Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of the Criminal Procedure Bill. This is an important measure, because the criminal procedure adopted by a country is one of the aspects of the administration of public affairs which portrays the character of the country concerned. I believe there are few things in history which better illustrate the essential character of a country than the manner in which it handles accused persons, from the early stage of an arrest, or a summons, to the final stage of a sentence or an appeal. There are, of course, other matters too which illustrate the character of a country: e.g. the type of Parliament it has, the type of cabinet government it has, or the type of administration it has. Because all these things are important in giving a country an international image, so also is the handling of accused persons—hence the importance of the Bill which we are reading for a Third Time at the present moment.

There is an interplay in any Bill governing criminal procedure of the part of the government, of the courts and of the police. In those countries which have what is sometimes called a “common law background”—the Anglo-Saxon countries of Europe—there has evolved a system of criminal procedure which reflects, in many respects, the democratic tradition of those countries. This is done by the maintenance of a fine balance between the power of the State, which backs the prosecution of an accused person, and the comparative helplessness of an individual to see that his rights are defended. It is the successful balance of those two forces that has wedded most people of what one might describe loosely as the English-speaking or the Anglo-Saxon world, to the common law system of criminal procedure, a system which we have had in this country since the early nineteenth century. By contrast, in the Continental countries of Europe, there has evolved a criminal procedure quite different from that which is the tradition in the Anglo-Saxon countries. There it has evolved a philosophy, a background and a literature entirely its own.

What does the Bill of this kind embrace, in simple terms? It embraces the commencement of criminal investigation, the search for matter which is involved in criminal proceedings, the arrest and the summons of the individual concerned. From there it proceeds to the jurisdiction of the courts, to the arraignment of the person before the court— commonly called the charge—the plea as to whether the accused person is guilty or not guilty, and the procedure immediately before and at the trial. It embraces the position of witnesses: how they are to be handled, their rights and how they are to be protected in certain cases. It embraces the inferior and superior courts and the relations between the two, and it concludes with matters relating to sentence and reviews and appeals from the lower courts to the higher courts.

This short review of what this Bill involves will, I hope, give the House an indication of the whole ambit of procedures from the time a suspected person is arrested till the time he concludes his proceedings in the appellate division and, subsequently, with the payment of a fine or landing in gaol. In that whole field certain aspects of this Bill have already occupied the time of this House for a considerable period.

These were, firstly, the plea and the procedure to be adopted at the time the plea is taken. That was crucial, and it remains a crucial feature of the Bill because, despite the hon. the Minister having accepted a number of amendments throughout the proceedings—and I appreciate the manner in which the Minister found it possible to accept a number of amendments—there remains, as far as clause 115 of the measure is concerned, the basic objection with which we began. That is to say, there is an attempt to introduce into our procedures established over the best part of a century, the procedure of the compulsory putting of questions by the judicial officer to an accused person immediately after plea, but before evidence is led, a principle which hitherto has not only been unknown to our system of criminal procedure, but also strongly guarded against by judicial officers in all the courts with which I am familiar.

The worst objection has been removed— that is to say, the drawing of an inference against an accused person should he remain silent. However, the other objections, i.e. there being no obligation on a judicial officer to indicate that an accused person is not required to speak should he not wish to do so and that a judicial officer can question the legal representative of an accused person, as it were behind the back of the lawyer concerned, still makes clause 115 fundamentally unacceptable to us despite the material modifications which the hon. the Minister has been able to accept by way of amendments. For that reason we shall be opposing this measure at Third Reading.

On the question of review, I must say that the hon. the Minister, through one of his Party’s members, brought in an amendment which substantially removed our objection to the review procedure. However, there is still a loophole there. If I could paraphrase what I said at Committee Stage it amounts to this. If you introduce clause 115 procedures which are likely to widen the possibility of error on the part of a judicial officer, one must not narrow in the review procedure the variety of cases which are automatically subject to review, but widen the field of cases which are subject to review. But for the change which is being brought in in clause 115, I believe the House could have accepted the amendments in regard to review which the hon. the Minister introduced. These were to differentiate between junior magistrates where only sentences above three months and a fine of R250 go on automatic review whereas in the case of more senior magistrates a higher sentence limit only would be subject to automatic review. But for the changes in clause 115 that would have been acceptable. However, in view of a new procedure having been introduced by clause 115, the amendments in regard to review cannot be accepted.

These were the two most important aspects of the changes made in the Bill: clause 115, which I already dealt with and the question of review. The third objection which I have, which hangs together with the other two, is the question of the ability to withdraw a charge after plea. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. the Minister accepted amendments in that regard which withdrew the danger that we saw from that quarter. On the question of sentences, there was a difference of opinion in the Opposition benches about the question of capital punishment and corporal punishment. Whatever punishment is debated, one would expect, if it is a serious discussion, different points of view at the level of capital punishment and corporal punishment.

I do not propose to go into the details again, save to say that I believe there was a useful discussion in the Committee Stage on these two important aspects of punishment. I believe the House came to the correct decision in that regard.

It then remains for me to say that, in looking at this Bill as a whole, it does three things: Firstly, it re-enacts a great deal of what is familiar, tried and appropriate in our criminal procedure, and one does not have to talk about that although it is there. It is not an entirely new Bill. Secondly, it makes some changes, changes which are welcome because they will obviate time-consuming procedures, money and expense on the part of litigants. To that extent they are to be welcomed. Finally, it introduces the new principle—as I have indicated—of mandatory questioning of an accused person at the time he gives his plea and before evidence is led. It is an innovation which we believe is fundamentally wrong and to the detriment of proper criminal procedure, which, I hasten to add, is not to let guilty people go free, but to convict the guilty and to acquit the innocent. That is what we are after. I believe that this innovation will complicate the process to that end. For that reason we shall vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana based his approach to this Bill on the same premise as does the Government. The difference lies in the fact that we on this side came to a different conclusion regarding the striking of a balance between the rights of the community and those of the accused. In this, the Third Reading, we are looking back at this Bill and taking a look at how it will operate in future. Looking back, I can say that we certainly had the privilege of drawing on several sources. That is to say, we had the history of criminal procedure, from 1917 in particular, at our disposal. We also had the findings of the Botha Commission, of the Courts Inquiry Commission, 1971 in Rhodesia, of the British Commission, of the Scottish Commission, of the well thought out and motivated articles in the SA. Law Journal by Mr. Justice Hiemstra, the complete Second Reading debate of 1973 and a similar debate in 1977, as well as the learned, motivated findings of authoritative authors and the report of the Viljoen Commission.

I found it amazing that, throughout this debate, the Opposition speakers have still been calling into question the fundamental recommendations of this series of commissions and authorities. These people’s grounding in law and their ingenuity in criminal procedure is hardly inspiring. It is deplorable that they succeeded in keeping South Africa from the privileges and advantages of a particularly good piece of legislation. Due to the fact that we had an election in 1974 and that rule 72(1) of the Standing Rules and Orders prevented us from continuing in 1974 where we left off in 1973, we actually had to deal with this legislation from the beginning again. Seen overall, the principles which were contained in this Bill, are the same as those which were contained in the 1973 Bill. This is also apparent from the argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member’s entire argument is directed chiefly at the provisions of clause 115. Although it has been amended to a certain extent, this clause remains the target of their attack, but it is actually the crux of the recommendations of the commissions to which I referred. Therefore, in looking back I think that we are dealing here with the merging of the best of the inquisitorial system and the best of the accusatorial system and that this is a brilliant adaptation to the South African situation.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the level of civilization of a nation is often measured according to the procedure which it lays down for maintaining its penal code. I think that this Bill, which we have been adapting since 1917, is a highlight in the legal history of South Africa and succeeds very well in projecting an image of the level of civilization which we have reached in South Africa.

If we are to consider the future of the Bill, there are, I think, four important objectives which, through the provisions of the Bill, have been aimed at and achieved. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has already referred the most important consideration, and that is that it is just as serious a miscarriage of justice to set a guilty person free, as to find an innocent person guilty. Therefore the objective is that all guilty persons should be found guilty and that all innocent persons should be found not guilty. This argument becomes more weighty if one takes a look at the statistics in the article by Mr. Justice Hiemstra in The Law Journal, namely that approximately four out of every ten accused persons are set free and that two more are set free on appeal. After all, this is not as things should be. Consequently, the legislation has attempted, and succeeded, too, in restoring the balance and causing the interests of justice to triumph.

The second objective postulated by legislation of this nature is that under normal circumstances, criminal procedure must carefully preserve the balance between the interests of the community in maintaining law and order on the one hand, and the interests of individual freedom on the other. However, this principle remains subject to the important stipulation that when the security of the State is threatened, the interests of the community are more important than the interests of the individual. It is in regard to this aspect that the PRP in particular simply presses on stubbornly in their opposition to what is, in the final analysis, the fundamental requirement for an orderly community. They oppose certain principles contained in the legislation, because they invest the police with greater powers. This argument has been in existence since 1829 when Peel founded a police force. A certain writer had the following to say about it—

At that time, as happened last year, there were also placards in London, but I do not think that they were protesting against the policy of separate development or in favour of majority rule in those days. One of the placards of that time read as follows—

One wonders whether it was not one of the forefathers of the hon. member for Houghton who drew up this placard.

The third objective of legislation of this nature is that justice must be done as quickly as possible. That is to say, the accused must be brought before the judicial officer as soon as possible so that he can have the opportunity to speak, or to remain silent if he prefers to do so.

Now we come to subsection (3) of clause 115, which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is fairly satisfied about. However, I also want to put it to him that even if clause 115(3) is removed from this legislation, the court still has the inherent right to draw an inference from the silence of an accused, an inference which will be fair under the circumstances. The law of evidence contains innumerable examples of inferences which can be drawn from the silence of the accused in certain circumstances. It is psychologically correct and justified in law that the accused ought to be afforded the opportunity to speak at the earliest possible stage. We even find this in the Bible. I should like to mention these two texts to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana so that he can go and look them up: Genesis 3, verse 13, and Joshua 7, verses 19 to 21. For example, look at the position in France.

At the commencement of the trial, the history of the accused, including his criminal record, is read out in order to give the jury a picture of the accused. The British Commission, for example, also recommends that relevant previous convictions should be read out before the trial. The UNO’s charter on human rights also says—

Since it often happens in South Africa that the most unsophisticated accused does not have legal representation, it is essential for legislation to take this into account. The Botha Commission accepted this and this Bill accepted that the vast majority of persons who appear before the criminal court, are illiterate and unsophisticated and find it difficult to adapt to the complexities of modern civilization. By allowing the magistrate or judge a discretion in terms of the provisions of clause 115, any disadvantage which the accused may still have had in this connection, is eliminated.

There is a fourth objective when it comes to judging legislation of this nature, and this is that such legislation should actually take the best from the accusatorial system and the inquisitorial system and adapt it to South African circumstances. It is interesting to see what the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms decided in Western Europe. This convention was attended by 15 countries in Western Europe, where both the inquisitorial and the accusatorial systems applied. This convention agreed that there should be certain basic factors in criminal procedure. The first is that a person who is arrested must be informed immediately as to the reason for his arrest, and of any charge against him. We have this provision in clause 39(2) on page 32. Secondly, the convention lays down that the accused should be brought before a judicial officer as soon as possible and that he should be tried within a reasonable period of time. Both these provisions are contained in this Bill. Thirdly, there must be a public trial before an unbiased judge. Fourthly, there must be a presumption that an accused is not guilty until the contrary is proved. Fifthly, he must have sufficient time and facilities to prepare for his trial. Sixthly, he must be properly defended and seventhly he must be able to question and call witnesses. Now I ask whether there is any hon. member in this House who alleges that these seven principles are not contained or recognized in this Bill. These are sound principles and if one does not come into conflict with them, then one’s legislation is sound.

As a final judgment of this Bill, one is drawn involuntarily to the conclusion that the present system as we know it up to this stage, does not really favour the innocent, but gives the accused a sporting chance to escape as in fox-hunting. In the times in which we are living and in which criminals are becoming more and more sly, it has become essential to modernize the machinery with which one deals with them.

In conclusion I want to congratulate very sincerely those who were concerned with drafting this legislation for such a long time, on the Bill which is now going to be read for the Third Time here and on the work which they did in this connection. I wish them every success in applying it in the times which lie ahead. I am just sorry that we had to wait four years before we could see this legislation being applied in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a highly contentious measure, but I think that it is interesting to note that by and large, during the many hours that we have debated this Criminal Procedure Bill over the floor of this House, it has been in relatively unemotional terms and, if I may say so, in fairly sober legal language. It is therefore a pity that the hon. member for Brakpan could not resist the temptation to try to introduce a little of what I would call soap-box politics into this debate.

It was a good speech.

Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister possibly felt that he would have liked to say some of those things himself. But that is not the point, and as I have very little time at my disposal, I am not going to waste any of it on the absurd statements made by the hon. member for Brakpan.

Justice is a very important thing and all of us in this House admit this. The rule of law, however, gets sneered at and is always jeered at when one happens to mention that phrase in this House.

It is mentioned in this House very frequently, and for the very good reason that over the years this Parliament has passed many laws which have been subject to the criticism that they undermine the rule of law in South Africa. That is the reason why the hon. member for Brakpan got so hot under the collar. He knows that there is a good deal of truth in this accusation. Nothing has happened during the Committee Stage of this Bill which in any way alters the attitude which we on this side of the House have about it and we on these benches will vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. It is true that the hon. the Minister has introduced a few amendments, one of which in particular relates to the important clause 115 and does make some difference. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has gone into that in some detail and while we were discussing that clause in Committee, the hon. members for Sandton and Durban North in particular, raised all the legal points which could possibly have been raised in this connection. I do not therefore propose, even if I were able to do so, to attempt to repeat any of those arguments. I do, however, want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell this House whether the changes which he introduced to the important clause 115 were sufficient to allay the objections that the General Bar Council had to this Bill and to this clause in particular. I know that he said that he had met most of the objections. I should like him to tell us specifically if, since the amendments were introduced, the Council has indicated in any way that it is now satisfied with the new system of criminal procedure which is to obtain in South Africa as soon as this Bill becomes law.

During the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, I concerned myself mainly with the clauses which I felt affected the rule of law and with the clauses which affected what I call the more extreme forms of punishment which this country uses, viz. the death penalty and corporal punishment. I do not propose to go into the latter two in any detail now. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Parktown, will be dealing with those two subjects when he speaks this afternoon. I do say, however, that I wish that some of the changes which have been introduced into the criminal procedure system in South Africa would have served to soften to some extent the punitive system we use in South Africa. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana used a striking phrase when he said that the criminal procedure system of a country portrays its character. I believe that that is absolutely true. I believe, too, with Winston Churchill that the degree of civilization of a country can be measured by the way in which it treats its prisoners. The two things very much hang together. I believe that we have a rather harsh criminal procedure system in this country and that, contrary to the practices in other Western countries, we have indeed moved towards extending, firstly, capital punishment and, secondly, that we are using corporal punishment to an ever-increasing extent. To both of these particular aspects of our punitive system I, certainly, have objections, and there are others in these benches who also have objections to them. I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister to take this opportunity of telling us whether any of the changes which, he said, had been proposed by a British Commission of Inquiry and which he is adopting in this Bill have in fact been introduced in Britain. I believe that that is not the case. I believe that the recommendations of the commission and of the witnesses whose evidence he read out were rejected in England by the Bar Council and that, indeed, all that has never been introduced by legislation in England.

