning and returning at 8 o’clock at night, giving them in effect four hours to be at home in KwaNdebele. I do not believe that any community, any people, can make a success of their lives under these conditions. It does not afford them time to work, let alone rest, because by the time they get to the work place, whether it is on the Reef or in the Pretoria area, the important thing is that they arrive there tired. There is no time for them to really buckle down to their work.

I do not know whether this situation exists in the other self-governing territories as well, but this is an area which I think the central Government and the hon the Minister who is present here today, will have to address. It is a question of providing job opportunities within the boundaries or on the immediate borders of these territories.

Turning to the report, there are two aspects I want to touch on. The first of these is nature conservation and I am heartened to note the following with regard to the hon the Minister’s department. The report states the following:

This refers to the areas of the independent or self-governing states.

Nature conservation is an important aspect. It is a source of revenue. Once these areas are able to attract tourists, I believe that that in itself could, through foreign exchange, add to the degree of their self-sufficiency.

Another area is that of manpower aid. To me this is virtually the most encouraging. According to this report, and I refer to page 46:

This is then the most important aspect:

This is encouraging because it is the central Government which has, through legislation and the policies of the Government, created these self-governing states. If we, as legislators, leave these states to fend for themselves, we can only expect disaster. I say this with respect. I am not undermining the ability or credibility of the people who are responsible for running these self-governing states. There is a very obvious fact, from the figures indicated here, and I should like to quote them for record purposes:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am heartened by the fact that in our country the forced removals of yesterday are no longer the order of the day. I want to say that my colleague, the hon the Minister, is largely responsible for influencing the Cabinet by his feeling of compassion for people, and today in South Africa we no longer have this facet, this legacy of the past.

I just want to record a few words of disquiet I have in regard to the Moutse area. I am referring specifically to the people who were under the jurisdiction of and were part of Lebowa from 1972 to 1980. The Moutse area was excised from Lebowa in 1980 and brought under the direct administration of the Department of Co-operation and Development. In 1985 the consolidation plans were published, plans which incorporated Moutse into KwaNdebele. The people of Moutse would prefer, for various reasons, to be governed by the South African Government, failing which, to be incorporated into Lebowa, and they have vigorously voiced their objections to being incorporated into KwaNdebele. I know that this is an on-going matter which has been discussed in many forums in the country. It has been the subject of legal discussion, etc. In all fairness, however, an assurance was given to the people of Moutse that those who preferred to move to an area designated to become part of the national state of Lebowa would be given assistance to move and would be compensated. As a result, 845 families were then moved to the Immerpan area. The question I asked was: Was it necessary for these people to leave a settled community and start afresh in an alient environment? I am saying this because of the fact that in the introduction to my small contribution this afternoon I said that there was a new trend in this country and that what had happened before was no longer the order of the day.

I specifically know that in my constituency—in the Drakensberg, Rietfontein and Matiwane’s Kop area—there was for a long time the threat of removal, and this hung over their heads like the Sword of Damocles. They were, in fact, not removed. The hon the Minister saw to it that these people would be allowed to remain there.

Despite all that has happened, I honestly believe that the people of Moutse must be given an opportunity to remain where they are. I believe we should do everything in our power to assist them.

I had intended to include a few remarks about education, but I will desist from doing that for the reason that this Bill only deals with development aid. Allow me, however, to say just a few words of thanks and appreciation to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister. Early in his term of office I had a problem of pensions for some teachers in my constituency. I want to express my appreciation to him and the departmental officials for having helped me to resolve the problem of those teachers. They specifically asked me to convey their thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the departmental officials for their kindness in having resolved this problem. It took them some time, but it was, in fact, solved some months ago.

In his speech in the House of Assembly, the hon the Minister made mention of some irregularities. No matter which arm of government is involved, irregularities should be combated and rooted out.

Hear, hear! Even in the House of Delegates!

Yes, even in the House of Delegates.

Especially in the House of Delegates!

