as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Posts and Telecommunications.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Chairman, in case some hon. members wish to refer to it, I should like to make a short statement in connection with the distribution of liquor in Black areas.

In the debate on the Justice Vote last year, there was an exchange of ideas on shebeens, particularly in the urban Bantu residential areas. We had another opportunity to refer to it this year during the discussion of the Liquor Amendment Bill—now Act No. 44 of 1977.

I indicated at the time that I was of the opinion that this matter should be investigated.

Hon. members will also remember that during the riots last year the legal, established liquor distribution points in several Black urban areas were the target of rioters; that many of these distribution points which had been constructed at great expense and for the exclusive convenience of the Black inhabitants, were looted and burnt down; and that in many cases it has not been possible to re-open these distribution points as yet, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants and loss of revenue to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

It is clearly evident from investigations that have been conducted from time to time that thousands of shebeens exist, particularly in the large metropolitan Black urban residential areas. We know them as places where liquor is sold to Black clients illegally and on a grand scale at exorbitant prices, particularly over weekends when legal liquor dealers do not do business. Most of the reasons for the existence of shebeens have been known for a long time.

The question has often been raised as to how we should deal with this situation. It is clear in any event that all shebeens cannot or should not be legalized, but I have indicated before that this matter should be investigated at an official level, and it has now been decided to direct a committee of the National Liquor Board to launch an immediate investigation as far as liquor distribution in the Black residential areas is concerned. That board has extensive experience in matters relating to the distribution of liquor, and I have no doubt that it will find an acceptable solution to this problem as well.

As hon. members will remember, provision was made in the Liquor Amendment Act which was recently placed on the Statute Book for permission for the board to co-opt people to assist it in the consideration of any matter it has to investigate. This provision will be put into operation shortly and I intend asking the board to request Black people as well to assist it in the investigation so that the distribution of liquor in the Black residential areas may take place in a way which is acceptable to the Black people, in a way which will prevent them from being exploited financially, and in terms of clear legal provisions.

The directive to the Liquor Board has not been fully formulated at this stage, but as soon as this has been done, it will be made known in the Press for general information. Without anticipating the issue, I am of the opinion that one aspect which will have to be thoroughly investigated, is the question as to whether Black people in the urban residential areas should be allowed to enter the liquor trade, and, if so, under what circumstances.

I want to appeal to everyone, Blacks included, and particularly to those people who run shebeens, to come forward in due course with evidence and considered opinions which may be submitted to the Liquor Board in this regard.

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

I am very pleased about the statement the hon. the Minister has just made. If I may be permitted to say it, this arises almost directly from a very interesting discussion embarked upon last year by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when he referred to this particular matter during the discussion of this very Vote. I had a look at what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had to say, and I had intended drawing the attention of the House to this aspect once again.

I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on announcing the establishment of a committee of inquiry, and more particularly on his co-opting Black persons—the people who are affected—on the proposed committee. I want to thank the hon. die Minister for his appeal to those in the townships and to those who are conducting shebeens, as well as to others who are connected with the distribution of liquor, to come forward and give evidence. It is interesting to note that in the area under the administration of the Vaal triangle Bantu Administration Board, the Black people raised very little, if any, objection to the increase in rental imposed recently. They based their request to the community to accept the increase in rental in the knowledge that the board would then not have to rely on the income from liquor profits in order to be able to balance its budget. They felt they would rather contribute a little more in the form of rentals than to introduce what they felt was an evil in most other big townships.

Not only were there a number of liquor distribution outlets in the other Bantu townships, but the Administration Boards controlling those townships specifically rely on the income from profits on beer sold, for recreational and other purposes, as well as on profits from the sale of liquor. Liquor profits contribute, I think, about one third of the budget income of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board, for example. Therefore this is a very welcome announcement indeed. I sincerely hope a lot of good will result from it, and that as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana originally suggested, we will be able to create social opportunities for Black people to enjoy liquor while meeting socially just as Whites do in hotels and bars in the cities.

The other aspect to which I want to draw attention also relates to a matter raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. That is the question of the shortage of personnel. In dealing with this matter I would like to again congratulate the Secretary for Justice on the very excellent and detailed report which he placed before the hon. the Minister for submission to the House. The report covers a very wide field indeed and gives us a very intimate picture of what is taking place in the department. However, I note that the personnel, despite some very sound efforts that have been made in order to improve the position are still labouring under great difficulties. In order to meet the situation the hon. the Minister announced last year, also in an opening statement, that he was establishing a Justice College, a decision for which he was congratulated by this side of the House. I notice that in paragraph 1.3 on page 1 of the report it is stated that—

The paragraph goes on to describe how legally qualified Coloureds and Asians will be given a better dispensation in the department. According to the report they will be given an opportunity to study at the University of the Western Cape for a degree, bursaries will be available for them and so on. I do feel that the time has come to expand this policy and to include Blacks, because they constitute a very important aspect of this work. I note that, in so far as the police are concerned, the number of Blacks employed in the service is 5 000 to 6 000, ranking from captain downwards to about 3 000 odd warders. This is very commendable, because they deal with a considerable amount of Bantu in the course of their work in prisons and so forth. Furthermore, in our courts today most of the criminal cases concern Blacks, whether it be for petty offences, for more serious offences or for very serious offences. A considerable number of these cases involve Blacks. I think the time has come to consider assisting legally qualified Blacks to progress in their studies, to encourage them to join the service and to give them an opportunity to improve their position in the department and to enable them to take part in court work so that they can play their part in the administration of justice. It will not only be useful to them in this particular sphere, but in whatever other sphere they might eventually find themselves, because they will have the training and the education.

Another matter arising out of this report that I would like to deal with is the question of buildings. Here, of course, the department is unfortunately hampered by costs. However, I do think priorities should be established in this respect. Let us take the magistracy of Wyn-berg as an instance. These buildings have not been changed in the last 70 or 80 years, probably never since they were built I remember what it was like 50 years ago and they are still virtually the same, even though the magistracy of Wynberg is one of the largest magistracies in the country.