I want to conclude by saying one or two things about two of the important clauses. The first is clause 49 which I dealt with in some detail in the Committee Stage. That is the clause that allows the police, when attempting to arrest somebody, to use whatever force is necessary and, in certain instances, to kill if an arrest cannot be effected in any other way. I think the hon. member for Brakpan took particular umbrage about this subject as well. I want to point out that I have some fresh figures since I spoke at the Committee Stage. It now appears that, whereas in 1975 out of the 134 people who were shot dead by the police, 102 were shot dead while attempting to escape, last year, in 1976, 202 people were shot and killed by the police of whom 164 were shot dead while attempting to escape. I believe that it is alarming that there is a tendency for these figures to increase and I believe, too, that more attention should be given to ensuring that the instructions of the police in their standing orders are more strictly adhered to in this regard.

Then, Sir, I am sorry that the repeal of clause 185 was not one of the changes introduced in the Bill. That clause is of course the old section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. This, of course, is the well-known 180-day clause which allows witnesses to be detained for that period. I admit that the hon. the Minister has introduced one or two important changes to this clause, and those changes are very welcome. However, as far as we are concerned a law like this has no place on our Statute Book whatsoever. Although I would say that that provision is being used to a decreasing extent, I notice that that has come about since section 6 of the Terrorism Act is much easier to use and does not have the same requirements that the 180-day provision requires of the Minister. In any event, this provision is still being used to some extent according to figures the hon. the Minister gave me not so long ago.

I want to say finally that the scales of justice appear to have been tipped against the individual accused in terms of this Bill, that the well-tried system of criminal procedure which is being used in this country all these years has now been superseded by a system where, as I say, the balance is now against the individual. While I agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that the system of justice is to see that guilty people are punished, it is also, as he has pointed out, to see that the accused innocent is not punished. In this instance the scales are now tipped against the accused who may in fact be innocent. In a country such as South Africa where the vast majority of the people who appear before the courts are uneducated people, are people who are ignorant of the law and, most important, are people who are very often not defended by legal counsel, it is surely ever more important to see that innocent accused are not punished.

For all these reasons, because we believe that the criminal procedure system which is practised in South Africa has not been improved by this measure, but indeed has been worsened in many respects, and because changes, which we believe would have been more in keeping with Western civilization in the last quarter of the 20th century, have not been introduced in this Bill, we in these benches shall oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton initially accused the hon. member for Brakpan of playing politics with the Bill. I hope to demonstrate that it is specifically in their speeches, and by way of certain conclusions reached by the members of the PRP, that they were playing politics. The hon. member for Houghton has just referred again to how many people there are who are completely unaware of legal processes. In the Committee Stage the hon. member for Vereeniging very effectively pointed out that in our administration of justice—especially if one sits waiting in the magistrates’ courts—one can specifically see how the magistrates ensure that justice is done in respect of those people who are not even represented. I am of the opinion that this Bill will continue to enhance the esteem of our legal system, further entrench the esteem that has thus far existed, in no way detract from the fact that justice is done and will be done and ensure that security of justice is created.

In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, I found it particularly interesting to note that where, in their opinion, the so-called rights of the individual are at stake or are supposedly encroached upon—in fact, this afternoon she again alleged that the burden is being shifted onto the accused—or where the so-called human rights are, in their opinion, being encroached upon, the PRP voted against specific clauses. If we look at clause 73, for example, and the effect this clause will have in practice, we see that two important amendments have, in fact, been introduced. Throughout my speech I shall try to indicate that in practice the Bill is making greater concessions to the accused than was previously the case.

The existing section 84 of the Act provides that friends and legal advisers have right of access to an accused, but clause 73(1) now provides that from the time of his arrest, the accused is entitled to the assistance of his legal adviser. This is an important extension of the legislation, because in the existing Act no specific mention is made of the fact that an accused is entitled to the assistance of his legal adviser from the time of his arrest. I believe that this led to dissatisfaction and confusion amongst the authorities, and the persons under arrest, in connection with their rights in this specific regard.

A second important amendment being introduced here is the provision that the right of access to an accused by his friends falls away. The hon. member for Durban North, who is not present today, concluded that the practical outcome of this clause would be that from the time of his arrest an accused would not be able to make contact with witnesses he wanted in order to prepare his case and would find it difficult to get documents and exhibits which he would like to consult or would like to have. He then said—

That is a conclusion the hon. member draws from the clause, a statement he broadcasts to the world, implying that this Bill would have the outrageous effect of not even entitling an accused to the assistance of his legal representative. He went on to say—

Is that not an absolutely absurd statement! He went on to say—

The hon. member is doing our legal system an injustice by broadcasting such a statement to the world. In my view this provision is important in the sense that, in practice, access to an accused by his friends is properly arranged. This is, in any case, controlled by the prison regulations. In any event, how does one define a friend? How must one, on each occasion, determine who are friends? I believe that in practice this has been a thorny problem. I find it desirable that this provision, a provision in terms of which the problem of undesirable practices could crop up time and again, should now disappear from the scene. In many of these cases the so-called friends who are the first to arrive are either the detainee’s accomplices, henchmen or important links in exchanging information or determining strategy. They possibly also merely want to find out where they themselves stand.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban North, I also want to allege that the accused’s legal advisers will always make it possible for him to prepare his case efficiently and to plan his trial properly. It is interesting to note, however, that members of the PRP are also acting here as mediators for specific kinds of detainees. When specific people are detained, all kinds of friends suddenly crop up. For them it is not a matter of so-called large number of prisoners who have to get along without legal advisers. On the contrary, I believe that for them it is merely a question of certain political detainees who will, in future, no longer be assisted by their so-called friends and comrades. I therefore believe that this is an important amendment in the legislation.

I should also like to point out certain other concessions being made to the accused. At the same time I want to indicate that this new legislation will also eliminate many administrative burdens and delays.

If we look at the question of admission of guilt fines, we note that now there is not only going to be a considerable saving, but that matters are also going to be greatly facilitated in other respects. In the summons, for example, the trial date is furnished. The accused knows of the period within which his fines must be paid, and this will considerably relieve the tremendous onus and administrative burden that has been placed on charge offices. This clause has important implications for everyone, particularly in the sense that an admission of guilt must be paid within the area of jurisdiction in which the specific offence was committed. In connection with the question of bail there is also an important concession. When a person first appears in connection with any alleged offence, application for bail can be made to a magistrate. In the case of financial bail bonds the long receipt with all the relevant conditions will no longer be issued. The receipt will merely be a simple and briefly worded one. The conditions of bail will be brought to the attention of the accused and/or his surety in the magistrate’s office or in the court. In future the whole bail system will also be handled by a computer, a procedure which will significantly relieve the administrative procedure. Another important concession is that now, for the first time, a sanction is involved in the release or warning of an accused. In this way it will be possible to considerably reduce the number of people in prison.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the pleas. I do not specifically want to go into that, but the pleas of guilty, as set out in chapter 17, will greatly reduce the number of verdicts of not guilty on technical grounds and will also bring about a considerable reduction in the number of witnesses. As a matter of fact, that is also the position in relation to pleas of not guilty in chapter 18. This ought to give rise to shorter trials and a reduction in the number of witnesses. I now come to the problem which the hon. member for Houghton and other members see in such pleas. When we debate this matter again in future, they will see that it has not given rise to what they expected. The plea in the magistrate’s court (chapter 19) will greatly facilitate the work in the Supreme Court because, in many cases, it will be possible to refer charges of murder to regional and magistrates’ courts as lesser charges. In the case of preparatory examinations, the provisions of the Bill are also in favour of the accused. At the end of the preparatory examination the people will know where they stand, in contrast with the position that existed previously. At the end of a preparatory examination the State must now decide what it is going to do, and if an accused is discharged at that stage, it is a final and definitive verdict.

In chapter 21 we have the position that if the preparatory examinations are not held, the State must make a summary of the essential facts of the case and a list of witnesses available to the defence, subject to certain conditions. In my opinion the new provision therefore also is favourable to the accused. When we look at the question of punishment, we find that corrective training and imprisonment for the prevention of crime are now disappearing from the Statute Book. Our courts are being granted greater discretion in connection with the imposition of punishment. The court is now also empowered to specifically refer an offender to a rehabilitation centre where he may also live, to suspend sentences for longer periods and also to extend conditions.

A very important provision, which has not yet been referred to in the debate, is that contained in clause 327. If a person sentenced to death has exhausted the legal procedures by way of appeal or review, or if the legal procedures are no longer available to him, in terms of that provision he himself or his legal adviser can address the State President by way of a petition, supported by affidavits in which it can be stated that further evidence has come to light which could materially affect his conviction or the sentence of death imposed upon him. If the State President considers that such statements, if they are true, might reasonably affect the conviction or the sentence of death, he can direct the Minister to refer the petition and the affidavits to the court in which the conviction occurred and the sentence of death was imposed. The court can then determine the value of the evidence and advise the State President whether, and to what degree, the evidence affects the conviction or sentence of death. The State President may, upon consideration, direct that the conviction be set aside or that the person sentenced to death is guilty of a lesser offence and that the sentence should be reduced. These are provisions that are essentially favourable to the accused. I believe that in future we shall see the legislation as something lending a great measure of esteem to our legal system.

Order! I can understand hon. members sometimes having to turn their backs to the Chair, for example in order to consult another hon. member about something, but when an hon. member turns his back to the Chair for a considerable time while conversing with another hon. member, this does not redound to the dignity of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton mentioned the rule of law. I want to tell her that there has been law and order in South Africa in order that the rule of law may survive. If there is no law and order in a country, there will be anarchy and chaos and, consequently, no rule of law.

I want the law to be just.

We in these benches also want the rule of law to survive, but in conjunction with law and order. One cannot separate the two, as the hon. member for Houghton wants to do.

I want the law to be just.

The hon. member for Houghton says she wants the law to be just. Talking about justice and law, is the hon. member still prepared to allow the Communist Party to operate within the law of South Africa.? Does she want the law to be just also to the Communist Party in South Africa? I want to tell her that we in these benches will not allow the Communist Party any facilities in South Africa, under no circumstances whatsoever.

*Mr. Speaker, this is probably a very important debate for our criminal procedure legislation today. However, it is also a very important day for the six of us in these benches and our supporters because as from 26 March 1977 we are no longer a group, but a party known as the Independent United Party—die Onafhanklike Verenigde Party. Mr. Speaker, I am telling you and hon. members this for the sake of convenience so that you and they may know what to call us. [Interjections.] In the same way as success has been achieved in piloting through this Criminal Procedure Bill, we achieved success on 26 March and we shall continue to succeed in the future.

†Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a blue-print for the criminal procedure throughout South Africa, and we welcome it. I want to say something which I have not heard from the hon. member for Houghton, and that is that if one looks at this Bill, one sees 345 clauses—247 pages with annexures—and I want to say that we must pay tribute— whether we agree with the contents of the Bill or not—to the officials who burnt the midnight oil to compile it and present it to us. That is the sort of thing the hon. member for Houghton would not do. One must pay that tribute whether one agrees with the contents of the Bill or not. These officials spent many months in non-stop preparation of this Bill. I should like to pay tribute to them for the work they did in this regard.

Hear, hear!

As I have said earlier, we consulted organizations and persons and they indicated to us that we must support the Bill and in the Committee Stage to express our opposition, as we did in regard to clause 115 and certain other clauses. Our consultation showed that the Bill should not be opposed at Second or Third Reading. Therefore we supported certain amendments to clauses 115, and 185 introduced by the official Opposition. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not see fit to accept all those amendments. I hope that when the Bill comes into operation and when the Minister sees how it works, he will come with amending legislation in regard to those two clauses early next year.

The effect of this Bill is that the judicial officers will have even greater responsibility in the future than they have had in the past. South Africa’s judicial officers are exceptionally highly thought of, and I have no doubt that they will steer and administer the course of justice as impartially as they have done in the past. We opposed certain aspects of the Bill, aspects which we considered to be negative, but we considered that the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones. That is why we supported it at Second Reading and will support it at Third Reading. The hon. members for Green Point—I see he is not here—and East London City and Griqualand East are people with vast legal experience. Between the three of them …

Hear, hear!

Rather say “hear, hear” when I have finished. They have had something like 100 years of legal experience between them. I want to ask them to be perfectly candid with the House today and I want them to tell me whether they know of one single case where an innocent man has been convicted in a practice that they have been associated with. I want them to point out one such case between the three of them, having practised more than 100 years in the legal profession. I have no doubt that not one of those hon. gentlemen, who are eminent men in their professions, can mention a single such case, and that not even the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, with all his years of practice, can mention a single case where an innocent man has been found guilty. Naturally, one of the questions which arises is: Do any of these hon. gentlemen believe that, as a result of the present legislation, any innocent man will be convicted? I am certain that the answer will also be “no” in this regard. If the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s answer is “yes” …

Yes!

Those young hon. members at the back have got no legal experience, so I shall take no notice of them. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. member for Jeppe. He is a man who has had about 50 years’ legal experience, …

Forty-nine.

Can the hon. member for Jeppe think of any innocent man who will be found guilty under this legislation? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe agrees with me in regard to this matter. If the answer is “no”, then they have no right to vote against the legislation. We believe that the answer to the question is that no innocent man will be found guilty before our courts under this legislation and therefore we shall not oppose the legislation. I am still unhappy about certain provisions which I mentioned earlier on, but we are prepared to give the Bill a chance, because we believe that our judicial officers will ensure that justice will prevail. The test in the final analysis is whether justice prevails for all persons at all times throughout South Africa. A very heavy responsibility rests on those judicial officers and we in these benches have no doubt that they will discharge their duties as well in the future as they have always done in the past. In these circumstances we shall not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not react to what the hon. member for Walmer has just said, except to point out to him, in spite of his rather quaint conception of the rule of law and law and order, that his speech was in fact a tribute to the existing system of criminal procedure. Will the hon. member be able in a year’s time, to say the same thing about “no innocent man having been convicted” because the Bill now places an added onus on the accused? We shall wait and see what the hon. member has to say.

I want to deal with a very narrow aspect of the legislation, because I feel that after the pleas of the official Opposition and from the fervently patriotic Opposition on my left for the continuation of the death penalty in our penal code, it is perhaps time to hear an individual voice from the real Opposition in the House. It is a view which is in line with current Free World thinking and one which will not make us an exception amongst the modern democracies. Unlike the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I think the Committee came to the wrong conclusion on the issue of capital punishment and the issue of corporal punishment. I am unashamedly an abolitionist, for a variety of reasons. Prime among those reasons is one which was given 116 years ago in the Orange Free State. The hon. member for Albany went back 300 years to find some precedent in Europe; I come closer home. On 18 January 1861, The Friend had the following to say—

That was the first public, official plea for the abolition of the death penalty in South Africa, and I believe that it might well have been the first official plea for the abolition of capital punishment in the southern hemisphere. This was before any country had abolished it anywhere at all. The validity of that argument, I believe, remains today.