I repeat, no matter which arm of government, irregularities should be combated and rooted out. It is heartening to know that the hon the Minister’s control measures are effective. The chief ministers of the self-governing states are strongly against irregularities. We want to congratulate them in their efforts to root out any irregularities that may exist in their territories.

I strongly believe that to pay lip service to and talk glibly about clean administration, is not good enough. One can talk about clean administration, but if one does not have clean administration, it serves no purpose to even talk about it. One must have the courage and strength to tackle the problem, and do something constructive in eradicating the problem. Here I would like to sincerely congratulate the hon the Minister in his efforts to remove any irregularities that may exist in the administration under his control.

During a recent tour of the self-governing states, I and many of my colleagues saw the results of agricultural development. Although the development of agriculture in these territories was very impressive, I made a statement at the end of the tour to the effect that even though we were impressed, much more needed to be done. I want to reiterate that viewpoint: Although there is a lot of agricultural development taking place, much more needs to be done. Taking into account the number of people in the self-governing states, and comparing it to the number of people who are engaged in agriculture, the number of people who are benefiting from agriculture is still too small in relation to the number of people who need to be assisted. Whilst a beginning has been made and while a commendable job is being done, I am of the opinion that much more needs to be done.

My appeal here is that more land should be made available to Black farmers. One of the ways in which I believe this can be done, is that much more South African trust land which is still currently being occupied by and leased to Whites should as far as possible be made available to Black farmers. In this way we can be assured of building settled communities where one has a happy and contented people.

In conclusion I would like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I am told by the people in the Inanda area that for a number of years land which was consolidated in kwaZulu has not been valued and these people have as yet not been compensated for this land. I am not sure if this falls under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister, but the people in the Inanda area are complaining about this aspect. They feel that their land is being used for squatting purposes and the valuation of and the compensation for this land has not been finalised. I would like the hon the Minister to look into this matter to see what we can do to bring a message to the people as to if and when the matter will be finalised. If nothing is being done, why is this so and could it be because of a shortage of funds for staff?

Mr Chairman, having listened this afternoon to the hon members in benches on the opposition side, I am afraid I have not seen so much kow-towing to hon Ministers as happened this afternoon. I would have thought that the kow-towing should have come from your right, Mr Chairman, and not from your left. I suppose I may refer to the so-called opposition, because in this House loyalties change faster than and more often than Mrs Warren used to change her bedmates each night. At this stage I can do no more than observe the massive support which the opposition has given to the hon the Minister today—and justifiably so, as I am no critic of the hon the Minister and have never been—even though there were people in the opposition in the earlier years who used to slam the hon the Minister. However, now they bow to his feet. They are late developers, but I admire them for at least having developed.

I would like to point out that oddly enough, the two hon members of this House who are running in tandem with another party in another House, blame the present Government for what is seen as fragmentation of the organisation of this country. The homelands as such did not begin with the Tomlinson Report or with Dr Verwoerd. They began a long time back, if one looks at Natal’s history and Sir Theopholis Shepstone’s native policy of Natal, it is stated clearly that in Her British Majesty’s Dominions abroad, in Natal there were to be what were called native reserves. It was the policy of the British Government at the time, coupled with the colonial Government in Natal, to ensure that the natives—as they called them then—remained in their reserves. They were to come in to work in the White areas and then to return to their homes. That is no secret to those who know their history.

Unfortunately, instead of trying to reverse it this time, there was a time in the history of this country when certain people in the Government, following again on the British political credo of divide and rule, forced or rather sharpened that system.

We therefore have some very stark realities. In my view there can be no turning back of time. One cannot unscramble the whole land. Nor for that matter does any history in the world support such a possible unscrambling.

In fact, those hon members who know the history of India will know that the independence of India—I am not talking about the Pakistan and partition, I am talking about India as such—there emerged, at the insistence and demands of regional linguistic communities, linguistic homelands. Andrapradesh did not exist at the time of independence in 1947, but it was a leading member of the Indian National Congress in Pundit Nehru’s Cabinet who went on a hunger strike to demand a new state. Andrapradesh only came into being after independence. I quote that as an example.