Further arising out of the report I would like to deal with the Galgut Commission. Reference is made to this particular matter in the report not only in relation to an improvement of procedures and the simplification of the court work, but also in connection with the question of costs. In our system today we find that the one person who usually finds difficulty with regard to litigation is the middleman. For the poor man there is the machinery of legal aid or litigation in forma pauperis. I do not think any comment is necessary as far as the rich man is concerned. It is the middleman who is hit the hardest. The hon. the Minister recently made a statement—I think it was on the occasion of the centenary of the Transvaal Bench—to the effect that a commission had been appointed to deal with the cost of litigation. From its terms of reference it seems as if the question of litigation is almost dealt with as an appendix, because after asking the commissioner to report on the practice, procedure and rules of court with reference to civil proceedings and to make recommendations for the shortening and simplification this is added—

My view is that the hon. the Minister should consider making the question of reducing the cost of litigation one of the important features of this particular inquiry. Perhaps he can take advantage of the opportunity he has of having a person of the tremendous experience and ability of Mr. Justice Galgut available, who has just retired from the Appellate Division after a very distinguished career indeed. The Minister may possibly emphasize this question very much more than has been done in the terms of reference, so that there can be a comprehensive investigation into this issue. I think it would be very helpful indeed in regard to litigation in our country.

Having dealt with these aspects, I should further like to draw attention to some other matters about which we are very concerned and in respect of which hon. members on this side of the House have been approached by various segments of our community. Before I come to those matters, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that, according to a reply to a question that was put to him, until March 1977 of those held in detention under the security laws since January 1976, 12 people had died. According to the reply given on 22 March, inquests in respect of seven of the 12 have not yet been concluded. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us a little more with regard to this matter, firstly whether any of these inquests have since been concluded, what the findings have been and what steps have been taken in connection with these matters, because questions have been asked about it from time to time.

The other matter to which I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention, is that many people are perturbed at the number of juveniles—who one might call children in terms of the Act, viz. persons under the age of 18 years—who have been held under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The hon. the Minister has not been able to give any information with regard to numbers, or any other information, on the grounds that he considers it not to be in the public interest to disclose the required particulars. In regard to children, or juveniles, there is a great deal in our criminal law and in our procedures which deals with the manner in which these children are to be dealt with in the courts. The fear of those who are concerned about this matter is that children may be subjected to the rigours and the harshness of this particular form of legislation. The public can only go by reports which appear in the Press. I myself am not prepared to believe all these stories which appear in the Press, but they make such an impression on the public that I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to explain, on an occasion like this, what the situation is and to deal with and react to these reports in the Press, because none of them seem to have been denied or contraverted. I quote one such report—

There is reference to the fact that children have spent up to five months in solitary confinement. The report reads further—

This report is dated 24 April 1977—

I am not dealing with the actual content of the legislation, but with the manner in which the hon. the Minister—who is, after all, the head of that department—deals with juveniles. Provision is made in our Criminal Procedure Act as to the way in which juveniles under the age of 18 are to be dealt with. Provision has for instance been made with regard to the evidence being heard virtually in camera, with only the accused, the prosecutor and the parents being present. However, right throughout all the legislation attention is drawn to the parent or legal guardian and also to the fact that these children are to be dealt with in a certain way in order not to expose them to the harshness or rigours of this form of detention.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated in reply to questions, some detainees have been held up to four months, five months or six months and some of them even longer. Some of these people have appeared in court; some have been acquitted and others have been convicted, but they all go through a certain procedure of examination and interrogation. I am not commenting, however, on that aspect, except to say that children—described as people under the age of 18 years—should not be subjected to this provision. Sections 73, 254, 277, 153 and 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act all deal with the manner in which accused children, under the age of 18 years, should be dealt with. I think it is important that we should lay down some machinery whereby the hon. the Minister can, in the first place, permit access of parents and, in the second place, furnish information to parents whose children are detained, simply because that is the basic procedure both in terms of the Children’s Act and the Criminal Procedure Act There is no place where the question of parental presence is not recognized and accepted. One also gets the situation that a body of people write to us requesting the following—

I am prepared to concede that some of them might have committed serious crimes—that is very possible—but the law has never been ignorant of the fact that people can commit serious crimes despite their age. Even the Criminal Procedure Act merely refers to “a person” committing a crime or “a person” being convicted, but draws, in the case of children, specifically attention to the method in which the trial should be conducted. In certain cases the Criminal Procedure Act also makes provision for sentences, for instance if a young man of 14, 15, 16 or 17 years of age was found guilty of murder and if there was a question of a death sentence because of no extenuating circumstances being present, the death sentence cannot be passed. These matters are all dealt with and are fully set out I think the hon. the Minister should give us some explanation or he should react to the many people who are deeply concerned about this situation. My colleagues will deal with other aspects of this situation.

Generally I think the problem with which we are all concerned—I mentioned it at the beginning of my speech—is the question of the lack of personnel. I know the hon. the Minister is trying to overcome the problem, and some time ago, during the discussions on the Criminal Procedure Bill, I suggested that there should be greater incentives, more and better opportunities and greater inducements in order to bring more aspirant candidates into the field, particularly into the legal field, where they can deal with actual court work. I sincerely hope that die hon. the Minister will spread the umbrella so that all sections of our community can take part and can play their part in relieving the congestion on one section of the community which has to deal with the entire community.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Jeppe on his elevation. I noticed the absence at the moment of the actual chief spokesman for the Opposition, but in my opinion, the hon. member for Jeppe acquitted himself well of his task. I wonder, however, where my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, is today. I also wonder how long he is still going to act as an official Opposition spokesman in this House, because next year he could well be acting in a different capacity in another party.

I also want to welcome the statement the hon. the Minister made in relation to shebeens. I am pleased that the matter is now being brought to a head because the entire matter relating to shebeens—in reality illegal liquor houses—has been hanging in the air for a very long time whilst a kind of unlawfulness with which one could not properly get to grips, prevailed. It is not good for the general discipline in the country—particularly in those areas where shebeens are flourishing—for such things to continue to exist. I trust that the commission will receive the co-operation of particularly those people who are involved in the shebeens, as they are called.