A second reason why I favour the abolition of the death penalty is that South Africa’s name and reputation are constantly suffering in the outside world, in the first place because we are one of the few countries in the Western World which retains the death penalty. To make matters worse, this Bill prescribes no fewer than seven offences for which the death penalty may be imposed. This is another world record of which I hope we will not be proud. In the second place, our reputation abroad suffers because—and this is really a shocking figure—no fewer than two-fifths of all death sentences lawfully carried out in the Western World take place in South Africa, with its current average of approximately 70 hangings a year. I suggest in all seriousness that this a record which should shame every single one of us. I do not mind what sort of arguments are used in favour of it; I say that this is a record of which South Africa should be thoroughly ashamed. The argument that conditions are so different in South Africa that we should retain the death penalty is most certainly not borne out by experts in this field. It would obviously be wrong to say that capital punishment does not deter in any way at all. The real question is, however, whether it deters more effectively than other heavy sentences. That is the issue we face. Wherever this problem has been examined on a scientific basis, as in the United States of America, it has always been found that there is no evidence that capital punishment has an overall deterrent effect not possessed by less drastic punishments. Surely that is the sort of scientific inquiry that we should take cognizance of. Of the 8 000-odd cases which may be described as murder in South Africa each year, only about 1% find their culmination on the scaffold. As the Society for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in South Africa rightly said a year or two ago—

A third reason why I believe that the death penalty ought to be abolished also concerns our reputation in the outside world. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice, who has a very deep concern for South Africa’s reputation abroad, will take cognizance of this. I am quoting from people who know. Let me quote what was said by Prof. Elison Kahn of the School of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand. He said—

It is periodically alleged abroad that in cross-racial crime non-White people tend to be found more easily guilty of murder and Whites only of culpabable homicide. Before anybody takes off into orbit about this, let me say that it does not matter that time and again the Supreme Court of South Africa has very rightly said that the assessment of punishment is not affected by considerations of race and colour. That is beyond doubt. However, as long as our hanging rate is as high as it is and as long as the disproportion between Whites and non-Whites of those hanged is what it is, then I maintain that unkind critics abroad will always look for ulterior motives to justify these arguments of racial bias. They will always use them and they will find them. [Interjections.] I say that it is a simple question that I ask: Why do we not deprive our enemies abroad of this source of criticism and build up South Africa’s reputation? [Interjections.]

Now you are talking nonsense.

Be that as it may, I agree entirely with what a leading South African journalist wrote some years ago. He wrote—

What do you suggest?

Mr. Speaker, why do we not try to stop the world and get on to the band-wagon of civilized nations of the world and abolish capital punishment in South Africa? Why do we not do it? Why do we not try to move in that kind of direction? If we have not got the courage or the farsightedness or the imagination to do that, why does the Government not do the opposite of what is suggested in this measure, and limit the death penalty to offences of a particularly heinous nature where, apart from there being no redeeming features, there are in fact aggravating circumstances? If we did that, it would make us much less of an exception in the free and democratic world than what we are at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I have only a minute or two left and I can therefore not say much about corporal punishment. In the field of corporal punishment, however, I would say that there is a very strong case for abolition, or at any rate for reducing it to the absolute minimum. I have no time to argue this, but all I would say is that here again it is time that South Africa moved into the line of civilized nations and did away with punishment techniques which others are in the process of abandoning or have already abandoned to the benefit of society as a whole and not to its detriment. The hon. member for Houghton has said that “corporal punishment is both medieval and harmful in its effects on the criminal”. I say that it should either be abolished or it should only be used in the most exceptional cases. We will move into the 20th century in spite of the efforts of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the speech of the hon. member for Parktown, we see that he is really past redemption. He comes along here and accuses the hon. member for Walmer of having expressed a personal viewpoint, but then he quotes from The Friend of a number of years ago and endorses the personal standpoint of the editor.

He was the editor!

Then it was simply his own personal standpoint. We on this side of the House disagree fundamentally with the hon. member on this matter. I think it would be only fair for us to agree that we disagree and then reach some understanding about this matter, not continuing to try to hurt South Africa, as the hon. member has just done. From morning till night he and his party tell us here in the House that our administration of justice in South Africa is quite above suspicion. There we are in complete agreement with them. They also regularly ask us not to tamper with appeals to the superior courts and that the retention of such appeals would be the solution to all our problems. However, the hon. member for Parktown comes along here this afternoon and says it is scandalous—if I understood him correctly—that so many death sentences are passed in South Africa. I hope I understood him correctly.

Yes, you understood me correctly.

However, he goes further and makes a very ugly insinuation. He says in this House that Black people receive heavier sentences than Whites for the same offences.

You heard, but you did not understand.

That is the impression I gained.

I did not say that at all.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the hon. member made that insinuation and that that was what I understood him to say.

I cannot argue with you; you do not understand.

I now want to ask that hon. member what he meant by that. Here in South Africa we have an independent judiciary. The people on the Bench who pass these sentences are judges. They are not political appointees. I want our independent judiciary in South Africa, which we hold in great esteem, to take note of the standpoint of the PRP in this connection.

We have come to the end of a long and interesting debate. The Bill before the House was thoroughly and comprehensively debated, but it would be a good thing to quickly go over it again. It was a debate about a Bill of the utmost importance to the overall administration of justice in South Africa. The Bill is important because it regulates, inter alia, our whole penal system. For that reason it is of vital importance to every South African citizen. It may look fairly complex, and in some respects, indeed, it is fairly complex, and it is important for our people and our legal practitioners to get to understand it as quickly and as well as possible. It would perhaps be a good thing if experienced legal writers in our country were to consider publishing a comprehensive work on the Bill, as quickly as possible, for the sake of the man in the street. It is an important Bill, not only because it wants to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that justice is done at all times and under all circumstances, but also because it takes into consideration and promotes, as far as possible, the interests of the individual, of our community and of the State. The better administration of the whole penal system, for example, is of benefit to everyone. It is of benefit to the accused, to the State and to the citizens who must give evidence or who are complainants in a case.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp referred to a few administrative benefits. There are still numerous others, of which I shall just mention a few. The procedure for the handling of exhibits was adopted as far back as 1975 and is left unchanged in this Bill. It has become apparent that it is a glorious success because complainants have their articles returned more quickly and because less storage space is needed in our magistrates’ courts. As is provided for in chapter 12 of the Bill, in South Africa we should like to move towards having summary trials becoming the generally accepted practice. Thereby the so-called double trials will be eliminated and preparatory examinations will, in future, be the exception rather than the rule. Again this would be to the advantage of all concerned. A further improvement concerns the provisions in clause 144. At present, for example, someone must be arrested or be released on bail before he can appear in a Supreme Court. Clause 144 provides that in future a person can be brought before the Supreme Court on an indictment. Clause 148 is a further example. It makes provision for a majority decision when three judges are hearing a case in a special superior court. This is not the case at present. The new review procedure, which was also supported by the Opposition and is set out in chapter 30, will considerably enhance the whole procedure and, it is my belief, improve it without in any way adversely affecting our administration of justice. In other words, the safety factors existing in the present Act will be retained. Clause 323 brings into being a completely new possibility which will be of great benefit to the accused. The Minister is empowered, if he has any doubts in cases where a person is condemned to death, to appeal on behalf of such a person and to place the facts before another court. There are also other benefits, but I shall not go into them at the moment.

As I said a moment ago, in this debate we have unfortunately also heard a discordant note from some members of the Opposition, and chiefly from the hon. members of the PRP. In some cases they acted irresponsibly. It is true that quite a few amendments were forthcoming from the Opposition, amendments* aimed at the positive improvement of the Bill, and those amendments were accepted by the hon. the Minister. I have in mind, for example, the amendments moved on clause 6 and clause 115. The discordant note was there, however—we cannot get away from that fact. For example, the proposal that clause 75 be amended stated, amongst other things, that on each occasion a magistrate should give the accused certain warnings so that he could know what it was all about. In that connection I should like to quote an interesting figure to indicate what this would amount to in practice. In 1975 we had 1 600 000 criminal cases in South Africa. A magistrate does an average of 1 000 hours of legal work per year. If we take it that a magistrate spends only three minutes, in each of these cases, giving the proposed warnings to the accused, it would mean that 80 more magistrates would be needed to handle this extra work. I do not think that was a very practical suggestion.

During the Committee Stage we also clashed with the Opposition about clause 49, the provision giving the police the right to use their fire-arms in specific circumstances. In that connection the hon. member for Houghton quoted certain figures.

She is a policehater.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. She is. She is now laughing about that, but one cannot describe the hon. member in any other terms. She has a chronic hatred of our police, and that is a fact we must accept. The hon. member for Houghton told us that in 1975, 102 people were shot dead by the police whilst trying to escape. If I understood her correctly, she went on to say that in 1976, 164 people were killed whilst trying to escape. She wanted to prove something with those figures, but those figures do not prove that the police obviously made greater use of their fire-arms. I think the obverse is true. It merely proves that more people see their way clear to escaping or fleeing from the custody of our police.

That is absolute nonsense!

The hon. member is now shaking her head. She is subjective about this matter and, as the hon. member for Pretoria East has said, she hates our police and eagerly latches onto things of this kind; she misinterprets the situation in an effort to get at our police.

That is ridiculous!

The hon. member for Houghton does not agree, but the provision, as it stands in the Bill at present, is in the best interests of South Africa and all its people. The police have a task to perform in South Africa and we must not make their task impossible for them. On the contrary, we must trust them. Over the years they have proved that we can trust them with things like these. If we trust them and do not take these weapons out of their hands, in the days ahead, when it may become very necessary, they will protect us to the best of their ability.

We also heard objections to the detention of witnesses, objections from the hon. members of the PRP. I do not want to cover the whole field again; I think the matter has been discussed thoroughly. I believe, and am convinced of the fact, that it is in the best interests of South Africa that the relevant provision should remain in the Bill as it is.

When it comes to the acceptance of so comprehensive and important a measure as the one at present before us, however, questions inevitably crop up about its implementation. Knowing the Department of Justice and its officials as we do, we know that as soon as possible after this measure has been placed on the Statute Book, they will arrange a series of magisterial conferences throughout the Republic. I believe they will do so. The conferences will give our magistrates and judicial officers a chance to thrash out those provisions in the finest detail so that when this legislation commences there will be no hitches whatsoever in this connection. In that regard—one cannot let this pass because it is an important milestone in our administration of justice—one cannot neglect to pay tribute to the Minister and his officials for the drawing up of this legislation. They spent many hours on this project, even working overtime.

The hon. member for Walmer also referred to that aspect, and I should like to support him in that connection. They have hereby furnished, without the slightest doubt, an extremely important service to the administration of justice in South Africa. I am convinced of the fact that when the new Act is implemented in South Africa we shall find that the judicial officers, in whose hands we are happy to place this legislation, will interpret and implement it in such a way that it will be in the interests of all South Africa’s people and only of benefit to law-abiding citizens. We should like to support the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, early in his speech, deplored the fact that we in these benches had moved what he considered to be irresponsible amendments during the Committee Stage of this Bill. He particularly referred to the amendment moved by me to clause 75 of the Bill, an amendment which sought to place upon the judicial officer concerned an obligation to advise an accused person, whether he was represented or not, of his rights and of his obligations in terms of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I only have to show you now the size of this Bill, which is nearly three quarters of an inch thick, or 2 cm, if one wants to put it that way. It is a Bill which contains 345 clauses, and the hon. member for Verwoerdburg believes that any accused person, whether he is sophisticated, whether he is literate, or no matter what he might be, must be aware of each and every provision in these clauses. [Interjections.] It might be a matter of regret to him that we moved what he believed to be irresponsible amendments, but I want to say that it is a matter of regret for those of us on this side of the House that those amendments were not accepted by the hon. the Minister. It was not only an amendment to clause 75. We moved similar amendments, as the hon. the Minister will recall, to at least eight or ten clauses, to place a responsibility upon a judicial officer to advise particularly an illiterate and unrepresented accused of his rights and of his obligations. This Bill not only gives certain rights to accused persons, but it also imposes obligations. The hon. the Minister knows what I am referring to. Therefore I deplore the comments of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg when he takes exception to what he calls irresponsible amendments which came from this side of the House.

I also want to react briefly to what he said about the shooting clause, and the fact that he resented the fact that amendments had been moved to that clause as well. I want to remind the hon. member that it is not only police officers who today have the power to shoot a person when he resists arrest. Everyone of us in this House today, every citizen of the Republic of South Africa, has the power of arrest and can invoke those provisions if the person whom he is trying to arrest, resists that arrest. Even if the hon. member for Verwoerdburg does not know it, the hon. the Minister is aware of the vast number of fire-arms which are carried by people in this country today. I would go so far as to say that South Africa at the moment must have almost the highest incidence of the ownership of fire-arms in the world.

Where do you get that from?

Well, with the present increase, we are probably reaching that point. I do not have the latest statistics. Unfortunately, they are not available. However, I believe we are fast reaching the point where we must be one of the most heavily armed communities in the world. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the hon. member for Parktown, who unfortunately is not here at the moment. I believe that the hon. member for Parktown was quite sincere in all that he said here this afternoon. However, I believe there was one thing which he omitted to say here this afternoon, something he should have said. [Interjections.] He should have said it in order to put his whole speech into perspective.

You are trying to outdo the Progs now!

That is not so. If that noisy hon. member for Mossel Bay will just be quiet for a moment, I think he will find that maybe he is going to agree with me for once. [Interjections.] I believe there was one thing that the hon. member for Parktown left out of his speech. He should have made it clear when he was speaking, that he was speaking on his own behalf, and not on behalf of his party. [Interjections.]

He did say he was speaking as an individual.

Yes, he did.

Did he say as an individual? Did he make it plain that that party had made no decision …

I said that at Second Reading.

At Second Reading? Quite right, but I do not believe it as made clear in this speech, and I am simply putting this now on record. The hon. member for Parktown was speaking as an individual. He was not speaking for his party.

He was also speaking on my behalf.

I accept that the hon. member for Parktown was also speaking for the hon, member for Houghton, who will now give me a change to finish the point I am trying to make. I believe that the fact that the hon. member was speaking for himself and for the hon. member for Houghton alone …

No, not alone.

… was the very reason why those amendments were not accepted by us on this side.

[Inaudible.]

The division that exists in their party over this particular issue, is a division which exists throughout the country.

The death penalty is a question of individual conscience.

Please, Helen, give me a chance! [Interjections.] I do not want to fight. I simply want to place on record the fact that the division exists in that party over this particular issue is mirrored throughout the country, and is mirrored in this particular party as well. It is mirrored everywhere, and that is why we were unable to support her amendment.

I misunderstood you—sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I now have that on record. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton will now allow me to continue … [Interjections.] My Whip is already telling me my time is up, and I have not yet started to speak.