What do we have in Canada? One has French Canada and English Canada. I will at this stage simply say we have the reality of the homelands and since this Government and its ancestral governments in this country created the situation, I do not subscribe to the squealing and the cries of certain politicians, particularly certain White politicians in this country, who talk of the burden on the South African taxpayer. The greatest contributor to taxes in this country is the White man and I say let him pay fully for this. Let as much money as possible be put into these homelands for them to be improved so that the day will come when by way of education, greater learning, greater understanding and greater perceptions of certain realities will result in a South Africa which can be a confederation of democracies, in my view.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to reply to the hon members who have taken the trouble to make a careful study of the annual report of the Department of Development Aid and to acquaint themselves with some of the very interesting and often exciting aspects of the development of the less-developed areas in the self-governing territories and also in the trustlands earmarked for incorporation into those territories.

Allow me also at the outset to convey my personal thanks to the Director-General and his staff for the outstanding work that they have been doing. I think they have reaped quite a good share of commendation and praise in the debates thus far and they have well deserved it. I am very pleased that they can be encouraged in their work by the positive attitude of hon members of this House and of other Houses.

Together with the Department—this has not been mentioned in this House, therefore I should like to single it out for additional reference— there is also the South African Development Trust Corporation popularly known as the STC which is really the business arm of the department promoting agricultural development, industrial development, commercial development, transport development as well as the whole gamut of development. Here I should like to mention with gratitude the contribution that the STC has been making especially in promoting one of the aspects that has been well commended in this debate, i.e. the settlement of commercial farmers from the Black communities.

It is through the leadership and the ingenuity of the STC under its previous managing director who has recently retired, dr Koos van Marie, together with the Director-General of the department, Mr Van de Wall, who most knowledgeable in this area, that a new strategy has been worked out since the early eighties to bring about the settlement of commercially viable farmers from Black communities. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture gave us a rather comprehensive picture of this settlement activity and I would like to thank him for it.

However, I do not think people realise how much preparatory work goes into this whole project. Before the agricultural planning can be done resource surveys have to be made, as well as studies of the potential of the area. This is being done by the experts from the Department of Development Aid.

Only last year they undertook resource and potential surveys over an area of 205 000 ha, the largest part of which is the Upper Tugela location. Hon members from Natal will know that this is a very problematic area from the point of the erosion washing downstream in the Tugela. This year the department has in mind another 92 000 ha for such surveys and the total target for the future is another 650 000 ha. This figures give hon members some idea of the area to be covered by way of surveys of the potential and the resources that are of concern.

The actual detailed planning with the view to the implementation of commercial farmer settlement is another important job. In the past financial year 67 000 ha have been completely surveyed in this regard. The department has another 170 000 ha on its programme to be done with a view to the settlement of commercial farmers.

As for the actual implementation in the case of extensive farming it comprises the setting up of cattle pens and cattle camps, and in the case of irrigation farming it is the laying on of the whole complex of irrigation. This is a very costly aspect. In the Makatini Flats Project which hon members have mentioned here, the total development cost thus far of the whole irrigation scheme amounts to R35,5 million. At the same time I am very proud to say that the water charges levied on the farmers in the Makatini project are sufficient to cover the current expenses. They are therefore not subsidised on a sub-economic basis, except for the overall capital expenditure of the dam and the main irrigation canals, which in most irrigation schemes are carried by the Government and not by the farmers themselves.

These are some of the indications that I want to give of the extent of the planning and the preparatory work that go in the settlement of commercial farmers. For this I want to thank the STC and the department for their leadership and their ingenuity.

I now want to deal in more detail with the hon members. My colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture referred to a variety of positive matters and he mentioned that our critics should come and see what South Africa is achieving. This reminds me of what the hon the State President recently said to visitors from overseas after he had presented them with an information session coming from the department about its development work. He used the following Churchillian expression: “Seldom have so few people done so much for so many with so little thanks.”

The hon the Minister also referred to the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council Project and he called for careful planning so as to avoid overlapping.