I want to comment briefly on what the hon. member for Jeppe said about the detention of children of juveniles. We must remember that there are children and children in the under 18 age group. We must remember that some children under the age of 18 are already hard-boiled activists. In South Africa young men under the age of 18 are already liable for military service and girls of 15 are entitled to marry with the permission of their parents alone. We must be careful, therefore, and I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppe and his party to guard against being swept along by the stream of propaganda. It is because of this propaganda that when hard-boiled young activists are detained by the Security Police, they are “poor kids” in the eyes of the PRP and the Rand Daily Mail and others.

On 20 and 21 May this year there was a special occasion in Pretoria when the centenary of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal was celebrated. The entire legal fraternity of the Transvaal was involved in the proceedings. It was also attended by judges, other judicial officials and lawyers from most West European countries, the United Kingdom. Commonwealth countries, China, North and South America, Malawi, Transkei and Rhodesia. It was really a red letter day for the entire legal fraternity as such in the Transvaal. I should like to record this special occasion by referring to it and I should like to congratulate most sincerely the organizers and everyone concerned in the preparations and arrangements, on the way in which the ceremony went off. I think we should also express our gratitude to the Postmaster General because the Post Office saw fit to commemorate this special occasion by issuing a special commemorative stamp. One of the highlights of the proceed ings was the speech made by the hon. the Minister at the reception that was held on the Friday evening. It was regarded as a highlight in all quarters and evoked exceptional compliments and favourable comments. There is one aspect for which I should like to convey my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister and that is the fact that he announced that the Palace of Justice as such would be retained for the administration of justice in the Transvaal. The danger did exist that that beautiful “palace”—as it is in fact called—would be converted into Government offices. We are very grateful that through the intervention of the hon. the Minister this has now been prevented and that the palace will be retained for the administration of justice as such.

Earlier on, whilst I was speaking, it sounded to me as though the hon. member for Pinelands was paying me a compliment. I regard anything bad that that hon. member says about me as a compliment I now want to turn to the PRP. I am waiting for the hon. member for Houghton, as I expect she will be called upon to speak presently. I want to address myself to her in particular and to the hon. member for Pinelands. I believe the time has come for the PRP to be challenged and called upon to say where it stands in respect of order, stability and State security itself. After all, tomorrow or the day after they could be the official Opposition. In this regard, I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton that if a society such as “Friends of the Christian Institute” existed, they would have been of its leading members.

I want to ask these two hon. members specifically to adopt a standpoint in the course of this debate with regard to the Christian Institute and certain resolutions passed by that organization at its annual general meeting last year. I shall read only as many of these resolutions as time allows and I challenge the PRP to say in the course of this debate what their standpoint is in respect of resolutions of this nature—

1. 1. ’n Beroep word op die Regering gedoen om die weg te berei vir ’n nasionale konvensie, verteenwoordigend van alle Suid Afrikaners, insluitende die aangehoudenes, ingeperktes en diegene wat in ballingskap verkeer,
2. 2.Die hardnekkige versuim van die Regering om te erken dat sy beleid “teenstrydig is met Christelike beginsels” en siegs deur geweld gehandhaaf word, word betreur;
3. 3. Die Cl se identifikasie met en steun vir die “onderdruktes” en hulle bevrydingstryd word uitgespreek;
4. 4. CI se diepe agting word uitgespreek vir diegene wat gewetensbeswaar het om wapens op te neem in die “repugnant and ungodly task of suppressing the Government’s opponents”;
5. 5. Die doelstellings van die ANC, PAC, SASO, BPC en SASM word gesteun insoverre dit ooreenstem met Bybelse waardes van regverdigheid, vryheid en menslike verantwoordelikheid; en
6. 6. Steun word herbevestig vir alle vreedsame pogings om verandering te bewerkstellig, insluitende wegbly van werk, ekonomiese sanksies en die ontmoediging van immigrasie.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that the Christian Institute has proved itself to be an organization that has one thing or other in common with all the leftist enemies of South Africa and the time has come for the PRP to adopt a standpoint against this fraternity of theirs.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the second half hour. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member for Waterkloof. I am not here to answer his questions about the attitude of my party towards the Christian Institute.

You are running away!

The Christian Institute is an independent organization with its own constitution and its own objectives. The hon. member is very well aware of the policy of my party, and he knows perfectly well that we stand for the maintenance of the rule of law and not for the extension of arbitrary powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister. That is as far as I am prepared to go in wasting my valuable time on the hon. member for Waterkloof.

I have a number of matters which I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister, and this is a very good opportunity to do so. Before the hon. the Minister loses his cool with me—which he is wont to do during a discussion of his Votes—I want to raise a non-contentious issue right at the beginning and I want to ask him to try to take an objective view of this and to answer me irrespective of how cross he gets with me later on.

I want to start off by asking the hon. the Minister if he could please tell me what progress has been made by the Law Commission with its investigation of the divorce law, into matrimonial property and related matters. The hon. the Minister knows that the Law Commission commenced a fairly in-depth probe into these important matters well over two years ago. I am aware that a draft Bill on divorce law has been published and circulated for comment. The women who are interested in this matter, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that they are legion, are very anxious to know what steps he intends taking as far as introducing the draft Bill, or something akin to the draft Bill on divorce is concerned, and whether he is considering bringing legislation before this House next session to remove the remaining disabilities of married women. Many women are very interested indeed to get an answer from the hon. the Minister. In order to encourage him, I should like to quote to him a little article I saw in the London Observer last month. That article read as follows—

I must tell the hon. the Minister that South African women are quite capable of taking similar steps if he does not get a move on with amending the law and removing the legal disabilities of married women.

Now I wish to come to a rather more contentious matter. I want to raise first of all the whole question of banning under the Internal Security Act. The hon. the Minister has had himself a field day since about June of last year. He has slapped bans on people right, left and centre.