We are today burying a system which is unique throughout the world. It is a system which has developed in this country over 300 years under the peculiar circumstances which pertain in the Republic of South Africa, with a heterogeneous people in different stages of development. It is a Criminal Procedure Act which has done its job admirably in the past and which I do not believe should be repealed today as we are about to do. We are repealing the Act with the exception of two provisions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about those two provisions. Section 319(3), which provides for statutory perjury and section 384, which provides for the binding over of persons to keep the peace, are not being repealed. So, in fact, we are not repealing the whole Act, but are going to leave these two sections intact. If I read the schedule correctly it is only those two sections which are being left. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us what his intention is in regard to these two provisions. Does he intend repealing them in a General Law Amendment Bill, or what is he going to do with them? Can that Act continue to exist simply for those two sections?

I believe that a tremendous responsibility is going to rest on the hon. the Minister once this Bill is promulgated; a responsibility to introduce a new system of inquisitorial hearings against the past accusatorial system. The hon. the Minister says that it is not going to happen overnight and that it is going to be introduced gradually and with circumspection. However, the moment that this Bill is promulgated it becomes an Act and every magistrate is not only bound by it, but is able to apply the provisions of clause 115 at his own discretion and nobody else’s discretion. I do not see how the hon. the Minister can say that the system is going to be applied gradually. He may issue administrative instructions, but in terms of the Bill a magistrate will be allowed to use his own discretion, and I believe that in the hands of over-zealous or irresponsible officials this Bill holds in it the possibility of miscarriages of justice. The judicial officers, particularly the junior ones who are in the rural areas, in the smaller towns and cities and who are under pressure of administrative work as well as other work, faced with a long court roll, are going to be tempted to apply this system in an attempt to beat the job that they are trying to do. They will use this system in an attempt to speed up the proceedings in their courts. That is the whole intention of the Bill. I accept that. We have accepted that all along, but we have told the hon. the Minister that we believe that it is wrong that he should be introducing such a system with the potential that there is for miscarriages, for harm and for errors to be made in this particular Bill. We believe that it is wrong for the hon. the Minister to be introducing it now at all levels. On this matter, I want to come back to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. Perhaps he considers the amendment that we moved to clause 115 also as irresponsible. We suggested that this system should be tested and tried in the superior courts. I must place on record that it is a matter of regret that that amendment was not accepted. We are prepared to concede that it can be a good system, but we believe that in the wrong hands it can be a bad system. I want to repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate, that not for one moment am I casting any aspersions on the judiciary and our judicial officers. In the past I have paid tribute to their work and I will do so again now. But in South Africa we have the system where judicial officers are virtually trained in service. They are trained through the courts. I believe that an hon. member on that side came up that way, who also trained as a magistrate in the same way as I did. He came up through the ranks and got his experience through studying after work while working in the court first as a prosecutor and later on the bench. Under those circumstances the provisions of the Bill can be dangerous. That is the last note of warning that I am going to issue. I am going to close by saying that we want to wish the judicial officers well. I want to say to them that we believe in their integrity and that we hope they are going to treat this whole matter with circumspection. They will require the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon to apply this particular system. We sincerely hope that they will have those two attributes. Unfortunately, because we have weighed the disadvantages of the Bill against the advantages, we cannot bring ourselves to support the Bill and therefore must vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude this debate by, firstly, replying to the specific questions put to me by the hon. members. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana expressed his objection to clause 115 as follows by saying: “This contains procedures of compulsory putting of questions.” This is of course entirely incorrect. There are no questions which have to be put. I think it is a basic error of reasoning on the part of the hon. gentleman when he tells us that that is his basic objection.

It says “shall”.

It does not say “shall” at all. I think the hon. member should read the Bill again.

It does.

I shall read the clause to the hon. member and then he can tell me whether it says “shall” or not.

*I shall read it to the hon. member in English so that there may be no misunderstanding.

†I quote clause 115(1)—

The hon. member must take note of this word “may”—

That is the first “may”. Here there is a discretion. I think the hon. member will agree with me that that is a discretion.

Yes.

Now we come to the second “may”. I quote clause 115(2)(a)—

The accused, therefore, has the discretion not to make a statement—

Again it is a matter of “may”. There exists no compulsion whatsoever. I quote clause 115(2)(b)—

Now we come to the only imperative that counts. [Interjections.] Wait a second and let us see what the imperative is. I see the hon. members do not understand the Bill. I quote further—

Again the accused is entitled to say that he does not want that put in as an admission by him. The only imperative is that after the magistrate has had all sorts of discretions and after the accused has had a discretion of refusing to make a statement, the magistrate shall ask the accused, if he has decided to make a statement, whether he wants it to be regarded as an admission or not. One must ask him this, because it becomes an admission. But even then he is entitled to say that he does not want it as an admission.

That is what I said.

The basis of the hon. member’s very objection to clause 115 is, as he says, the compulsory questioning of people.

It is a compulsory questioning.

There is no compulsory questioning. I have a great respect for my hon. friend, but I am sorry to say that when he takes this line of reasoning, he is doing what they call “artful dodging”. If he reads the clause carefully, he will find that there is, firstly, a discretion on the part of the magistrate and, secondly, a discretion on the part of the accused. After that, if the accused in exercising his own discretion says he wishes to make a statement, the magistrate, before he can write it down as an admission, must ask him whether he can regard it as an admission or not. The magistrate must ask him that. Again it is in favour of the accused. The magistrate cannot just write down that the accused has made an admission. He has to ask the accused whether he wants it to be an admission or not. Then the accused “may” say that he does not want it as an admission. In that case it does not go in as an admission. Therefore, this whole clause is full of discretion for the accused and for the magistrate.

That is artful dodging!

It is not artful dodging; it is reading the Bill.

*If one reads the clause properly, one knows what it means and does not vote against it at the Second Reading. This was the basis on which the UP voted against it, and it was entirely wrong. The hon. member said that if clause 115 did in fact contain all the discretions which I maintained were there, he would not have objected to the form of review. That is what I deduced from his argument and I now want to state that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—when he has had a chance to make a very thorough study of the clause—will not only be satisfied with the revision but also with the clause.

For the time being I shall not discuss the arguments which were raised on this side of the House, for my time is a little little limited.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was quite right in his allegation, for the hon. member for Houghton avails herself of every possible opportunity to give the S.A. Police an uncalled-for slap in the face. Statistics must always be given to the hon. member in advance so that she may use it in her next argument, and it is always statistics pertaining to the Police, for never since I came to this House—and I have been here for many years—has there been any occasion on which that hon. member used any statistics in favour of the S.A. Police. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg was not far wrong when he said that the hon. member for Houghton displayed an unbelievable hatred for the S.A. Police. [Interjections.] She cannot bear the sight of the S.A. Police, for if she is not quarrelling with the Police over how many people they have killed, then it is over the shooting. I have said before in this House, and I am saying again now, that I cannot allow people who bear the responsibility of keeping South Africa peaceful to walk about unarmed in the streets. I cannot disallow people who have to make arrests from making use of a firearm if people constantly want to thwart them by trying to flee. This provision has always been in the Act and it must remain in the Act; that is where it belongs. Proper investigations are ordered into all cases in which people have been shot and killed. In fact, I have spoken about this matter until I was exhausted and I have turned the S.A. Police inside out and upside down, all for those people who are constantly making insinuations against them. We are trying our best to satisfy the Press, the outside world, and that little party that the Police act with the utmost care and that those who do not do so are brought to book. We show no mercy to a policeman who exceeds the scope of his regulations. However, one just cannot get this idea through to them. It means nothing to them, for if someone is wearing a police uniform, he is the hated enemy. That is the language of communism; it is they who planted that idea in South Africa and these people picked it up and proclaim the story in the highest council chamber in the country.

What about the Elliott case, for instance?

There the hon. member is citing the “Elliott case” again. That hon. member has gone into matters as no other person has ever done, simply to get at the police and to break them. She shows no mercy at all to a policeman.

That is not the answer.

The hon. member for Parktown was absent throughout the debate, but when a note had to be sounded for so-called democracy, then the hon. gentleman was here, posing in his old liberal attitude as the man who stood for justice and fairness. He tried to imply that there was no evidence that the death penalty has any preventive effect on people. How did he know that? How can he tell whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not? Has he any statistics to prove that it has or has not deterred people? No. Once again it was a vague allegation which he sucked out of his thumb. With that he comes to this House to strengthen his argument. What did he say? His argument is the following and we must listen to it … By the way, I wonder whether the hon. member for Orange Grove agrees with the hon. member for Parktown?

Yes, I agree.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Rondebosch also agrees with him?

I was not here.

He was not here and therefore he recuses himself. One of the Progs is therefore retiring from the fray. The hon. member for Houghton has already associated herself with that speech. I am now telling the hon. member for Parktown that he cannot disassociate himself from his party, and that he must be speaking on behalf of the PRP of South Africa when he made his speech. The hon. member advanced the argument, and he must tell me whether I am also wrong, as he said the hon. member for Verwoerdburg was wrong. He said that he had heard it being said by people overseas that it seemed to them as though Blacks were sentenced to death more easily than Whites. Is that correct?

That is what they say. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, here one now has a responsible member of the House of Assembly who has picked up a polecat-mentality argument and is dragging it around in this House. Any member of the House of Assembly of South Africa ought to reject such talk with contempt.

That is nonsense.

Of course it is nonsense. I shall tell the hon. member why he came forward with this argument. He did so because he and his party like being quoted in the Press. The hon. member wondered what he could say this afternoon which would be of such a shocking nature that it would be quoted in the Press. As a former journalist the hon. member knew that he had to say something this afternoon which would put him in the limelight. He then came forward with this story which other people were supposed to have told, because he was too afraid to tell it himself. Why did he not have the courage of his convictions and tell it himself? Why did he not have the courage of his convictions to say: “I say so”?

Prof. Elison Khan referred to that. Were you not listening?

The argument with which the hon. member came forward this afternoon, is a blot on the name of our judges and a slap in the face for the South African judiciary. It is a nonsensical argument to say that in South Africa Black people are sentenced to death more easily than White people. Whether the hon. member says so, or whether Elison Kahn said so, or whoever said so, I say to whoever says so, that it is a weak argument, and that they ought to know better. [Interjections.]

Order!

The position is that the South African judiciary is more greatly respected than most others.

That is what I said.

Yes, but the hon. member added the other little argument, so that people abroad could say there are people in the House of Assembly of South Africa who said this, and because that was the case,

it might be the truth. That is why it has to be published in this way abroad as though it struck a responsive chord here in the House of Assembly. I want to contend that it is absolutely irresponsible of the PRP to do this. It is a denigration of South Africa to the nth degree. In this way, with this kind of argument, South Africa is being denigrated. Let them come forward with a proper argument. I am prepared to listen to criticism. We are prepared to listen to criticism and to consider it on its merits. But hon. members must not come forward with arguments alleging that certain people have said this or that, and that people abroad might think certain things and in that way suggest to the outside world what should be thought. I am telling you now, Mr. Speaker: This idea did not occur to anyone abroad. The hon. member has now told them what to think. That is what he has done.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South inquired into two provisions. In our opinion those two provisions do not belong in the Criminal Procedure Act. In due course they will be included in more suitable legislation. As far as we are concerned, they do not belong in the Criminal Procedure Act.

Mr. Speaker, this brings us to the end of the debate, a long debate on a Bill which has had a long history, and which is a milestone in our administration of justice. This Bill will take the place of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917. After all these years we have now seen fit to bring this Bill before this House. The Bill was introduced in 1973, in its original form, after two commissions had investigated the subject of the Bill. It was then withdrawn, and subsequently the Viljoen Commission again considered certain aspects of the Bill. We had accepted certain of the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission. This afternoon I want to thank Mr. Justice Viljoen very sincerely for all his hard work. I want to say that, to my knowledge, Mr. Justice Viljoen worked almost day and night on his terms of reference, because he was aware that this Bill had to be introduced as soon as possible. He worked against the clock, and I know for a fact that he worked through the night on the commission, and for that I want to thank him today. I also want to convey my thanks to the law advisers, and I also want to mention the officials who were involved in this Bill. They were involved in this Bill for several years. The Bill itself, as it served before this House, testified to the well-considered study which these people made of the Bill in order to bring it before us in its present form. I make so bold as to say that this Bill testifies to a profound study of the matters with which it dealt. I also make so bold as to say that if one reads this Bill, one is struck by the fact that it has been drafted in simple language. It has been neatly phrased, it is understandable, and it will lend itself to easy interpretation. This is an historic Bill, and I want to thank all the hon. members— with the exception of the hon. member for Parktown, who really does not know what it is all about—who participated in this long debate, for the way in which they debated this measure. The hon. member for Houghton was quite correct in saying that the Bill had been debated in a very calm atmosphere and with goodwill. Many amendments of the hon. members on the opposite side of this House and also of members on this side of the House were accepted. I think it may justifiably be said that this Bill has survived the process of parliamentary deliberation very well. I want to thank the Leader of this House for the time which he placed at our disposal to spend on the Bill. We have taken up many hours of the time of this House. I want to convey my thanks to all these persons and say that this historic Bill, after it has been debated in the Other Place, will most probably be placed on the Statute Book. I believe that in future it will cause the work of the courts to function smoothly. I also believe that we, from a South African point of view, have built into it all the guarantees which are necessary to enable law and justice to triumph so that the accused need never feel that he has been wronged. With this Bill, he need never feel that way. Once again, Mr. Speaker, my thanks to all the members. I hope that the interpretation of this legislation will proceed as we expect it to do.

Mr. Speaker, continuing in the same vein as when I commenced my address on this Bill, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work which the Secretary for Health has done in enabling this Bill to take the form which it does. It is very clear from what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, that a great deal of activity resulted after the report of the commission and that numerous consultations took place with various authorities at various levels. The hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Health went overseas to acquaint themselves as much as possible with the up-to-date practice of health matters in other circles. I therefore believe that our appreciation should be placed on record. The hon. the Minister has played a very important part as well in the co-ordination of all efforts in order to ensure that as good a Bill as possible could be presented to the House.

Having said that, I should now like to proceed and make some comments with regard to the Bill itself. In terms of the Bill functions have been allotted to all three tiers of government, and it is in respect of the provinces and the local authorities that I should like to express some views. I must say immediately that as the Bill is constructed I think that the provinces must play an important and vital part in the whole of the health structure in this country and I do not think, save for certain aspects of the work which has been carried on by local authorities, that they should be deprived of playing their part as well as local authorities in the health affairs of the country.