However, I want to give him the assurance that one of the outstanding qualities of the planning done by that council is the way in which they have involved the communities and community leaders. In fact, part of the project costs goes towards the employment of special communication experts, who bring about the necessary liaison between the abracadabra of the engineer and the planner on the one hand, and on the other, the ordinary people who are not always able to understand all these high-faluting plans and technical language. In this way the leaders of the community feel that they are actually involved. I think that this has been a very imaginative way of setting about matters.

In this respect I should like to pay tribute to the late Bishop Alpheus Zulu, who was the chairman of that council.

Hear, hear!

He passed away tragically a few months ago. His leadership, insight and ability to bring about interaction between highly technical modem development on the one hand and the involvement of traditional rural communities on the other has been part of the outstanding success of the work of this council.

The hon member also asked about the department’s policy—I think this refers more to the Department of Education and Training—with regard to the funding of transportation of pupils to schools. With so much still to be done in terms of providing actual educational facilities, with limited funds, the department’s policy has thus far been to concentrate on providing the schools with sufficient teachers as close as possible to the homes of the children. As the hon the Minister may know from the report on the promotion of rural education, our goal is to have a school not more than 5 kilometres away from the child’s home. At this stage, however, we have made a contribution this year to the bussing companies, which would have had to raise their fees for school pupils had it not been for this contribution. The Department of Education and Training is negotiating with the bussing companies to determine where they provide transport to pupils with a bona fide need for transport, so as to give them assistance in this regard.

The hon member for Springfield very handsomely encouraged the implementation of commercial farming, and referred to the relief package with regard to the Natal floods. He also emphasised that his party is not opposed to financial assistance for the self-governing states.

I want to emphasize a point here which I made in the House of Assembly. It is that the self-governing states are not foreign states in need of development aid, as, for instance, states in Africa or Asia may be in need of development aid from developed countries in Northern America or in Europe. The self-governing territories in South Africa are part of South Africa, just as the provinces are part of South Africa. Therefore it is not a gift that the central government makes to them when it provides them with a parliamentary grant. They, as citizens and as communities forming part of South Africa, are entitled to central government assistance just as towns or provinces are entitled the same kind of assistance. I am sure that all hon members of this House will agree with me on this point.

The hon member Mr Seedat provided a very well-informed input, and I shall take up his suggestion that more might perhaps be done about keeping members informed of what is going on inside the self-governing territories. In anticipation I will suggest at this stage that we should arrange another tour for members of Parliament to the self-governing territories in the latter part of this year. I think that hon members will avail themselves of this opportunity, and those who missed out on the previous one, will have learnt from their colleagues how very useful this can be.

I am in sympathy with the hon member’s problem as regards the long commuting distance and commuting time that many inhabitants of KwaNdebele have to suffer. It is for this very reason that we try to support the KwaNdebele National Development Corporation as much as possible by way of additional share capital and other assistance, to increase the job opportunities inside or on the borders of KwaNdebele. For instance at Ekindustria, the industrial township which has been incorporated into KwaNdebele, very satisfactory progress has taken place. In fact, all the available space has been taken up; whilst interestingly, south of the border, in the RSA part of the industrial development there are still many sites available which have not yet been taken up.

Last year we provided that Development Corporation there with additional capital to develop more industrial sites in order to attract more industries. It is interesting to note that quite a number of industrialists from the Far East, that is to say from Taiwan, Hong Kong and from the other part of the “Far East” across the Drakensberg, have been coming to these parts to support this development, for which we are grateful.

I should like to point out that people have not been forced to go to KwaNdebele, but that the settlement of what is probably very close to half a million people in KwaNdebele has been what one might almost call a spontaneous national movement by the Ndebele people who, for many generations, did not really have an area of their own. Once they were provided with a consolidated, albeit relatively small homeland in KwaNdebele, they flocked there in very large numbers in spite of the fact that they were not always as close to job opportunities as they would have liked. I think this serves as an illustration of what the hon member Mr Nowbath pointed out at the end of the debate with regard to the strength of ethnic ties and ethnic sentiments on the part of the peoples of South Africa because these people flocked there to be together with the other members of the same social group within an area which they share with each other as a common home.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs expressed his disquiet about Moutse. Here again I should like to point out that the people of Moutse have not been displaced. In so far as some of them preferred to settle at Immerpan, that was their own choice, albeit as a result of a certain amount of unrest that arose in the area where they were living. Wherever the department has assisted these people to resettle it has been extremely careful and has operated under very strict instructions not to do anything which could be interpreted as forcing these people to move. I should like to give the hon the Deputy Minister the assurance that as far as this matter is concerned, we are very careful not to break our undertaking.