Only left

No, not only left. There are about 29 persons of all races who were connected with labour organization among Black people and who have been banned since November 1976. I am afraid I am unable to accept the bland assurance given by the hon. the Minister to the President of Tucsa that the bannings have nothing whatever to do with their activities among Black workers. Certainly, that is not the case with all of the people. Some of them may, as far as I know, have been engaged in other activities but, certainly, a number of them were not engaged in any activities other than work among the Black workers. Some of them, to my knowledge, anyway, were doing a first-class job in helping to teach Africans the elements of disciplined trade unionism, in teaching them the finer points of collective bargaining and, indeed, in teaching them how to make the whole works committee system function more efficiently. I might say that these are objectives which the hon. the Minister of Labour has quite recently pronounced himself in favour of. It seems to me to be utterly foolish to negate the work of people among Black workers in South Africa where those people are working in that fashion, because, when we again face industrial unrest in South Africa—I do not think there is one among us who in fact does not expect that sooner or later there will be more industrial unrest in South Africa—it is far better to have leaders among the Black workers with whom one can negotiate properly than to have to deal with an amorphous mass of undisciplined strikers as was the case with the 1973 strikes in South Africa.

What I have said about the banned trade union leaders applies with equal force to the banning of Black leaders, particularly the young Black leaders. The hon. the Minister, it seems to me, has banned practically everybody whom the Special Branch has laid its beady eyes on. There is Dr. Fatima Meer, Winnie Mandela, Steve Biko, Barney Pityana and his wife, Mrs. Phakathi and Dr. Ramphele, about whom more will be said by one of my colleagues, just to mention a few. The list is far too long for me to mention many individual cases. At the last count there were about 162 on the banned list under the security legislation of whom about 136 are still in the Republic. The others have left the Republic, either legally or illegally. Many of these people were banned during last year. Some of those who were already restricted, have had further restrictions added to the original ones. That is what happened, of course, in the case of Mrs. Winnie Mandela. She is now restricted—banished, if you like, though not under the Bantu Administration Act—to Brandfort, to a miserable township in a little dorp, to a house with no running water or electricity. There is no stove and none of the modern amenities at all. What was the hon. the Minister’s comment when he was asked about this? He is quoted as saying inter alia—

Let me tell the hon. the Minister what she wants. What she wants, of course, is her freedom; she wants to be free to live a normal life among her friends in Soweto and in Johannesburg. I believe the hon. the Minister is making a major mistake in his handling of the leaders of the African people. He is alienating them all. It seems to me that the lesson of Rhodesia has been lost on him. I should remind the hon. the Minister that Mr. Smith does not have to negotiate these days with the tribal chiefs who condone Government policy. He is trying to negotiate with the very leaders whom he gaoled and restricted many years ago. I believe that the hon. the Minister has completely failed to heed this lesson, just as he has failed to understand the proper meaning of the Black consciousness movement, although I must say he does seem to think, since he gave this statement in an interview to Town and Country Magazine only recently, that he understands Black opinion, because he made the astonishing statement that 75% to 80% of die Blacks are on his side.

I said 75% to 80% did not join in the protest

So the hon. the Minister was badly misquoted. He had better put that right because that is certainly not the way …

Why must I put it right when you will misquote it again in any case?

Well, take a chance on that. Surely it is better to put it right than to allow this magazine to go around the world containing this really ridiculous statement It is an absolutely absurd statement.

I now want to turn to another contentious issue, namely the subject of detainees which the hon. member for Jeppe has already mentioned.

Are you against that?

Yes, I am against it; is that clear enough? I am always against it In times of peace I am always against it Of course no one knows exactly how many people have been or are presently being detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act because the hon. the Minister does not give us this information. He tells us always that it is not in the public interest to give us such information. We do know that during the course of last year he arrested and detained 136 people under the preventive detention section of the Internal Security Act All those people, I understand, were subsequently released, although a number of them, of course, have been banned since then. We know also that a number of people are still being held under what was section 215bis, which is now section 185 of the new Criminal Procedure Act. The Institute of Race Relations, which no doubt also has the disapproval of the hon.member for Waterkloof, has compiled a list of Terrorist Act detainees which it has gleaned from Press reports about people who have been picked up and also of course from reports made by relatives and friends of people who have been arrested by the Police. Up to the end of March this year the Institute has counted a total of 471 people so detained. Perhaps without committing himself too deeply, the hon. the Minister would like to tell us whether this is an under-estimate or an over-estimate of the number of people presently being detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act I believe that since March something like 26 people have been released and charged, but I have no doubt that some more people have been picked up in the interim as well.

Every day.

A further 366 people who were detained during the period 1 January 1976 to 31 March 1977 were released with no charges whatever being brought against them. According to the report of the Institute, of the 471 detainees who it is believed are presently held under section 6,84 were school pupils, 49 were university students, 23 were teachers, 16 were SASO or BPC people, 5 were churchmen and 5 were journalists. Of those still in detention 33 have been held for more than a year, i.e. in solitary confinement. Let everybody remember that under this Act people are kept in solitary confinement. 29 of them have been kept for periods of between nine and twelve months and 115 for periods between six and nine months. I wonder whether the hon. member approves of that type of thing?

What about the people who died because of their actions?

There is the case of Mr. Z. Nkondo who was held for 384 days and then released without being charged. There is Mr. Pandile Mpeti who was held for over a year. He was released without charge, although he was subsequently banned. Then of course there is the all-time record of Mr. Tembani Phantsi who was detained for 513 days. He was not apparently interrogated once, although section 6 of the Terrorism Act is specifically designed for interrogation, so that the Police may obtain information which they require from a detainee. This man states that he was not interrogated once during this period. He was then released without charge and, of course, without explanation. The name is Mr. Tembani Phantsi; it is a famous case. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the Terrorism Act is being used with abandon. I shall not say with gay abandon, because there is nothing gay whatsoever about this dreaded law which allows indeterminate detention in solitary confinement. It is, as a senior police officer once called it, a mighty weapon in the hands of the police, and I believe it is being used against persons who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be termed terrorists in the bush. That was, as hon. members will remember, the explanation given by the then Minister of Police as to the uses to which this Act was going to be put. It has been ruthlessly used. It has been ruthlessly used in respect of a wide range of people, from children under the age of 16 to adults. How the hon. the Minister can say—as he has indeed said to me, and is reported to have said to others—“We do not arrest or detain children”, is beyond me. Scores of children under the age of 18, and certainly under the age of 16, have been held under the Terrorism Act, have been kept in solitary confinement and often eventually charged with minor offences.