I want to deal with what local authorities have done in the field of preventive health services. They have, over the years, developed these preventive health services on a very large scale. Because of the imbalance in the appropriation of expenditure, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, namely 2% for preventive services with a hopeless emphasis—as he puts it—on curative services, namely 94%, local authorities have always struggled to obtain sufficient financial help to enable them to carry out their activities. They have constantly found themselves hampered and they have worked under extreme difficulties. Very often, and I say this to the credit of local authorities, they have had to look for supplementary funds from the ratepayers’ coffers. I hope that that phase will pass and that in this particular field the hon. the Minister will ensure, not only that there should be the necessary adjustments, but, as he points out, that in view of the fact that the Bill envisages ample measures for such adjustments, sufficient moneys will now be appropriated to local authorities to enable them to maintain the very satisfactory pattern of preventive services which they have built up over the years, despite all these difficulties. The hon. the Minister hopes that the adjustments will result in purposeful, streamlined and co-ordinated services, which will “extend to the greatest benefit of the community”, to use his own words. I therefore sincerely hope that in this field there will not be much change. The modern trend for some time has been to emphasize preventive medicine, whilst not neglecting curative medicine, an aspect which has been, as the hon. the Minister stated it, over-emphasized in days gone by. The assurance I would like the hon. the Minister to give under these circumstances is that the preventive health services already established by the local authorities will be maintained and encouraged, and that the co-ordination which will be the responsibility of both his health council and the administrations in terms of clause 16(f) of the Bill, will take due cognizance of these preventive health services, particularly those built up by large municipalities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria, Durban and elsewhere. I also want the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that, where satisfactory, these services will be retained. To sum it up: Change should not be made in this particular field of preventive health services by the provincial authorities merely for the sake of change. They should rather endeavour to maintain a consistent policy in order to enable local authorities not only to build up services in terms of this legislation, but to maintain it and thus assume the responsibility of what I believe to be a very important and constructive field in health services, something which brings the local authorities into their true perspective as the closest to the individual members of the community.

This question of co-operation, I believe, needs—not at the present time if it is not possible for the hon. the Minister, but certainly later on—certain amplification of the term. I believe that the provinces can play a very important part in respect of preventive health services and other services in the rural areas where they have charge of the district surgeon’s services, where they can furthermore provide promotive and preventive services, because very little of any significance really prevails at the moment. If services of this nature can be divided on the basis where the larger urban authorities are given the opportunity of going ahead with their activities while the provinces concentrate on the rural towns and the rural parts of the country, we will find, I believe, co-ordination and co-operation on the very highest possible level.

Just before I leave this particular subject, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to clause 17(3) of the Bill. This has a bearing on the refund and the remuneration to local authorities for the work they are doing. It states that the basis, where not laid down, should be mutually agreed upon. My only concern is that delays may result by virtue of there being disagreements with regard to the amount which should be refunded. I believe that if possible, some system should further be devised through the Health Council with regard not only to the question of the percentages laid down in regard to personnel, but also to any specific services which are allocated from time to time to local authorities. A formula should be provided whereby red tape can be limited to a minimum and decisions will not have to await specific meetings before money can be spent. In this way there will be no disruption at all in the activities of local authorities. In the long run it will not only save money for the State, but will also contribute to a much more satisfactory health service in the community.

The other aspect that I wish to deal with is the very important duties which will devolve upon local authorities in terms of clause 20(1)(d) of the Bill, where a local authority will be required—

1. (i) the prevention of communicable diseases;
2. (ii) the promotion of the health of persons; and
3. (iii) the rehabilitation in the community of persons cured of any medical condition …

In this respect the hon. the Minister has stated (Hansard, 8 March 1977, col. 3145)—

In fact, this is the first time to my knowledge that this matter has surfaced in health activity. However, in allotting this particular responsibility to local authorities, we will be faced with some very important problems. Rehabilitation has been a feature of health services in European countries for at least some 35 years and is an integral feature of health services in all advanced industrial countries, particularly in Europe and further afield. Therefore, in my opinion the clause should not be interpreted as providing for such rehabilitative services purely within the confines of a local authority without taking cognizance of the background to the science of medical rehabilitation or of what and who may be involved. In my view this would need nation-wide organization and furthermore, large financial provision by the Government would probably be necessary.

I want to quote some extracts from a speech which was delivered to the National Cripple Care Association by Mr. H. J. Parker, Director of the National Council for the Care of Cripples in South Africa, and which was reported in the February 1977 issue of Public Health. Much of what I am going to quote from his address is today accepted by the medical world. He spoke about the many aspects of rehabilitation which were dealt with by the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Medical Rehabilitation, which in 1969 agreed that the health service fell under the following headings: Rehabilitation, medical rehabilitation, social rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation, handicapped persons, impairment, disability, invalidity and vocational counselling. These they fully defined; the aim is to enable the handicapped person to lead a normal life and to be restored back into society after the curative service has been rendered. Then they go on to deal with certain medical aspects.

Logically, they say, medical treatment is the first step in dealing with conditions caused by injury and disease. This service is provided in hospitals, clinics and treatment centres related to provincial hospitals. At this stage provincial ordinances, however, restrict the services of provincial hospitals to curative measures and the supply and fitting of orthopaedic appliances and other medical aids. These are curative and not rehabilitative appliances. “This is in direct conflict,” says this spokesman, “with the modern concept of rehabilitation medicine and the development of special rehabilitation teaching hospitals and the creation of appropriate facilities in the smaller hospitals.” He then goes on to deal with the needs. The reason I am bringing this to the hon. the Minister’s attention is to indicate what may be required and the vast background to this field of activity, a field which will be entirely new to local authorities. The spokesman continues—

In the course of time it may also be necessary to introduce a Chair of Rehabilitative Medicine in one of our teaching hospitals or universities so that the science can be further developed and practised on a more extensive scale. I believe that in this way we can make an important contribution to something which has been a difficult problem in the field of handicapped persons and the causes of their continued handicap. It will enable us to bring them back into society as normal persons and so restore the loss of man-hours and manpower, a loss which results from the accidents which take place. The handicaps ensuing out of these accidents, take people right out of the industrial field and so limit their usefulness to society. I should like the hon. the Minister to give some thought to this particular aspect, because, in saddling the local authorities with this responsibility, we may be entering into a field so wide that many problems will be encountered in the effort to enable them to establish such facilities.

I should like to conclude by saying that whilst I see the importance and the necessity for the provinces to play their part in the health structure—I think the balance of the structure, on a three-tier system, is sound in every respect—I do feel that in so far as local authorities are concerned, we should, in this Bill, bearing in mind the changes that have been made in the method of financing the local authorities and the general approach and co-operation that has been received, ensure that a new era is opened up in the relationship between local authorities, provinces and the State. In the financial field the hon. the Minister should not only have the courage, but also the determination, to ensure that health does not constantly have to suffer from lack of funds and that agencies established by the State, such as the tuberculosis organizations and other agencies, which assist the State in providing health services to the community, should not suffer or find that they are hindered by lack of satisfactory funds.

If the hon. the Minister can achieve that, we may have reached what might almost be, as near as we possibly can get, the ideal of a new health system for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite rightly, recognized that it is the duty of the State to provide proper care for all its citizens. In my opinion, the legislation now before the House complies to a great extent with what one could require of it in that regard. Never before has the provision of health services—which begins before one is born and lasts till the grave—been incorporated in one piece of legislation in such a positive way. From beginning to end, the idea of the comprehensive service runs like a golden thread through the Bill. The preamble to the Bill reads as follows—

From beginning to end, the idea of a comprehensive service runs like a golden thread through the Bill. This is in contrast to what the position has been up to now. If one goes back into history a little and takes a look at the various acts relating to the matter, one sees immediately how many shortcomings there were and one realizes that the matter is now being placed on a firm footing for the first time.

As far as the content and details of the Bill are concerned, there are still a few matters one would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. As regards the Health Matters Advisory Committee, I think that particular committee has a very important function to perform and for that reason, it is necessary to make provision in the composition of the staff of the committee for those who are involved in rendering health services in some form in the Republic of South Africa. Provision is made for various bodies but one group is excluded and that, in my opinion, is very unfortunate. The group that is excluded is, numerically, the largest, and I am referring in this regard to the nurses. There are approximately 46 000 registered nurses in the country, people who render a tremendously important service. I just feel their voice ought to be heard on such an important committee. Today, I want to advocate that this aspect be reviewed and that consideration be given to the possibility of including nurses on the committee as well. As far as the allotment of work to the various bodies is concerned, it is provided in chapter 3 of the Bill what the functions of the provincial administrations will be in this regard and what services they must accept responsibility for. I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister and his department today on the inclusion of the treatment of acute mental illnesses among the services rendered by provincial authorities. This is a new development that deserves high praise. I also think this House ought to appeal to the provincial authorities, in view of the new dispensation that is now to be implemented, to release more of their nursing staff for training as psychiatric nurses in future. Training in that field can only promote the other services that have to be rendered by the nursing staff, because it will equip those people better to understand and undertake the other part of the work as well. I should like to make an appeal in this regard to activate the provincial administration to release more of their staff for this purpose.

Under the Bill, provincial authorities will also accept responsibility in future for the provision of maternity services. In my opinion, however, there is a shortcoming in the sense that the provincial authority will only be held responsible for the maternity services as such. As far as pre-natal and post-natal care is concerned, however, these people will still be dependent on the local authorities. Due to the importance of this particular service, I think consideration should once again be given to the question as to whether this service ought not to be placed under the direct supervision of the central Government and whether the provincial authorities ought not to accept responsibility for this.

It is unfortunate that such a very important part of this service has been neglected up to now in this country—and in fact, throughout the world. I am told that the first pre-natal law was established in England in 1901 and that it has always been an accepted concept that childbirth and what it involves are a household matter and that outsiders should keep out of it. It is true, however that for the sake of the mother and the child, more attention will have to be given in future to pre-natal care and, after the provincial authority has been relieved of its obligations, to post-natal care as well. I want to ask that in future consideration once again be given to the question as to whether it is not time for that important service either to be placed under the central Government or to be transferred to the provincial authorities.

However, there is another positive aspect I want to refer to and which is almost a matter for rejoicing. This is that the legislation also contains provisions under which powers are vested in local authorities to remedy certain offensive conditions more quickly and more effectively. I want to point out that in terms of clause 27 it will no longer be necessary to obtain a court order to clear up an offensive condition or to clamp down on those responsible. There are occasions, when a plague of flies occurs, for example, on which it is essential for the local authority to take action immediately in the interests of public health. After that, they can deal with the responsible party. Up to now, however, one had to obtain a court order and this resulted in time being wasted. The matter is now being remedied in the legislation and one must pay attention to this positive aspect embodied in the legislation.

I also want to refer to the question of industrial health. It is due to the importance of industrial health, that it, too, is given its due share of attention in this legislation. If one looks at the latest report of the Department of Health, one forms an idea of the scope of this aspect of health in South Africa. But at this point I have just one further possible difficulty in this respect. Although it is a very good thing that so much emphasis is being placed on this aspect, I note that under clause 55 of the Bill, provision is specifically made for certain exceptions. Clause 55 reads that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply in respect of any matter to which the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941, etc., apply. Now, my problem is that whilst clause 39(1) provides that the Minister may make regulations regulating, controlling, restricting or prohibiting any activity, condition or thing which constitutes a nuisance in terms of this Act, I am not clear as to whether the Minister may make regulations to eliminate any undesirable conditions that could arise under the Factories, etc., Act.

I want to refer to one particular aspect which, to an increasing extent, is becoming a vital one, for us in industrial areas too, and that is the question of factory noise. Now I know that you will point out to me that this could possibly be controlled under another Act. However, when one has to resort to a series of Acts in order to eliminate an undesirable condition, one finds—if you will allow me to say so—that there is so much red tape that the condition simply persists. I really wonder whether it is not essential, where peoples’ health is affected, that there be only one Act and that the Department of Health and the hon. the Minister take action on the basis of this Act. I am referring to factory noise. I refer to factory noise because this is a nuisance detrimental in various ways to the health of our people. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that when such conditions arise, he will in fact—despite clause 55—have the necessary authority to take action. If he says “yes”, then I am completely satisfied. In conclusion, I want to say that this is a special day, to see such a comprehensive Bill—for the first time in respect of health services, I might add—appearing on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister and his department are to be congratulated on this.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the recommendation made by the hon. member for Springs about the desirability of having a representative of the Nursing Council on the committee. I note from the report of the commission that that was a recommendation of the commission that has not been taken up in the Bill. I believe it is a defect which, I hope, the hon. the Minister will find it possible to remedy. When dealing with the nursing profession there is also, I believe, a necessity for giving greater attention to the needs and the advice of the para-medical services in a comprehensive health scheme.

One wonders whether the para-medical services will be adequately represented on the committee without some more direct representation than is granted in the present form of representation as set forth in the Bill. I believe that is something which should be considered. In introducing this measure the hon. the Minister said—and I was particularly pleased to hear him say so—that the underlying philosophy of the Bill was to legislate a blue-print of three tiers of Government to render health services. We believe that it provides a basis for rationalizing much of what causes irritation today—the unclear demarcation of responsibility between authorities. I would say that the present confusion, this lack of clear demarcation is perhaps one of the aspects most used by those people who want—in common terms—to pass the buck and to evade handling a particular problem. Without a clear demarcation of areas of responsibility it is very simple to pass the buck from one department to another and avoid having to settle down and deal with a particular problem. That I am sure, Sir, will stop. However, with the delegation for local authorities, I want to raise a word of warning in so far as the hon. the Minister is concerned. It seems that under the Bill it is contemplated that powers can be delegated to local authority A which may not be delegated to local authority B. If that is done and one has odd local authorities having certain powers in respect of health services while others are excluded, I believe that that can possibly lead to some confusion as to where the responsibility lies. Therefore I believe caution should be exercised in that delegation. Each of the three tiers of government must have clearly defined rights and complementary responsibilities in the wide field of adequate health services.

Another general observation I want to make in regard to this Bill relates to something which I am sure is welcomed—it is certainly welcomed by us on this side of the House—and that is the complete absence of any reference to race in any part of this legislation. Health services must be all-encompassing, and, quite correctly, the aim of this measure, as set out in clause 14, is “a comprehensive health service for the population of the Republic of South Africa”. I believe that that is to be welcomed. We have had so much legislation—the kind of legislation from which obviously the Government must try to get away—which provides for the exclusion of certain members of the population when it comes to the appointment of members to certain bodies. While that question of exclusion is not to be found in the Bill, I hope we are not going to have the suggestion made to the House that we should now amend this legislation to compel the inclusion of persons on boards because of their race or colour. I believe that that would be a retrogressive step and that it is unnecessary that we should accommodate such a proposal because differentiation based on race or colour is not to be legislated for: it is dealt with in the course of practices and procedures, and people will be selected to serve on the committee in accordance with the particular interests they represent.

There will be representatives of the Department of Health who will be directors in that department. As time progresses, these people may or may not be White persons. There will also be representatives of the medical profession. These will represent all the population groups. There will also be representatives of medical administrators of urban local authorities and also of rural local authorities. This again covers all population groups. I believe we must ensure, and I am sure the hon. the Minister and his department will ensure, that any appointments made to represent these groups of people will be made on personal merit and depend on the experience and ability of the persons who are nominated to serve on this committee. I believe that all communities must be seen to have access to, and in appropriate cases representation on, the committee not because of colour, but because of the position of the people concerned in the provision of health services for the population as a whole.