Here again, the tensions between the Pedi orientated and the Ndebele orientated people living in Moutse serves as further evidence of the antipathy existing amongst different ethnic groups, which is simply a part of reality. It is a part of reality just as a lightning stroke is a part of reality. One can argue against it but it is still a very powerful force.

The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to the removal of the Sword of Damocles of resettlement, for which he is grateful. I am very pleased that he has mentioned this because the Black communities in the corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei have been given permanent security of tenure without any further fear of resettlement. We are presently submitting a bill to this House aimed at incorporating an area, Peelton, into the Ciskei which was also earmarked for resettlement but which is no longer to be used for resettlement and which can now be joined up with that of its fellow tribal members on the other side of the frontier.

There are a number of settlements in the Eastern Transvaal in respect of which former resettlement decisions have been rescinded and the Government is also working on a system for settling the surplus farm workers or farm squatters in the Northern Natal in the areas where they are living on an acceptable basis. The hon the Deputy Minister may know that the Chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, the hon member for Vryheid, has been very successful in negotiating acceptable solutions in this regard with both the Black and the White people in the Louwsburg district and the Ngotje district in Northern Natal. I am grateful for the hon the Deputy Minister’s recognition of what has been done in this respect.

The fact that irregularities in respect of finances do occur from time to time in some of the self-governing territories is a point with which I dealt fully in the debate in the House of Assembly, and I give the hon the Deputy Minister the assurance that we take this matter very seriously. I must also say, however, that we receive the fullest co-operation and in many cases the initiative of the Chief Ministers and the Ministers of these governments to identify and eradicate these problems.

It is not necessary to prod them along. They take the initiative in many cases and we are grateful for this, because together we can ensure that we can report back to this House and the other Houses of Parliament that the best possible use is made of their investment.

As far as the Inanda land is concerned, this land is earmarked for purchase by the Development Trust with a view to using it for township development and then incorporating it into kwaZulu. In this financial year, a part of the finances for consolidation has been specifically reserved for this area and it will receive special attention. We hope to be reporting back to the hon the Deputy Minister in a positive way about the progress made with regard to the valuations and purchase of property. We are grateful to the inhabitants of those areas for the measure of patience which they have displayed in recent times.

I have already referred briefly to the remarks made by the hon member Mr Nowbath, who also referred to the history of India. I remember that my late father used to say: “If you youngsters are upset about what the British did to the Afrikaners, you really do not know what can be done. You must go and read Indian history.” For that matter, he also mentioned the Irish history.

I think the hon member pointed out the reality of the homelands and of ethnic antipathy and gave the support of his side of the House for positive measures to ensure that these areas are fully and properly developed. I would like to say that where he referred to the burden of the taxpayer, I want to supplement that by saying that these people also help themselves. This year, in their draft budgets, the self-governing territories have provided no less than R1 250 000 from their own income to supplement the parliamentary grant in order to provide the necessary services to their people. They are therefore not just standing with open hands to receive, but they are also doing something in the form of self-help, which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has underlined more than once in this House as an important basic concept of development.

I hope that with these words I have done justice to the positive contributions of hon members. I trust that the House will accept these two Votes.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill is to amend the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, so as to make new provision relating to the land that may become a part of certain states. This Bill is not controversial and from this side of the House we support it.

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon member for Umzinto when he says that this Bill is not controversial. I will explain to the hon member just now why we believe it is controversial.