I would like to tell those hon. members of the legal profession that 80% of those who had legal defence were in fact acquitted. Those dangerous “terrorists” were acquitted, dangerous “terrorists” who were arrested and kept in solitary confinement. There were 86 school pupils from Kagiso, near Krugersdorp. Fifty-three of them were tinder the age of 18. Sixteen were 15 years old. Five were 15 years old. Five were aged 13. One was aged 12, and one was ten. All of them were detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, and all were charged and acquitted—all of them.

There was the instance of one lawyer handling cases involving 91 school children aged 15 and younger. In nearly all those cases the accused were ultimately acquitted, or the charges against them were withdrawn, though not until they had spent five months in solitary confinement.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is at all moved at the thought of young people. Some of them may have committed offences. Some of them certainly did. However, they could have been charged more rapidly. Is the hon. the Minister moved by the thought of those young people who have been held in solitary confinement for this length of time, when it is ultimately found that there are no real charges against them? I know the hon. the Minister is not untouched by these cases. I have had the personal experience of taking a deputation of eight mothers and one father from Guguletu to see him. They came to me in a state of great distress about their children who had been arrested in Cape Town in November 1976. The hon. the Minister received this deputation most courteously and informed them that their children had been picked up while attempting to leave the country, presumably to go to Swaziland for military training. Of course, we do not know whether or not the charges or the accusations are well founded, but that suspicion was the reason why the children had been picked up. However, I want to know why they have been held for such a long time. It is now seven months since those children were arrested. How long does it take the Special Branch to interrogate? How long does it take them to decide whether or not they are going to get the information they want out of those children? I cannot for one moment believe that it can take as long as seven months.

I believe the House is entitled to an explanation from the hon. the Minister, who has been using—or rather his officers have been using—section 6 of the Terrorism Act with absolutely gay abandon.

I understand file Prisons Vote is also under discussion now. I will not have time to come back to it because of the fact that I am not taking the full half hour. Other hon. members of my party also wish to speak. I simply want to mention that I have read the report of the department. I see it mentions that a number of MPs visited prisons last year. I would once again like to reiterate my point of view that the prisons should be thrown open to as many visitors as possible, that visitors should be allowed to speak to the prisoners, and that it is only with the searchlight of publicity on the prisons that we will get increasing improvement of the prison system in South Africa I should like also to add my plea to that of the International Red Cross while visiting the prisons quite recently. The plea is that newspapers should be supplied to persons who are being detained under the laws relating to offences against the State, because to my mind it is a most extraordinary and unusual form of punishment to keep from people who are serving long sentences, all news of the outside world.

Mr. Chairman, I think the admirers of the hon. member for Houghton, those admirers who belong to the grey political world outside Parliament, will be very pleased by her speech. After all, she has to speak very well on their behalf. It is well-known that terrorist movements tend to kill the pianist if they are not happy with the music.

*The hon. member for Houghton was challenged by the hon. member for Waterkloof to adopt a standpoint with regard to the Christian Institute. She did not accept that challenge, but she did imply her support for the Christian Institute by quoting some of its research and some of its publications. By doing so the hon. member for Houghton was, in my opinion, indicating to the hon. member for Waterkloof that she set store by its publications and standpoints. In my opinion the hon. member for Waterkloof may accept the reply she gave him was that she was continuing her sustained, unreserved support of the Christian Institute.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke on behalf of those against whom action had been taken in terms of the Internal Security Act. She also referred to Mrs. Winnie Mandela in this regard.

†If Winnie Mandela suffers at all, she is suffering from over-exposure in the Press. She is becoming a martyr …

Who created the martyr?

She is not becoming a martyr because of a mistake either by this party or the Government The hon. member for Houghton will not let an opportunity pass if she can speak on behalf of Mandela in the vein she has just done. We could have forgiven her that because, after all, we know in what spiritual atmosphere she conducts her politics. Why did she attack Brandfort and call it a miserable township?

*The hon. member for Houghton is not aware of the fact that one can breathe the freshest air in South Africa in Brand fort. Even more: The hon. member for Houghton will benefit from a holiday in Brandfort. There we shall rectify her politics. Even more: That place is not unknown in world history, because it is the place where many famous people, inter alia, Dr. Verwoerd, received their training. [Interjections.]

I do not want to go on singing the praises of Brandfort, because I want to return to fundamental matters. “Fundamental” is the word the hon. the Minister used repeatedly in pointing out the difference in approach between this side and that side of the House with regard to security matters. I want to talk to them today about a matter which they themselves have propagated from time to time. I am referring to their statement that if we effect political change and reform, it will not be necessary to act in terms of the Internal Security Act I want to give a full picture of this matter today. If we draw a comparison with other countries which acted against terrorists, the question arises as to whether such action ended in success or failure. History shows that in some instances highly successful action was taken against terrorists on the basis of effecting political changes and of granting political privileges and a say to certain people. In those countries, for example Malaysia, in which the action against terrorists met with success, the central Government and the people of the country were instrumental in making it such.

In South Africa we find ourselves in the dilemma that on the one hand we are dealing with a body of people who are still in the development phase of their political dispensation and on the other hand we have an Opposition, the PRP to be specific—here I am thinking of the challenge issued by the hon. member for Waterkloof—that does not further the interests of the people on whose behalf they purport to be speaking. The situation in Malaysia was that the Government did take strict security measures from time to time, but at the same time allowed political development to take place and even promoted it. However, matters were not prejudiced by an extremely leftist Opposition party like the PRP. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Since successful action with regard to political development has been possible, is it right that the political development in our country be sabotaged by the continuous pointing out of so-called shortcomings and weaknesses by the PRP? On the one hand they tell us to allow political reform but on the other hand they are repeatedly taking the side of the terrorist movements, the underground movements and the banned movements, as I said. In other words, I should like to request the hon. the Minister to maintain by means of the instruments at his disposal, i.e. the Terrorism Act and the Promotion of Internal Security Act, a strong information system— which we already have—with regard to the political progress made to the advantage of those people. The success achieved in the world with regard to the combating of terrorism, was the result of a reciprocal process in one conduit In South Africa, however, we have an Opposition party pretending to be influential in this situation. The question arises whether they, with the Press at their disposal, are not having such a vastly detrimental effect that we are in fact being obstructed in combating terrorism as we have been combating it up to the present time.