I want to pass on to the question raised by the hon. member for Bryanston, viz. the question of teaching hospitals. In the course of his speech, the hon. member said he believed that the central Health Department should take under its wing large academic hospitals where complicated medical procedures take place and where medical research is done. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister and his department will not accede to a suggestion of that nature. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have had association with teaching hospitals, not only as a member of the executive committee of the Cape Province for some years, but also as chairman of the Teaching Hospitals Board in Cape Town; and I want to say that the position there has entrenched in my mind the desirability of the continued close association between the teaching hospital and the medical school or teaching institution connected with that hospital. It must be remembered that teaching hospitals are there to provide curative treatment to the population in the neighbourhood. At the same time the intake of patients is largely directed towards providing clinical material for the training of doctors, nurses and paramedical staff and for research into new procedures in the treatment of illness and physical incapacity. However, basically they are there to provide curative treatment.

In the Cape, as the hon. the Minister will be aware, the joint staff agreement between the medical school of the University of Cape Town and the Cape Provincial Administration has functioned for many decades. I always remember—I think you, Mr. Speaker, were present on that occasion—when many years ago there was occasion to celebrate so many years of association, as one celebrates a silver or golden wedding. The then Administrator, Dr. Malan, referred to this long association and remarked how they had managed to carry on in a very happy and peaceful way. He said it reminded him of a man who on the occasion of his golden wedding was asked whether he had ever thought of divorcing his wife. His reply was “Of divorce, never, but of murder, frequently.” That is the happy association which has existed between the teaching hospital and the medical school at UCT. I believe that that association should continue.

In this respect there are certain matters I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. Firstly, there is the possible elimination of the need for senior staff—I am talking about senior teaching staff at teaching hospitals, the upper professorial ranks—to have to continue with private practice in order to ensure for themselves an adequate income. In the Cape Province it has been possible to avoid this as far as the medical school at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital are concerned, by a system of merit awards to persons holding professorial rank. However, I believe that the salaries paid to persons in the upper echelons of the teaching profession at our medical schools and teaching hospitals should not be dependent on a dual interest as far as those persons are concerned, i.e. that of teaching and doing their research and at the same time carrying on a private practice so as to add to their income. I hope it is going to be possible to see that salary scales to those in key teaching positions are so adjusted that they equate more realistically to the earning capacity of such highly efficient men and women in private practice. I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to go further than the commission’s suggestion, viz. that the committee will have not only the Secretary of the Public Service Commission in attendance at its meetings when dealing with matters dealing with health services, but that the chairman of the Public Service Commission himself should be a member, or called in as a member, on those occasions when matters regarding remuneration are considered.

This brings me to the next matter of interest in this Bill, viz. the question of medical research. No one is more aware than the hon. the Minister himself that coordination, not only of the nature of the research, but also of the spending of money on research, needs constant attention to prevent overlapping. I believe there is a high degree of co-ordination at the present moment, and I have found that there are persons involved in research in various places who are ready and willing to assist. For example, there is the Chris Barnard Heart Research Fund here in Cape Town at the Groote Schuur Hospital where there is money available for research. We have found that it is possible to obtain the services of men concerned with research to see to it that when applications are dealt with they are dealt with in relation to other funds that may or may not be available. Through that fund, which stands at approximately R750 000 at present, over a period of eight years some R305 000 has been granted without any capital amounts being expended. There are other research funds which I believe also need this coordination, although informal liaison exists. I want to refer to a specific provision which is contained in the Bill. I refer to clause 14(1)(e), which reads as follows—

Also in clause 49 there is a similar reference to the undertaking of research and the provision of facilities. I think this is welcome and that there can be an economic advantage by attaching a great deal of the research to teaching hospitals, instead of establishing separate institutions with all the administrative and other expenses that go with such establishments.

I have dealt with the question of the Advisory Committee and of the National Health Policy Council. As the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, these in fact replace the present Central Health Services and Hospitals Co-ordinating Council. The hon. the Minister regards the present council as having no legal powers to enforce decisions. In fact, the hon. the Minister has to sit as chairman in his own case. I believe that the Bill before us introduces a rationalization of the situation. I was looking at some records and I found that at the last meeting of the Co-ordinating Council which I attended in my capacity as a member of the executive committee of the Cape Province there were 37 people present dealing with the health administration problems. Of those 37 people only 13 were qualified medical men. So, I think it was a little top-heavy in dealing with policy matters in so far as the administration of health services was concerned. The matters that were discussed were basically professional problems, as I believe they will be in the case of this committee.

One knows that most, if not all, members of the executive committees of the provinces are not qualified medical men. The new procedure, therefore, appears to be a much more manageable one. The smaller committee, the committee which will consist exclusively of medical men holding office in all three tiers of government which will be involved with health services, as well as a representative of the Defence Force, will be responsible for the more effective administration of a matter which is vital to our country’s well-being.

I welcome the requirement that no recommendation can be passed from the committee to the council until that recommendation has been referred to the Administrators; that is to the Administrators and their executive committees. I believe this is a wise and proper step because the council will, in the main, be a body of policy-makers and not medical men. That is the council of which the hon. the Minister will be chairman. As I have indicated to him, four of his members are unlikely to be medically trained men, as is the position at the present moment. The council, as is envisaged under the Bill before us, of six people, will contain two trained doctors and four laymen, so I believe it is a wise precaution that these recommendations go back to the executive committees of the provinces to be considered there before they are forwarded to this council.

I have some hesitation in supporting clause 13 of the Bill, and I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could elaborate a little bit. This clause deals with the decision on a recommendation, and provides that—

It goes on to say—

I believe that if the council were not to reach consensus on any matter, an extremely onerous, almost lonesome duty would be placed on the Minister to take a decision and to see that it is put into effect, by means of the extensive powers contained in the power to delegate and to make regulations. The hon. the Minister takes these decisions following the deliberations of the council and he is vested with extremely wide powers so far as health services are concerned. I would go so far as to say that if one looks at some of the matters in which he can introduce regulations, he is empowered to govern by regulation over a very, very wide field. To a degree this is necessary because of the nature of the action to be taken and the nature of the regulations which obviously will have to be enforced, but the responsibility of the Minister is to see that when he uses his powers to regulate, he acts, should I say, medically and not politically in exercising those powers. If he is acting professionally, medically, then one can have no quarrel with the exercise of his responsibility as the Minister in charge on the advice of the committee and the council.

Finally, I want to add my appreciation to that which has already been expressed to the commission for its energy and dedication in the task entrusted to it. The report that we have before us is a very short document. It is very concise and compact, but on deeper investigation one finds that the record on page 4 of this commission’s report contains testimony of the extent of the investigations undertaken. There were some 60 memoranda and written representations and there was verbal evidence from some 34 different individuals and various interests. It is clear, as one knows from experience, that this committee and commission was assisted to a very great extent by the efficient and untiring Secretary for Health, Dr. De Beer. I believe that his contribution was not restricted only to his work on the commission, but also extends to the preparation of the Bill and, should I say, the preparation of some of us in the House who are not fully conversant with medical matters. He has been so kind as to arrange opportunities for us to visit various undertakings, to enable us to become aware of the problems as they exist at the present time, with divided responsibility.

Obviously, as a result of constitutional changes which are to take place in the country in respect of the homelands, in respect of increased powers for the Coloured Council and the Indian Council and in respect of urban Blacks, there will have to be adaptations and alterations in the ambit of this Bill. If such alterations do become necessary, it will be necessary merely to extend the efficiency of this legislation. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches did not serve in the Select Committee, because we had not yet been formed as a political party. However, we have read the report and the Bill and we are in agreement with the main provisions of the Bill, which we will support. I want to make one or two remarks about it. From a practical point of view I want to draw the Minister’s attention to three clauses. The first clause is clause 27, which concerns the steps that can be taken by a local authority by means of written notice and thereafter the recovery of expenses should there be anything in the local authority area which is either offensive or else a danger to health. It is not clear to me what happens if a local authority neglects to take the steps that this particular clause empowers it to take. If I may, I should like to use a local example. In areas of the Peninsula, such as in Noordhoek, near to Fish Hoek, one finds a number of poultry farms. These farms attract a tremendous number of flies. The lives of local inhabitants living near these farms are utterly unbearable.

Many of the people are having to consider selling their houses, if they possibly can, and moving out of the area. In the last couple of weeks I myself have gone to see these houses and found that it is absolutely impossible to live there under these conditions. Photographs have been taken inside some of these houses, photographs which have been given to the local authority to which representations have been made. Indeed, interviews have been conducted with the health committee of the local authority. These photographs show that even in a dining room a plate of food will have up to ten flies settling on it in a matter of seconds. I have been there on a Sunday and I have seen that at a braaivleis plates of food get covered black with flies. These flies have apparently built up a resistance to local insecticides, to the extent that they are now breeding more profusely than ever. Something has to be done about it. The local Medical Officer of Health of the divisional council says that he has reached the end of his tether and does not know what to do. This is a sort of situation where the hon. the Minister and his department have to step in. In terms of the provisions of clause 27, it seems that local authorities can serve a notice and can take steps in the event of the terms of that notice not being carried out by the owner of the property. I am afraid, however, that this is a case where there is a big undertaking involved and where the local authority concerned is possibly reluctant to close down a big business undertaking—I think four or five farms are involved—because of the inconvenience suffered by local people. This is a serious situation and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to it. I have a notion that this is not just a situation pertaining to the Peninsula. It must also happen where there are other poultry farms or farms of a similar kind, perhaps big farms elsewhere in the country. I understand that in the Transvaal, for example, there are piggeries where a similar problem is to be found. Quite apart from the flies, there is the most appalling smell coming from piggeries and some poultry farms. This situation is often thoroughly objectionable to the people living in the area. Where the local authorities have allowed housing developments to take place near to agricultural areas, there exists a conflict between the established farming industry and the new residential character of the place. I ask the hon. the Minister to look into this matter to see if there is machinery that can be used to reinforce the powers of the local authority in the event of the local authority for one or other reason not being able to act or refusing to act That is the first clause I want to bring to his attention.

The second clause I want to bring to the attention is clause 38, which concerns the Minister’s power to make regulations concerning sewage and the discharge of substances into rivers. Here again I want to use a local example. On the Cape Flats one finds a number of open vleis which are under the jurisdiction of the Cape Town city council, vleis into which sewage is being pumped. At certain times of the year, when the winds are particularly strong, it is a most unpleasant state of affairs for people who live near these vleis. Quite apart from that, I wonder whether this form of sewage disposal is necessary these days, whether it is not wholly outdated. Cannot the hon. the Minister look at this situation as well?

Then there is the situation where treated sewage—not always treated as well as it should be—seems to be discharged into rivers from townships and sewage treatment plants on the Cape Flats. One of the worst examples of a polluted river is the one that runs out across the beach at Woodstock, actually the exit into the sea of a confluence of three rivers. Each of these rivers comes from areas where there is industrial development, residential development or townships, for example the river which comes from the Cape Flats. These rivers are polluted, and I have not the slightest doubt that if specimens were taken of the contents of the river somewhere near Hartleyvale, one would find that the river was not only polluted, but was also a hazard to health. The situation has long ago been brought to the attention of the local authority, not a small one without funds, but a large local authority. However, it seems reluctant to do anything in this particular field.

I should like to make reference to one more clause, clause 44, in which the hon. the Minister gets the power to make regulations in respect of private hospitals and nursing homes, more particularly as regards their registration. I have raised in this House before, usually under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare, but also under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Health, the question of the registration of private hospitals and nursing homes. Certain people have seen it possible to make money out of providing these facilities which are needed by the public. They have become substantial commercial undertakings. What they do is that they look at a local authority area, generally one that is somewhat run down, but still has large buildings which are no longer used for the purposes for which they were originally erected. The particular concern then takes these buildings over, gets a registration from the hon. the Minister, gets a certificate from the local authority to the effect that the building is fit for the purposes for which it is to be used, and then applies to the Department of Social Welfare for some form of subsidy or grant per patient. Many of these buildings are utterly unsuitable not only because of the place where they are situated, but also because of the type of building it is in relation to the purpose for which it is being used.

The hon. the Minister of Health and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare are, however, so anxious for elderly people and sick people to be accommodated because of the absence of adequate number of State institutions, that they jump at the opportunity of utilizing the facilities so provided—as it is called—by private enterprise. This is not a healthy development. I have spoken against it before and I am speaking against it again today. It is not a healthy development from a town-planning point of view. The local authorities seem powerless to prevent it from taking place, because all that the private institutions has to ask the local authority is for a certificate to the effect that it complies with their fire-proof requirements, that it has a certain minimum number of passages, a certain number of windows and things of that kind. If the building complies with that, it is given a certificate and then, in terms of the regulations of the Bill, as I understand it, the hon. the Minister will give it a certificate of registration.

There are all sorts of other factors which complicate this, of which the main one is town-planning. The second factor is the fact that it very often has a considerable deleterious influence on the character of the area which it is serving. As I have said earlier, many of these old buildings were used for a completely different purpose in the past. They may have been large homes which have since become outdated because they cannot be kept up as a result of the shortage of tenants; or they may have been boarding houses or hotels. Now, however, they are being turned into something completely different, into some form of institution, in some cases into mental institutions. This is having an appalling effect not only on the people living nearby because their properties are depreciating in value, but also on the businesses in those areas. Obviously these institutions buy in bulk and they do not patronize the local businesses. They buy in bulk from big concerns and this, in turn, has a ripple effect on the local people and businesses. That is my argument as regards the registration of these homes and private hospitals in terms of clause 44, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the whole matter. I think the matter should be much more adequately investigated than has been the case to date.

With these words and with the remarks about the three particular clauses, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank all hon. members on both sides of this House for their contributions. This afternoon, as on the previous occasions when the legislation was discussed, we had a very interesting discussion. What struck me in particular was the goodwill which emanated from most of the speeches. Here and there there was a slight deviation, but that is the way of politics, and in any case they were minor matters. A Bill such as this is something that develops over a period of many years. It is a thick Bill, and because we agree on so many aspects, many hon. members may feel that we do not need a very long debate. However, it is fit and proper that people should have their say to one another on matters which are of special importance and on which we have very often over the years differed as to how one may provide the best health service for the population of South Africa. I observed that there was an understanding of the fact that germs and bacteria are not race-conscious, that they are not conscious of any difference between peoples. This appear to be the case throughout, because when we were drafting the Bill, what we were dealing with was the human individual and his health. This emanates from the legislation throughout, and it was therefore not necessary to bring politics into this matter in any way. When we differ somewhat on the organizational aspects, perhaps later on as well during the Committee Stage, we must bear in mind that some people are not serving because they are not any good, but because the present circumstances, the present legal position in South Africa is such that there are only three levels of government which render health services: the central Government, the provincial administrations and the local authorities. I have appreciation for what hon. members said and also for their support in general. In very few respects did hon. members qualify their support. I was also very pleased to see that hon. members had made a thorough study of the Bill. Usually each member chooses for himself a particular aspect of the legislation, an aspect in which he is interested. Nevertheless I observed that quite a number of speakers on both sides had made a thorough study of the Bill in its entirety, and I also realized that they had had advisers.