The Bill really seeks to give three parcels of land to independent territories. In the first part, a portion of ground is being transferred to Bophuthatswana. The same applies to the second part. In section three, a parcel of ground is being given to Ciskei. It is in this regard that we voice our objection to the Bill.

In the standing committee we asked whether there were in fact any individuals living on this piece of ground. We were told that there were 1 200 individuals living on this ground which will now be annexed to Ciskei. This is where the controversy enters.

This is where contention comes in, for the benefit of the hon member for Umzinto. We do not believe that these 1 200 individuals were consulted as to whether or not they would now wish their citizenship rights to be transferred from the Republic of South Africa to the independent territory of Ciskei. On a matter of principle we strongly object to that. We do not believe that citizen rights should be taken away from people without their consenting to that. This is why we object to the Bill.

Whilst we are talking about the Ciskei, may I draw the hon the Minister’s attention to a discussion that I and several hon members of this House had with President Lennox Sebe of the Ciskei. Some of us were fortunate enough to go through the Ciskei. President Sebe said that in his opinion the South African Government had reneged on promises made to him before independence was sought by him and granted by the South African Government. He made the point that several thousands of hectares of land that had been promised to him, were, in fact, not given to him by the South African Government. He asked us, the members of the delegation, to bring this to the attention of the hon the Minister concerned. He asked us to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that whatever arrangements were made between him and the Government of this country would be carried out. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to ask the hon the Minister precisely what land arrangements were made before the Ciskei was granted independence, and whether, in fact, the Government has carried out all its promises in that regard.

Mr Chairman, while supporting the Bill, I do want to indicate to hon members in the House that there has been consultation with most of the communities of the states that will be affected by the amendment. I do not want to cross swords with my friend here, but it was not possible to consult every sector and every faction and every group. Sometimes it is just not feasible. However, an advertisement had been placed in the papers for the benefit these communities. The Government wanted the readers to become aware of this important aspect.

Which newspapers?

Ask the PFP! There have been compromises which led to certain arrangements being implemented in this Bill. The new provisions related to land that is to become part of certain states, are welcomed. We on this side of the House, excepting my friend here, support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it gives me great delight to stand up here. I am also delighted to learn—although I learn this with some surprise—from the hon member for Cavendish that this was advertised in the newspapers. Hon members will recall that the hon the Minister, talking about the financial assistance given to the national states by the South African Government, referred to the people of the national states as South Africans. In Clause 3 of the Bill we read that the people of these areas are also referred to as being South Africans.

These people are human beings. They are still taxpayers—whether they have to pay transfer duty, or whether some of them are beneficiaries of estates and have to pay estate duty, we do not know. Certainly they are paying sales tax, and therefore they are taxpayers.

They are South African citizens and we are surprised that the representative of the Official Opposition in this House, Solidarity, claims and pretends to set great store by human rights. It is a fundamental human right that no person should be deprived of his nationality without his consent or without just cause. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the representative of Solidarity to pretend about the mere placing of advertisements—if that took place at all, and he is not able to say in which newspapers the advertisements were placed or in what language or when they were placed. He is just using that as a shoddy little cover for, and a very unsatisfactory camouflage of, the fact that his party did not do the necessary homework on this Bill. Maybe this is because they are incompetent. They are unable to do so because they are too busy chasing carrots.

They will land in the stew.

Yes, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture quite rightly says that when people go chasing carrots, they land in the stew. People should avoid landing in the stew.

Our concern is for the human rights of these 1 200 individuals. I readily admit that we do not know how many of them are adults. We will also concede that inasmuch as it happens in the Asian milieu and also in the African milieu, the head of the family invariably decides for the family. If there are altogether 1 200 individuals, there should be at least 300 heads of families, or 200 for that matter. They are human beings and the fact that they are Black does not take away from the fact that they are human beings with human rights. We deplore the fact that they were not adequately consulted and their consent was not obtained. They are not so many cattle, just to be chased about hither and thither. They are not just ciphers to be transferred on a computer nor are they so many pawns to be moved about on the chessboard of apartheid.