The Opposition parties are regrouping. They are in the process of finding one another. In recent times we have been hearing of codes in the interest of the country. The time has come for us to tell this Opposition on behalf of the voters of South Africa—we represent the majority of them—to establish a code with regard to internal security and not to act in a way so as to help the terrorists by pointing out non-existent shortcomings and faults and not to take the side of people legally convicted of an offence by our courts. In the same breath I want to say that this side of the House wants to express its full confidence in the hon. the Minister because of his action last year—also the year before last and up to now—to prove that the Government will not yield to any pressure being brought to bear on our internal security. We do so in the interests of the Whites and we also do so in the interests of moderate Black leaders, those leaders that the hon. members of the PRP do not want to recognize. In all books and papers on internal security and on the fight against terrorism it is regarded as good strategy to isolate the militants, the people on the far left and those who are the tools of the communists. One does this by creating a political climate of security, also for the moderates. What the hon. the Minister has been doing up to now, is not only in the interests of government in South Africa, but also in the interests of those people who are passing through a phase of political development at the moment, as well as in the interests of the moderate leaders so that they may come forward without any fear to talk about their people to the Government.

Mr. Chairman, much of the time allocated to the discussion of this Vote, will probably be devoted to the discussion of a mixture of politics and legal aspects. Perhaps this is as it should be, because State security, the security of South Africa in particular, and the maintenance of law and order are matters which enjoy high priority in South Africa in the era in which we are living.

Fortunately or unfortunately, however, there are other matters, perhaps less important ones, which ought to enjoy the attention of the hon. the Minister as well. In fact I want to dedicate my speech to one such matter, one of great importance particularly in certain parts of my constituency. It is a matter about which there is a great deal of confusion. It concerns nothing other than the so-called “flipper machine” or a machine which is a half brother or a brother of this type of machine. At first glance, it seems as if there are differences of opinion about this matter. So it is, for example, that differences of opinion may arise over the question as to whether or not the machines are necessary. I have no doubt that if one were to conduct an opinion poll amongst South African parents, the vast majority of them would say that pinball machines serve no useful purpose in today’s society. The matter has already been discussed on television and the same conclusion was reached. I am told that during the last Cape municipal congress, a large measure of consensus was reached on the proposal that if the machines could not be banned, there ought to be proper control over them. Some problems are being experienced in that regard, however. At Government level there is the Gambling Act of 1965 which bans the pinball machine per se, but problems of definition are being experienced in that regard. I know a case like this is being heard at the moment and I shall therefore not take it any further. Clarity does not exist at the provincial level in this regard either. Ordinance No. 15 of 1953 relates to the licensing of cafés, places of entertainment, and so on, but problems are being experienced with that as well. The ordinance states that if anyone makes an application to open a place of entertainment, the city council or the local authority concerned has to issue a licence for that person to keep one of these machines, or a half brother of the pinball machine, in his place of entertainment.

The problem the local authorities are experiencing in this regard, is that they may in fact issue a licence for a particular type of machine, but then the State may allege that that licence is in conflict with the 1965 Statute. Such a situation would embarrass not only the local authority, but also the users of the machine in question. What is more, licences will have to be issued for a place of entertainment or a cafe and then the café owner will still be able to keep a type of pinball machine in his café and state that he does not need to have an entertainment licence for it since his café is not a place of entertainment. In this way we shall continue to generate a large amount of confusion. To me, it seems as if the police are hesitant to take any action and at the moment particular parties are simply carrying on and fishing peacefully in these troubled waters of confusion. My standpoint is not that the machines should be banned, but if they are allowed to exist, they should be properly controlled. I should like to see us leave it to the local authorities, but then the local authority must be placed in such a position that if it does not want the machines, there should be no doubt whatsoever about its power to prohibit them. In such a case the police must be able to take action so that we need not live through this grey period which we have now. Something has to be done.

In other words, the nail must be hit on the head and not on the thumb.

Mr. Chairman, if it were that easy, I would also be able to get it right It is not that easy, however.

I do not believe South Africa can afford to allow these types of machine to continue to exist uncontrolled in our society. In this regard we are faced with a situation in which gambling is being encouraged. It is a gambling atmosphere which not only wastes the money and time of our young people and particularly of our school-going youth, but which also has side effects. It is even said that it leads to dagga smuggling, etc. We are living in times in which we cannot afford this sort of thing.

I want to assure the hon. the Minister this afternoon that I know he has problems. I know that the local authority in Cape Town has problems. The time has arrived, however, to get to grips with this matter and to do something about it once and for all. We cannot allow the State to be pushed around by a few people who want to keep entertainment machines in South Africa. It may be difficult to define the matter. I have no doubt about that, but then again it ought not to be beyond the expertise of our lawyers to formulate a definition or to work out some procedure to put the matter to rights. My local municipality is having problems. They want to take action but they cannot The police are afraid to take action because they, too, are uncertain. It is doing the law no good and it is not commanding any respect for the police either. Nor is it doing South African society any good, and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister shares my feelings that these machines hold little good for the public and the youth of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland raised a very practical matter. It is a problem many parents feel strongly about, because it gives rise to concern. I am sure the hon. the Minister will furnish him with a full reply because this is an actual and practical social problem.

The hon. member will excuse me if I do not elaborate on his argument. I should like to come back to the hon. member for Houghton. As usual, that hon. member has tried to paint a picture of the Department of Justice which, in all fairness, can be described as a very distorted picture. The picture she is painting, is one of a department which takes away rights by means of detention without trial, restrictions, the prohibition of attendance at meetings, etc.

If one looks at the Department’s annual report and makes a comprehensive survey of the Department’s activities, one becomes firmly convinced of how unfair this approach of the PRP is. What is more, statistics relating to the Department of Justice, prove that it is acting with utmost circumspection in respect of this matter as well. Moreover, the annual report of the Department of Justice proves what a fundamental role this department plays in our society. It is a fundamental role and the very things this department seeks to do is to protect rights, to ensure fair trials and to maintain law and order. In this way one could show that at the local level in every one of our constituencies, the magistrate and his staff play a key role, on the one hand in the administration of justice and on the other hand in respect of a great many essential services which are rendered to the community and other Government departments.