This Bill is an exceptional milestone, and I shall perhaps during the Third Reading quote a telegram I received and which I appreciated very much. Now that we have reached this stage in our health legislation, I do not, at the end of a very good debate, want to make another long speech, but I should like to reply briefly to the arguments raised by some hon. members. Unfortunately I cannot deal with the specific aspects which were dealt with here and which ought really to be dealt with under my Vote. I could of course argue the matter with hon. members, but it would not be entirely appropriate. We should preferably confine ourselves to the legislation. When my Vote comes up for discussion, hon. members may raise these matters again, and discuss them.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville was here at the start of the debate, but could unfortunately not attend later on. He informed me beforehand. I was sorry that he was not here, because I have great appreciation for his work on the commission. I want to assure the hon. member for Berea, who was also a member of the commission, that I also very much appreciate his services and the attitude he displayed all along in regard to health matters. To a certain extent he did reproach me about the fact that I was rather lukewarm towards the hazards of tobacco smoking, but I still have something to say about that. I noted the hon. member’s remarks in regard to the dire need for more Black doctors or Indian doctors, although I do not think we direly need more Indian doctors at the moment. I took note of his opinion and of the better co-ordination as regards the training of pharmacists. Those matters do not actually have anything specific to do with this Bill as such, but nevertheless I took special note of them. I am aware of the hon. member’s special interest in this matter. It may interest him to know that he mentions this at a time when we have moves afoot, in consultation with the Minister of National Education—who is actually the responsible Minister, although my department is involved—and we are progressing in putting right this problem of the co-ordination of pharmacists’ training. As the hon. member, and many other hon. members, will know, pharmacists can at the present time either graduate, or can obtain diplomas. They are either trained at universities or at colleges, and this sometimes brings about an anomalous relationship. We are aware of this. At the moment we are also engaged in embarking upon a policy to place the training of Black, Indian and Coloured dentists and other medical personnel on a better footing. We are progressing. As I said, we are at the moment taking steps to achieve this. As far as dental therapy is concerned, we know that we do not have enough dentists. However, the training of dental therapists will alleviate that problem to a certain extent.

The hon. member also spoke about the two-way radio system he suggests we try to introduce. I can tell him that we already have that in the remoter parts of our country, but at the moment it is a financial problem. As far as the better populated parts of our country are concerned, we do not consider it very necessary. As far as the more remote parts of our country are concerned, the problem occurs mostly in the homelands, and they have mostly their own health departments. It is therefore not under our direct control at the moment.

The hon. member is very perturbed about the dangers of tobacco smoking. I am also perturbed about it. It is a matter of relative importance, so to speak. I am not a smoker myself, but believe in moderation. If one eats too much and exercises too little, it can be just as much a hazard to one’s health as smoking 25 cigarettes per day as opposed to 15 per day for instance. So it is with alcohol and so it is with our approach to the traffic accident problem. I suppose the hon. member has read the article in the April edition of the Reader’s Digest from which a seat-belt law is urged for now. These matters are therefore coming under public scrutiny and we shall no doubt have a public debate on them. I think that, for the moment, we should not eat it in too serious a manner. The hon. member can take the matter up with me when we discuss my Vote.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith expressed his appreciation for what has been achieved over the years. I am also grateful to the hon. member for what he has done personally in the 11 years he has been here. Not only was he chairman of the commission which instituted an investigation into our health legislation, but has all these years also been chairman of the Staff Advisory Committee of the Hospitals and Health Co-ordinating Council. There, too, he did quite exceptional work.

He pointed out, and apparently this gave him cause for concern, that we are not affording the private practitioner a proper place in this new health dispensation. I want to tell him that if this is an outcome of a fear that there may perhaps be a socialistic spectre stalking the corridors of State, he may as well forget about it. Hon. members must help us. I stated repeatedly that the private practitioner and the private practice was in my opinion an integral part of the health set-up in South Africa. As such they will, as far as it is within my means, remain there and retain their position. This does not mean that the private practitioner should not at times show greater responsibility. This I have also said repeatedly and I have not always been praised for it. Therefore I have stated these things repeatedly, and I would be pleased if hon. members would scotch any idea of a State policy in the direction of the socialization of medicine.

†The hon. member for Bryanston referred to social and health services that should rather not be separated, but should fall under one department. To a certain extent I do agree with the hon. member in that respect. However, I think the hon. member should perhaps, if he feels like it, take up that matter at some stage with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior. We could perhaps have a very fruitful debate on that issue. I can assure him that the Department of Health at all times works in close co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. To date there has been absolutely no trouble as regards co-ordination.

The hon. member argued about the necessity of having Coloureds, Black people and Indians as separate ethnic groups on the Health Matters Advisory Committee and even on the Health Policy Council, I believe that this is a matter which should be discussed in the Committee Stage, because I notice the hon. member has some amendments on the Order Paper in that connection. Therefore we can discuss it then. Although I do not want to prejudge the issue, I can tell him that I do not agree with what he has said.

The hon. member also wants the local authorities to render a comprehensive health service. I must tell him that, if we allow the local authorities to render such a service and we do not at least separate, as far as is possible and practical, the various functions of the three tiers of government, it will create chaotic conditions in South Africa. Indeed, we will revert back to the position to which the hon. member for Green Point has just referred, viz. we shall be passing the buck all the time. The hon. member must therefore appreciate that I cannot concede to that.

He also said that academic hospitals should fall under the central Department of Health. Perhaps he thinks we can manage this better than the provinces. I do not think so. I think the provinces have done a very good job over the years. The hon. member must realize that academic hospitals are service-rendering bodies and, at the same time, educational institutions. As these hospitals have worked in close liaison with the provinces all these years, I think it is not proper now to place them under the control of a central Government department. I do not agree with that. It is also contrary to the health set-up which we have had in this country and which we intend having in times to come.

*The hon. member for Brentwood said something nice, something which could in fact serve as a reply to what the hon. member for Berea said. He said that one ought at least to know where the duty of the State ended when it came to matters of personal preference, matters such as smoking, drinking and quite a few other matters. I appreciate that the hon. member wants us to refuse to allow commodities of that kind to be advertised, but still. One can of course make laws and regulations with regard to social matters of this kind, matters of personal preference. However, we are dealing here with the habits with which there is fundamentally not much fault to find, provided they are indulged in moderation. One can make a law, but still not have the assistance of the conscience of the public. Everyone hopes that the law will set everything to rights. If I were to philosophize here, and say what I truly believed, I would say that we should be careful with legislation in respect of such matters as these. I think that in respect of such matters one might possibly be able to achieve far more by not making laws for them.

The hon. member also referred to health guidance. He felt that provision should be made for it in clause 14(1)(d) because the words “health guidance” are not mentioned in that clause. I just want to tell him that, if he looks at clause 14(1)(a) he will see that, although the words as such are not used, health guidance in reality forms an integral part of the health services as they are described there. I think the matter is covered quite comprehensively, and therefore the hon. member need not be concerned about it.

I need not say much about what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg had to say, for he made a thorough study of the Bill and presented a very fine synopsis of it. I am greatly indebted to him for doing so. If I were to reply to all the aspects which he raised, I would have to speak for too long. However, I just want to tell him that what he said in regard to long-term planning and balanced spending is in fact what we are striving to achieve as the ultimate policy. His comments in this regard showed that he has a good insight into this legislation, and I thank him for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Jeppe, as usual, with his interest in Santa affairs and his interest in medical and health matters over the years, made a very good contribution. One of the points he made was for a more flexible system of subsidies. For the time being this problem is being investigated by a committee of the Department of Finance and will in time let the Department of Health have a report. Then we can perhaps settle for a relationship between the various tiers of government as far as that matter is concerned. We did put in the 33⅓ and 90% in order to have a better and flexible system and I think that in time we might be able to solve this problem. We did not want to lay down a specific percentage, because I think there will then be no end of squabbles in that regard.

The hon. member for Jeppe also spoke about rehabilitation centres and rehabilitation services. This is an important subject. I do not regard rehabilitation as being something which can be isolated into compartments. Rehabilitation starts with preventive medicine and is followed by the curative aspect. After the curative aspect has been disposed of the patient is released into the community and, once he is in the community, the local authority will have its problems, tasks and responsibilities as far as these people are concerned. Nevertheless, one must not forget that the community is involved in this matter and we must make the community more dedicated, because they have a very big stake in these rehabilitation services. That is actually what we are after. The large sums of money which are required for this is something which can be discussed as the matter unfolds, but I do not think this is the most important. The most important matter is that we must come to the stage of rehabilitation and where the person has been returned to the community. He is now in his home town or village and there he must be accepted. All the people concerned with the process of getting him back into his normal life stream must feel that they are involved. The various tiers of government can supply the necessary technical know-how, etc.

*The hon. member for Springs raised a few interesting matters. I should like to explain a few points, points which I do not think he understands all that well. It is not entirely proper to accord nurses a share in the advisory committee. The advisory committee consists of knowledgeable people, officials of the service-rendering authorities. A nurse is in the employ of a service-rendering organization, but she is not really an official in that sense. However, the nurses will definitely be recognized in the subcommittees which will form part of this pyramid and help to determine the policy. They will be able to state their case on the advisory committee and that advice will filter through to the council. Consequently the hon. member need not be concerned on that score.

The hon. member went on to speak about pre-natal and post-natal care. The hon. member could look at the clauses dealing with the functions of the provinces. The provinces are the level of government responsible for prenatal and post-natal care, viz. maternity services. They may delegate some of those services to local authorities; the local authorities are not excluded entirely. Under the circumstances we shall have to leave it at that for the present. There is a small misunderstanding over industrial health and occupational diseases. The misunderstanding even arose that the purpose to bring occupational health within the ambit of the Bill. That is not the case. The voluminous report on occupational health appeared at approximately the same period when this Bill was originally published for information. The aim is in fact to introduce separate legislation in regard to occupational health. It covers a very wide field and therefore has to be dealt with separately. Some Government departments expressed the fear that my department could possibly then be trespassing on their domain. The functions which are at present entrusted to the Departments of Labour, Mines and Commerce and Industry are still deemed to be the responsibility of those departments. Over the years those departments have been able to call upon the assistance of my department. They have been able to ask my department for advice and have been able to make use of the technical knowledge of my department, but functions were their own and they had to perform them. Therefore it was not possible simply to introduce legislation without thorough consideration and before the abovementioned departments had been consulted. That process of consultation is virtually complete. A committee has been established to look into the possibility of legislation, to investigate all the possible obstacles and to draw up a report. If we are fortunate and succeed in reaching an agreement, comprehensive legislation in regard to occupational health will be introduced within the foreseeable future. In the meantime the other departments will continue to do their duty as prescribed to them by legislation.

†The hon. member for Green Point has also served on various councils over a period of years, councils relating to health matters. I know he possesses a very extensive knowledge of those matters. I do agree with him that the Nursing Council and para-medical services are very important links in our health set-up. However, for reasons mentioned I cannot include them in the advisory council, at least not at this stage. I do not believe they will fit in with our approach to this matter. For the reasons that I set out to the hon. member for Springs, I cannot consider that. The hon. member also made reference to delegations to local authorities. Sometimes a power is delegated for the time being, for a specific task. Delegations to local authorities by the provincial administrations or by the Government will be ad hoc delegations, delegations in terms of the requirements of the specific circumstances. Therefore the hon. member need not worry about that.

Will it be temporary?

Yes, mostly temporary. They are not considered to be permanent features in the scheme. The hon. member also referred to the fact that race was not mentioned. I have already commented on that. The hon. member also referred to private practice and to general practitioners and their salary scales. I want to evade a discussion on that while we are dealing with this Bill. If the hon. member really feels strongly about it, I suggest he introduces that into the debate on my Vote.

The hon. member indicated that he believed that the Public Service Commission should be a permanent member of the advisory committee. We believe that the Public Service Commission does not want to serve on the advisory committee. As has been the case over all the years, the Public Service Commission has given its advice in the old hospitals and co-ordinating councils.

The committee must give the commission advice, and not the other way around.

Yes, that is correct. Well, we give them advice and they give us advice. It is two-way traffic. In any case, we listen to that Commission because it has a law to apply. The hon. member spoke about the fact that the Minister was getting such draconian powers …

I did not say that.

No, you did not say that, but perhaps you had that at the back of your mind. The Minister should not be placed in the position of a dictator, but in a position where he must consult. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to what I said in my Second Reading speech (Hansard, 8 March 1977, col. 3143)—

That is the way it has been in the four and a half years that I have been Minister of Health. If I disagree with the provinces on any matter, I take it to the Cabinet. I feel that it is not for me to finally decide on that, because, as hon. members know, that is the way it should be done to create better relations and better understanding. I think that paved the way for the better atmosphere which we had later on, an atmosphere in which we eventually could draw up a Bill like this. Otherwise we would never have had it.

The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned a few matters of great importance, but with respect, I think these are matters which should really be discussed under my Vote. I can assure hon. members that the provision of clause 27 and other clauses will put us in a better position to handle people who make a nuisance of themselves and create hazards to the health of people. The hon. member for Simonstown must look at clause 15, which provides that the Secretary of Health can immediately take control of a situation and do the work of the local authority in case the local authority does not do their duty as far as dangers, nuisances and all other hazards to public health are concerned. We also have the regulations, which will put us in a far better position than previously in trying to nip many of these conditions in the bud. I would not want to tell the hon. member about the Bon Accord farm in East London. I had problems there.

Eventually we did solve that problem by a very special regulation that we found amongst the old regulations in the previous Act. The hon. member spoke about clause 38, which deals with the discharge of sewerage. That is also a matter that I think we should discuss later on. We are now taking powers there, but I would like to remind the hon. member that I have a small amendment which I propose to move, to the effect that the Minister must only take these powers in consultation with the Minister of Water Affairs. In regard to clause 44, the hon. member spoke about something which is to a certain extent local, but otherwise of big public importance. I would be grateful if the hon. member will raise the point again under my Vote. As far as clause 44 is concerned, we have already accepted those principles and all of the files have already been received from Parliament last week. Nevertheless, those matters can again be discussed and the member can personally get in touch with my department if there is anything specific he wants to set right.

*I think I have said enough. I have spoken for a very long time, but I just want to make it apparent to all hon. members that I have tremendous appreciation for what they have said and done. I want to thank them as well as the officials once again for their contributions. The various aspects may be discussed in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill contains no new principles. It merely serves to eliminate specific administrative problems which have come up over the past few years and to close loopholes which have come to light in the legislation. It also serves to reconfirm the existing principles in the Act.

In clause 1 the definition of the verb “process” is replaced by the noun “processing” in order to adapt it to the way in which it is used in section 6B(1) and 6B(2) of the Act. The word “process” is also replaced by “recovering”, “extracting”, “concentrating”, “refining” or “converting”. There can be no objection to that.