Ciskei is not part of South Africa and is legally and for all practical purposes a foreign country. If it were part of South Africa, the casinos and the gambling that are permitted there could not possible take place. Therefore our objection is based on a matter of fundamental principle. We, too, have been concerned that carrots should not be grown in the territories of the independent states or of the national states, if those carrots are going to be used improperly or wrongly. We also deplore the fact that a Cabinet Minister is alleged to have said that he is going to dangle carrots before certain people. That is a terrible situation. I was told this morning—and I was asked whether I would be prepared to support this—that because members of Solidarity waited upon the hon the State President last Thursday and he declined to see them, merely allowing an official to tell them hamba lala, or go home and sleep, an attempt would be made simply to oppose every Bill in this House. My attitude was that I will not be party to any such deplorable gimmick. We will support a Bill or oppose it purely on its merits.

As the hon member for Springfield has said on behalf of my party, the first two clauses of this Bill are entirely unexceptionable because the rights of individuals are not being affected. It is merely land that is being transferred. The third clause has a direct effect upon the right of the individual. If the hon the Minister who is piloting this Bill through Parliament gives us his assurance that the individuals, or the heads of the families comprising these individuals, were consulted and their consent was obtained, then I shall sit silent. However, that assurance was not forthcoming to my colleague in the standing committee and we believe that it was not possible for such an assurance to be forthcoming.

We are in favour of clauses 1 and 2 but regrettably we cannot isolate those two clauses from the other clause. Therefore we have to oppose the Bill in its entirety.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the debate and to the arguments put forward by hon members.

I want to thank the hon member for Umzinto as well as the hon member for Cavendish for their support of this Bill.

Let me say at the outset that the only point in dispute here is the so-called Peelton area to which the hon members for Springfield and Reservoir Hills raised objections. According to the information at my disposal, although several of the areas mentioned in the Bill were discussed and questions raised about them, the Peelton area was never subjected to any questions in the standing committee. This is my information. It is therefore not a question of information not being forthcoming.

Mr Chairman, I should merely like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that according to my records this question was asked and the answer that was given was 1 200 individuals. Now Mr Chairman, I could not have sucked this out of my thumb.

I accept the explanation of the hon member, but my information must then be incorrect. However that may be, let me first say that as far as the citizenship issue is concerned, it is well-known that the hon the State President announced some years ago that South Africa no longer considered loss of South African citizenship to be concomitant with the incorporation of land into an independent state as had happened at the time of independence.

It is also known that President Sebe accepts dual citizenship. In other words, as I interpret this situation, there is no reason why these inhabitants of this area should lose their South African citizenship after its incorporation into the Ciskei. That is as far as the citizenship issue is concerned.

What is the position of this particular area? Historically it has for more than a century formed part of the Nkomkweni tribal area also known as the Peelton area. At the time of independence that area was for the larger part incorporated into the Ciskei but the railway which cuts through that area cutting off to the eastward side a kind of remaining portion,—was taken as the border. The result was that without consultation with the people, the tribe was cut into two and a part of the tribe was left in the RSA and the other part in the Ciskei.

This is the kind of thing that has been done by authorities throughout Africa. Lines have just been drawn on a map through areas, with detrimental demographic consequences. I think that was a mistake and it was committed at the time of independence. What is more, the area that was cut off from the rest—from the majority part of the tribe that had been incorporated into the Ciskei—ie the area remaining in the RSA, was earmarked for resettlement. The prospect for the inhabitants of that area was that they, together with the other Black settlements in the corridor, between the Ciskei and the Transkei, had to be resettled on compensatory land in the Ciskei.