At the provincial and national levels this department is doing a brilliant job of work in controlling a wide range of matters that are fundamental in any orderly society. In addition to the Supreme Court, think of the Deeds Office which protects the right of ownership in South Africa, of the masters’ offices which look after the widows’ and orphans’ rights, and of the Government law advisors without whom the entire State machine, and particularly our law-making activities, would be paralysed.

This department is not only concerned with courts, court cases, sentences and restrictions. It is concerned with rendering a service to the community. It is concerned with the ordering and protection of rights and that is why I think it is a disgrace for the Opposition, and particularly the jurists amongst them, always to concentrate in such a negative manner in debates of this nature on one aspect of the department’s activities. Why are they not positive, why do they not give the country the benefit of their knowledge and experience by making proposals during debates about the further expansion of the fine and good work which this department is already doing?

I do not only want to cross swords with the Opposition. There is another reason why I am emphasizing the fundamental role of the Department of Justice in society. You will find in the report of the department that many doors are being opened to the Coloured and the Indian in this department. For example, it is stated in file report that steps are being taken to ensure an entirely new dispensation for legally qualified Coloureds and Indians. According to the report, the Public Service Commission is giving this matter its consideration. The Department of Justice has also made arrangements with the University of the Western Cape for the introduction of two new courses, namely a B.Juris degree and a three-year diploma in law. Thirdly, at the request of the Department of Justice, a considerable amount has been made available for bursaries for Coloureds with a view to their completing law courses.

What about Blacks?

Against this background I should like to advocate today that everything possible be done to bring these new opportunities to the attention of the Coloureds and Indians and at the same time I want to say that these communities themselves must ensure that they make use of those opportunities.

As tegular as clockwork, we argue questions here in this House surrounding the political position of the Coloureds and the Indians. We get hot under the collar and we attack each other but today we agree on an important truth: The quality of freedom for the Coloured and the Indian, no matter by which formula or policy he attains it, is to him very closely related to the question as to whether his population group will have the services of an adequate number of legally qualified persons drawn from its own ranks. Together with education, the economy and other factors one could mention, the maintenance of law and order, the administration of justice and the legal process play an equally fundamental role in the quality of life of a people or population group.

So-called freedom and human rights may well exist in many parts of the world but it is only in those places where it is supported, inter alia, by a sophisticated legal system, applied by dedicated and loyal judicial officers and legal practitioners, that freedom and human rights have any real meaning. Therefore it is a good thing that we think, speak and plan exactly how we want to assist the Coloured and the Indian to reach political self-realization. Nevertheless, this is only one side of the matter. The other side is that the opportunities they are offered—and today we are discussing the opportunities which they ate now being offered within the framework of the Department of Justice and legal training— should be used. Only when they are used, can freedom, human and political rights for these groups be built on the right human foundations, such as dedicated and trained jurists. That is why I am appealing to the Coloured and Indian communities to seize these opportunities and to ensure that a large enough number of their young men will come forward to study law.

An even more important thing is now happening in modern society. In the fundamental role of the judicial officer and legal practitioner, which I have attempted to outline to you, constant changes are taking place. In conclusion, I want to refer you to a recent work entitled The Law in a Changing Society by an authority on the subject, namely W. Friedman, in which he points out that in addition to his normal judicial function, the legal practitioner and judicial officer of this decade is coming face to face with new challenges. In respect of the socio-economic development of the Coloured and Indian, this also places a special responsibility on them to ensure that as peoples and population groups, they equip themselves with an adequate number of well-trained legally qualified members of their peoples. I quote what this learned writer says—

Freedom without order degenerates into chaos; freedom coupled with order has quality. The freedom which the Coloured and the Indian in South Africa will receive, will have to be carried by, inter alia, the legally qualified Coloureds and Indians. That is why these peoples have a responsibility to make use of the opportunities in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak about the same subject which the hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about, but I want to approach the subject from another angle. All kinds of accusations are constantly being hurled at South Africa, but it is seldom asked whether we in South Africa have a sound, just legal system, something which indeed forms the corner-stone of the answer to the fundamental question of whether we in South Africa have a sound, just community or society, a heterogeneous society in the case of South Africa. I want to make the statement immediately and without hesitation that we in South Africa have the most just, the soundest legal system possible, and that this involves all population groups in South Africa. All our people, White, Coloured and Black, are treated equally in the application of the law. We do not have any separate systems of legal rules for White, Brown and Black. All have the same rights; all get the same powers. All are subject to the same duties towards the individual and towards the group, whether it be their own group or the other groups of the community. In the technical legal sense, there is no difference in status between White, Coloured and Black. Everyone in this country has the same legal capacity, locus standi, and capacity to contract. If the element of colour does occur in laws, it is for the sake of the promotion of good order and the elimination of friction and not to prejudice the rights or capacities of any person in any way. I want to make the statement that there is absolutely equal administration of justice in our courts. Our legal rules provide for equal treatment of all persons in South Africa.

Since we have a sound, just legal system and we have legal order, we can definitely insist that the maintenance of law and order for everyone by everyone is effected and maintained and we can definitely insist that judicial officers and officers of die law should be provided by all population groups and also that they should be protected in exercising and applying the law. Such officers should be provided by all population groups for the departments of Justice, Police and Prisons. I want to put it very clearly that the Whites alone cannot do everything for all population groups. Against this background, I also made a plea last year for the establishment of additional technical posts in the Department of Justice for Coloureds and Asians in particular so that they would be able to participate more actively in the administration of justice.