Clause 3, which further amends section 6B(1) of the Environment Planning Act, also has some merit because it places further restrictions on the abuse of land. Only by way of a permit can land be used for the purposes of brickworks or pottery or stone crushing or various types of quarries. In other words, a permit must be issued before all these types of quarry can be opened, with the exception that a permit is not necessary if the land has already been zoned in a guide plan or has already been reserved for that purpose, or is to be used exclusively for the construction of a public road or railway line. In practice it became evident that the exemption granted for the digging of quarries was far too wide. This was consistently being abused by contractors who were known for not doing their duty as regards the repair of gravel pits or who did not complete their work. It is an acknowledged fact that farmers still encounter the problem that contractors dig gravel quarries on their farms and leave behind enormous boulders and steep earth walls where their sheep and animals can fall down and which deface the whole environment. What is perhaps still worse is the type of gravel quarry which is dug high on the foothills of mountains and can be seen for miles away, and gravel quarries that are sometimes dug in ravines and river courses and which can cause erosion. In spite of appeals made by farmers to the contractors, who then promise that they will do the work before they go, it is nevertheless seldom done.

These malpractices on the part of contractors and subcontractors could not be combated by the existing Act. Due to the amendment of section 6B a stone quarry, a sand-pit, a clay-pit, a gravel quarry or a soil quarry, or a public road or railway line, can now only be constructed without a permit when the land falls under the direct control or supervision of a provincial administration, the Railways Administration or the National Transport Commission. I wonder whether these new requirements are adequate for the purpose of combating these malpractices, because experience has taught us that the Railways Administration and the National Transport Commission themselves cannot be absolved from this kind of malpractice and that they, too, have been major culprits in this regard in the past. As far as I am concerned, the provisions of this amending legislation certainly do not go far enough and we shall continue to encounter this problem, unless strict limitations are imposed on this kind of work. Nor do I find any definition of “quarry” in the legislation. We find in practice that farmers often wish to repair a pot-hole in the road and for this purpose they take a few spadefuls of soil from alongside the road. In the subsequent year the farmer does it again and the small hole alongside the hole gets bigger and bigger, until eventually it is a big hole and I wonder at what stage it can be regarded as a gravel quarry. I feel it is essential that there should have been a further amendment in the legislation to define “gravel quarry” because I am convinced that the hon. the Minister is going to encounter further problems in this connection.

The hon. the Minister can also impose conditions with regard to the labourers employed, particularly with regard to the ratio of Bantu employees to Whites, for example those employed in a factory. In June 1971 a restriction was imposed on the PWV area which provided for a ratio of 2,5 Bantu workers to one White in factories. Two years later this ratio was reduced to two Bantu to one White. This situation caused tremendous problems, and in order to limit the number of Bantu employed by factories, the department instituted inspections and told various factories to reduce the number of their Bantu employees.

†I believe that summons was issued to more than a hundred people in factories in this regard. A case was dismissed by the court on 31 August 1976 because there was no definition of “Bantu employee”. I believe this was the main motivation for the amendment Bill, but I believe that if the few loopholes which still occur, are blocked, various industries would be going into liquidation. I believe there are already something like 31 insolvencies, or threatening insolvencies, as a result of the application of the provisions of the Act. Only factories with more than 500 workers are financially strong enough, especially in the clothing industry, to decentralize. They are given notice to decentralize, but I believe that some factories have already, in 1970, applied for assistance in order to decentralize, but because they did not have a sufficient number of workers, they did not qualify, and consequently we find that they are placed in a situation—as a result of the application of some of the provisions of the Act—that they simply cannot afford to comply with the requirements to decentralize. Consequently they are going insolvent and have to close down their factories. If the loopholes are tightened further, there will be more insolvencies, particularly in the clothing industry, the leather-working industry and also as far as furniture work are concerned. Many of the industries that have been compelled to decentralize to places like Babalegi and Rosslyn, do not experience too much difficulty, because it is not so far away from the built-up areas. Others, however, have to go further afield to Rustenburg, Charlestown, Newcastle and Ladysmith and these find themselves in considerable difficulties having to retain labour. It, furthermore, takes them three to four years to adapt themselves, and they simply cannot bridge the gap where they are compelled to move because of being labour-intensive. Many of them cannot afford to improve their capital investment to make a particular industry capital-intensive. It appears to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to give only teeth to the Bill; he also wants to give it fangs.

This will be counter-productive in these particularly difficult times, because it will not promote planning of resources or the economic development of South Africa. With our high unemployment at the moment, with our balance of payments difficulties and the doubling of our population over the next 25 years, thus requiring a large number of new jobs, I cannot see that it is commendable that these loopholes should be tightened up. I feel that the Department of Planning and the Environment should hold back in their application of some of these harsher measures to the benefit of South Africa. Consequently I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Benoni has indicated, the Bill has some positive aspects; for example, to limit the powers of the provincial administrations, the Department of Transport and local authorities as regards stone and gravel pits, so that contractors cannot do any more damage to the environment. This is not what troubles me, however. What troubles me is the fact that the Bill makes provision for the simplification of the process of the prosecution of violaters of section 3 of the Environment Planning Act of 1967. Our party believes that South Africa has to develop, that South Africa has to grow as quickly as it can and for that reason, we do not believe there ought to be any limitations on industrial expansion in South Africa, but that as few obstacles as possible should be placed in its path. Of course we prefer decentralization. Let me be frank; we are in favour of it and we believe there ought to be incentives to decentralize. We are also a realistic party, however, and we therefore realize that the source of the funds for decentralization still has to be the industries in the metropolitan area. As a realistic party, we realize that an industrialist has difficult problems to contend with. His problem is that he cannot simply go ahead and move, because the question of human relations comes into it. He is dealing with his White staff as well, and hon. members must remember that one cannot simply force a man who wants to live in Cape Town to move to King William’s Town, even though it is a better place than Cape Town! It is not so easy to move an industry because there is the problem of moving White staff. Moreover, other aspects of industrial development must also be taken into account, such as the proximity of the market, the availability and proximity of raw materials, availability of water and service industries, etc. These are problems the industrialist has to contend with and for that reason, we say that despite the incentives— and hon. members must remember that enormous incentives have been given, such as rebates of 41% and 45% on rail rates—one still finds that the industrialist does not find it possible to move. We therefore say that if he cannot move, it is better for him to keep his industry in the metropolitan area than not to have it at all.

As the hon. member for Benoni has also pointed out, we believe it would be absolutely fatal, considering the problems we have to contend with today, inter alia, our defence commitments and the balance of payments problems that are being experienced—to try to limit industrial expansion to any extent at this stage. Now people must not come and tell me that the Blacks will stream into the cities, because there is still influx control. Allow me to state clearly today that we believe in influx control. We believe it is both necessary and sufficient. For that reason, we believe the industries must make provision for job opportunities. It must be remembered that these are established Blacks living in the cities and their numbers are growing. One must also, therefore, provide work for the natural population increase in those people already in the urban area. Consequently, we think it is fatal to facilitate the process of prosecution in any way at this stage. Rather, we believe that section 3 of the Environment Planning Act of 1967, should fall into disuse. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, when the original measure was introduced some ten years ago, in 1967, the hope was expressed that industries would co-operate. Industries have in fact co-operated and very often under difficult circumstances. But this Bill wants people to co-operate willingly towards their own destruction. In 1967 we said that the introduction of this legislation would have tremendous and far-reaching repercussions throughout South Africa, particularly in our industrial areas. That was 10 years ago. I see nothing in this legislation today that will increase productivity, and, surely, that is what it is all about. On the contrary, it has a retarding effect on production in our country. It is important that we must be in a position to pay for our defence commitments which we all acknowledge are very heavy at this stage and which might become even heavier in future. It is therefore of paramount importance that South Africa’s rate of economic growth should not slacken and should not be retarded in any way. As I see this legislation, that is precisely what it will do: it will retard productivity.

Clause 2 of this Bill defines “Bantu employee” and, by the same token, “employer”. This brings to mind a particular industry in the Cape Peninsula which had great difficulty in regard to the employment of Coloured labour. This industry was specifically told that its labour force should consist of Coloured men, but we know—and it was no secret—that if this industry had not employed Bantu men illegally, it would have had to close down. This was some years ago. I have heard no more of that industry since. This concerns the fishing industry, the canning of fish. I have heard nothing more of it. The other day I saw one of the White men who had worked there and I asked him where he was working. He said that he had now found a job in Pretoria. So much for this legislation.

Clause 3, of course, places a restriction on the use of land—this has already been mentioned by an hon. colleague—for the purposes of brick works, pottery, stone crushing, public roads, railway lines, etc. We all acknowledge that land has been and possibly is still being destroyed indiscriminately. This takes me back some years to when I was touring Scotland. On that occasion I inspected a cement factory only a few kilometres south of Edinburgh. It was very interesting to see how they were endeavouring to preserve the surface of the land in that area. As fast as they were excavating the soil for cement production, they were filling up the holes again with bulldozers—yes, Mr. Speaker, with bulldozers—from the rear of the excavations. This land was being re-established to pastures. It was amazing to see how the land had re-established itself. The countryside had been re-established by manpower, and very little damage was being caused to the countryside. Yet it was a very large industry, one of the largest cement factories in Britain. We believe that the filling up of pits and quarries should fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial administrations, the Railway Administration, the National Transport Commission and, naturally, the hon. the Minister and his department as such.

I have no quarrel with clause 6. The proposed section 12(1) which provides for “a document which purports to have been certified by the Secretary, or by an officer in the Department of Planning and the Environment”, I believe is quite in order. Then there is also the proposed section 12(2) which provides for a certificate specifying the number of Bantu employees engaged by an employer as at 18 January 1968. This puts me in mind of the industry in the Western Cape which I have already mentioned. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. members who participated in this debate before me. The hon. member for Hillbrow introduced the customary amendment, namely, that this Bill be read “this day six months”. This did not surprise us because it is precisely the same standpoint as that adopted by the official Opposition in 1975. We also had a contribution front the hon. member for Bryanston to which I shall come back later. He too, made an effort to make a positive contribution to this debate. Then we had the amendment as moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town. I do not believe that this was done in earnest. At this late hour of the afternoon it is as well to try to enliven the debate with one’s tongue in one’s cheek, because what did the hon. member propose? In his speech the hon. member for King William’s Town advocated decentralization; he endorses decentralization. Now, the following amendment to the Second Reading was moved—

In other words, on the one hand the hon. member is advocating decentralization—the Bill before the House is calculated to further decentralization—and on the other he moves an amendment which advocates concentration in the metropolitan areas. This is an extreme amendment to a positive planning measure which is being introduced here.

Thus far the debate has followed the old traditional and well-worn pattern: This side of the House comes up with a positive planning measure to give the principal Act legal validity, and the Opposition opposes it and argues that it is negative and incriminatory and that in fact it has a negative influence on the position of the Bantu worker. The Opposition argues—as did the hon. member for East London North—that this measure curbs economic growth, whereas the whole object of this Bill is specifically to encourage economic growth. I have in mind aspects such as decentralization and border area development which, of course, cannot or need not be debated now. All these are aspects calculated to stimulate economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston. If ever there was a piece of political pornography, then that is the speech which the hon. member for Bryanston saw fit to make. I want to refer specifically to the standpoint which the PRP adopted in regard to clause 2. Permit me, Sir, to quote a few statements from the speech. I want the House to listen carefully. As I have said, the issue is clause 2 in which the concepts “Bantu employee” and “employer” are defined. I quote (Hansard, 18 March 1977, cols. 3971-2)—

That is not enough; the hon. member goes on—

The hon. member goes on—

I ask myself whether the hon. member makes these statements in pure ignorance or whether it is intentional. One does not even know whether it is not perhaps intentional ignorance, but I shall come back to that. I ask myself why the hon. member makes statements of this kind. There is only one reason: To give the enemies of South Africa abroad reason to believe that the Black workers of South Africa are not given a place in the sun under this Government. If one analyses these statements it is clear that these statements are intentionally and blatantly calculated to cause polarization between White and Black in South Africa. This is clear from the statements of the hon. member. These statements contribute towards creating an atmosphere abroad which will cause the enemies of South Africa to have motions adopted readily and without difficulty in the Security Council which can be used to the detriment of the Black man in South Africa. That side of the House rejects statements of this kind with the contempt they deserve. The Bill at present before the House is a positive planning measure which, in contrast to what the official Opposition wants to imply, does not aim to limit Black labour, nor to control it, as the PRP wants to imply, but which has the exclusive aim of planning Black labour; not controlling or limiting it, but planning and ordering it in a purposeful fashion in the interests of the South African economy as a whole and in the interests of the Black man. Let us look at the specific causes in dispute. The Opposition’s objection chiefly concerns clause 3, which defines “Bantu employee” and “employer”. Now, the logical question is why is it necessary to give statutory effect to such a provision. Why is it necessary that such a provision should be inserted in the Statute Book. The reply is quite simple. It is that in terms of certain decisions taken in the courts and interpreted in terms of sound court law, it is impossible to carry out the provision as contained in the principal Act. Without the definition of “Bantu employee” and “employer” it is impossible to carry out the basic principle as contained in the principal Act. If, then, it is impossible to carry out the basic principles as contained in the principal Act, what does that mean? In the first place, it means that the maximum exploitation of the natural resources of South Africa cannot be properly effected. In the second place, it means that sound planning measures have to be thrown overboard. Both the official Opposition and the PRP intimated that they would vote against the Second Reading. It is not just that sound planning measures are frustrated thereby; the matter goes a great deal further even than that. It deprives the authorities of a planning mechanism whereby the uncontrolled influx of Black labour to the cities can be controlled. That is the whole essence of the Bill.

May I ask the hon. member what the position is of the people who are already settled there and who do not have another home?

I shall come back to that. [Interjections.] The standpoint of this side of the House as regards Black labour is not that we do not want Black labour in the economy. We are realistic enough to realize that Black labour is essential for the economy, but then it must be controlled Black labour in the interests of the Black man in the first place, and in the interests of the South African economy, because we believe that the Black man is not merely an instrument for labour, but that the Black man as such should also be seen as a whole person who does not merely sell his labour but who is also entitled to a claim to certain other basic facilities. However, if there should be an uncontrolled influx of Black people to the cities, then this side of the House would be opposed to that.

It is not only sound planning measures that are being thrown overboard, and the maximum exploitation of our natural resources which cannot take place as a result, but if this provision is not given statutory effect, we shall also have the position in which the industrial worker and the factory worker who, for the most part, rely on public transport, will use these transport facilities to the maximum extent and will even overutilize them. This is a source of potential friction. It is a source which threatens industrial peace, which is one of the basic cornerstones of a sound economy.

How does it disturb industrial peace?

If transport facilities are not utilized to the normal extent and if there is an excessive demand for transport facilities, this can disturb industrial peace. The new section 12(1) is calculated to streamline the court procedures to a greater extent. I do not believe there is any fault to be found with that. One of the most important provisions in this Bill is, in my opinion, contained in clause 6, the new section 12(2). Basically, what this amounts to is that Bantu labour in trade and industry is frozen for a specific time. The new subsection 12(2) freezes labour at a given time. If I want to discuss this subsection, I can only refer to a practical example. There is no better example to which one could refer than the labour situation in the Western Cape. When this section is being discussed and the full impact on the economy of the subsection is being discussed, the position of Black labour in the Western Cape must be considered.