The question has been raised here whether I can give the assurance that we have not reneged upon undertakings with regard to the incorporation of land. In fact, compensatory land for the settlement of all those people has been broadly identified and some of it has already been incorporated into the Ciskei while other parts are still under negotiation with a view to incorporation. In 1985 the Government changed its policy with regard to the resettlement of the so-called “Black spots” or Black settlements in the corridor area and decided to cancel its previous decisions. The inhabitants of the Peelton area were not consulted when they were excised from the area of the rest of the tribe incorporated into the Ciskei. Since they are no longer going to be resettled the logical step would now be to reincorporate the area with the rest of the tribal area which is already part of the Ciskei so as to become part of the Ciskei too. This will mean that families are no longer artificially divided from each other just because of a geographical border line. The tribal authorities retain their authority over the RSA section of Peelton, but after reincorporation they will have a better practical situation for effective governing and administering the tribe. This arrangement has been made in conjunction with the authorities of the tribe and the Ciskei government. This is a matter on which the Ciskei government and the authorities of the tribe have been dissatisfied right from the outset when this part was cut out at the time of independence. I think it was an unfortunate mistake and it is now being rectified to the advantage of all concerned.

It may be so that some of the inhabitants do not want to be incorporated, but I think in terms of its history this land is part of the tribal area. The Nkomkweni tribe settled here in the early parts of the nineteenth century. It belongs to them and it should never have been cut loose from the part incorporated into the Ciskei. I do not think there is any justifiable reason why this House could not with confidence accept the proposal that the Peelton area be incorporated into the Ciskei where the rest of that tribe has been living since the independence of Ciskei.

I would like to elaborate further on the question put by the hon member for Springfield about assurances concerning possible reneging on promised incorporation of land. I consider this a very important matter. There are three aspects with regard to land mentioned in the independence agreements with the Ciskei.

Firstly there is the land which has already been acquired by the Trust but which has not yet been incorporated for some reason. In some cases there are financial reasons why the purchase has not yet been finalised. I can report here that we had a bilateral ministerial committee which met less than a month ago. There we finalised these outstanding cases and I undertook to the Ciskei to finalise all these outstanding snippets that still have to be incorporated. All this of course has to be done within the financial constraints under which we operate.

Secondly, there are certain areas—three in particular—which are part of the promised land but which the South African Government would like to renegotiate with a view to certain changes in order to bring about more practical boundaries. On the other hand, the Ciskei also has certain requests relating to land which is not included in the promised land and which they would like to include. I have agreed with President Sebe that we will sit down and negotiate the requests from our side and the requests from their side and see whether we can come to an exchange agreement acceptable to both sides. We hope to finalise this within the next few months.

The third aspect is the most important part. At the time of independence the prospect was that the so-called Black spots or Black settlement areas in the corridor area—there were eight of them plus the Peelton area—would have their people resettled in the Ciskei and that compensatory land would be given to them for the land which they had to abandon and which would then be deproclaimed. They will then be settled on this compensatory land and it would become part of the Ciskei.

When the Government decided that these people would no longer be resettled but that they would stay where they are and that those areas would be retained as Black settlements within the RSA, it nevertheless acceded to the request of the Ciskei which argued that it needed compensation because it would in any case lose a substantial extent of land because these areas had been part of the Ciskei before independence. Thus they would lose part of their traditional territory.

Therefore the South African Government agreed to provide land of the same size as these Black settlements which had been excised from the Ciskei, as compensatory land for the Ciskei. Therefore land which had originally been purchased to re-settle these people—despite the fact that they are no longer to be re-settled there—is nevertheless in the process of being negotiated to the extent of about 33 000 ha to be transferred to the Ciskei. This has not been finalised but we have made certain offers to the Ciskei which have not yet been accepted by them; they wanted time to study and our offers. We hope that we shall be able to finalise them soon.

Therefore there are these three areas: Firstly, trust areas which have already been purchased or are in the process of being purchased and the transfer of which we hope to finalise soon; secondly, certain promised land, which we have agreed mutually to negotiate as against certain requests for additional land made by Ciskei; and thirdly, land to serve as compensation for the approximately 33 000 ha of Black settlement area which have been excised from the Ciskei. These, then, are the three types of territory which we are in the process of negotiating on in order to finalise. We are not reneging on any undertaking; it is a question of working out a mutually acceptable formulation in all these cases. I am personally keen that we should finalise this within the next few months so that we can prepare legislation to be submitted to Parliament next year so that the total land deal between the RSA and the Ciskei can be finalised.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.