Today, the State has fulfilled more than its share of the contract. The problem is that there has been very little reaction on the part of the non-Whites. If we look at the progress which has been made by the State, we see that the Public Service Commission devoted itself to creating a better dispensation for Coloureds and Asians with legal qualifications. The hon. member for Vereeniging pointed this out After all, this is the very proof of the absolute good faith, of the bona fides on the part of the department and on the part of the State, which is so often accused of discrimination. That proof lies in the very creation and establishment of these skilled posts. The State needs Coloureds and Asians with legal qualifications, but the people are simply not available. What tremendous opportunities are being afforded the Coloureds to occupy the posts of magistrates, even of chief magistrate? But the department is crying out for suitable candidates to fill these posts. The opportunities waiting to be exploited in the Department of Justice are legion. Here in the Cape Peninsula there are five magisterial districts, namely Cape Town, Goodwood, Bellville, Wynberg and Simonstown. In this area there are practically twice as many Coloureds as Whites, i.e. 808 000 Coloureds as against 480 000 Whites, and by far the most penal and civil cases are cases in which Coloureds are involved. On the other hand, in the whole of South Africa there is only one Coloured who is properly and fully qualified for the post of prosecutor and in the whole of South Africa there are only two Asians. The department even went further and opened a magistrate’s office in Athlone which it would very much like to staff entirely with Coloureds, and where there are already eight Coloured clerks of various grades at this stage, as well as the only qualified prosecutor. But where are the suitable candidates? Posts for Coloured magistrates must and will be created, but how can one become a magistrate unless one first qualifies as a prosecutor, and how can one ever become a magistrate unless one first proves that one is competent as a prosecutor, just as is the case of White people who want to fill the same position.

In South Africa there is an existing and ever-growing need for magistrates’ offices which are completely staffed by Coloureds in order to link up with the eight police stations in the Cape which are already completely staffed by Coloureds and by the 34 practising Coloured attorneys and the 21 Coloured articled clerks. The Lavistown area in the Cape and the Gelvandale area in Port Elizabeth are crying out for magistrates’ offices where the Coloureds will be able to administer justice in the full meaning of the word. Due to the gigantic Government building schemes in progress there at the moment, Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis will be able to accommodate their own magistrate’s courts within a year or two. But the State has gone further and has already drawn up an establishment of full-fledged Coloured magistrates’ offices, consisting of a chief magistrate, a magistrate, three prosecutors and a minimum of four or more Coloured clerks. The State offers Coloureds unlimited opportunities for promotion in the Department of Justice, opportunities for a status profession, opportunities in which the Coloureds and the Asians can participate actively and effectively in the administration of justice and in this way can make their own contribution towards uplifting their own people. In that regard the State has not sat back with arms folded, but has done everything in its power to realize this ideal. Last year, it liaised with the University of the Western Cape and at the beginning of this year the University of the Western Cape introduced the B. Juris degree and a three-year diploma in law for Public Servants—a fine gesture on the part of that university. The Public Service Commission went further and, at the request of the Department of Justice, and in collaboration with the Department of Coloured Affairs, made 30 bursaries of R500 per annum available. The magistrates in the Western Cape and in the Port Elizabeth area received instructions to promote these professional opportunities and bursaries among matriculants, which has in fact been done. The result was that 14 applications were received, and of those 14, only ten could be accommodated. And even this was after a very lenient process of selection.

I want to make a special request to the Coloureds of South Africa today to become more personally and actively involved in the administration of justice in South Africa. I want to appeal to the Coloureds of South Africa to make use of the opportunity to qualify themselves professionally and to seize the opportunities for bursaries which exist. I want to request the Coloureds to help the Whites in South Africa to realize the ideal of magistrates’ offices for Coloured areas, law offices which will stand out as a symbol of the maintenance of law and justice, as a symbol of self-control and self-discipline and as a necessary element for the maintenance of law and order in a law-abiding community. In this way I believe that everyone in South Africa— White, Brown, Asian and Black—can participate in the administration of law and in the security of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durbanville praised our legal system. In many ways he was right His plea was in many ways a valid one. With respect, he made one big error, however, when he said that Blacks and Whites all had the same rights in this country. That is not quite true. Just for example, Africans have pass laws which Whites do not have. Africans have trade union deficiencies in so far as the right to strike is concerned. That is also something which Whites do not have. [Interjections.] I do not wish to deal with any more of the points raised by the hon. member for Durbanville, because I have other matters I want to speak about in the short time at my disposal.

I would like to deal with the whole question of restriction orders and detentions, arising out of the restriction order served a little while ago on Dr. Ramphele, near King William’s Town, and also on nine people last week, including the president of BPC, as well as, last Saturday, on the secretary of the Southern African Conference of Catholic Bishops. These actions by the hon. the Minister of Justice were taken in spite of the fact that the report of the Commissioner of Police tabled in the House, says—

The circumstances surrounding the serving of an order on Dr. Ramphele are particularly disturbing. She was a doctor working at the Zonepilo Clinic. It is alleged that without warning she was visited by the security branch. She was thrown into a car, having sustained a head injury when being taken out of the office. She was taken immediately to a cell from where she was transferred to the Northern Transvaal, to some remote area near Tzaneen. We react with horror when the same sort of action is taken in Siberia. Yet, the same sort of thing is going on all the time in South Africa. It goes on while there is no emergency in South Africa in terms of what the police report says. There is no crisis, according to the hon. the Prime Minister.

You are sitting too close to the Black power priest [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why we are doing these things. More important what are we doing to South Africa by such arbitrary decisions? I believe it is these very acts, among others, by the hon. the Minister of Justice, which fan the flames of grievance in South Africa. It is these very acts which create the climate for violence, and it is the very decisions of the hon. the Minister, taken in secret as he is entitled to do, which are dangerous to South Africa.

Let us take Dr. Ramphele for example. The public does not know why action was taken against her. The public is given no reasons. The Black people are given no reasons. What is the effect on these people? Each decision taken in secret by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and without court action—either to serve a restriction order or to detain a person without trial—is a ground for growing anger, and is a seed-bed for the germination of grievance and hatred. [Interjections.] Dr. Ramphele was one of the doctors who attended the post mortem of Mapetla Mohapi after he had died in detention. She was detained shortly after that for some considerable time without trial.

What suspicions and what anger must have been generated in the minds of die Black people? Does the hon. the Minister of Justice realize what an impetus to Black solidarity these acts give? I am pleading for peace in South Africa. I am pleading very sincerely. I believe that acts of this kind are in fact bad for peace in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to point out to hon. members that it is simply a fact that thousands of Black people flocked to the funeral of Mapetla Mohapi. All over South Africa funeral services were held for him. People flocked to those services from everywhere. I just want to refer to one particular newspaper report of the actual funeral which took place at Sterkspruit. This report is dated 16 August 1976, and says—

There are many other reports. There was a report in The Cape Times of a service which was held in Cape Town, which said—

There are many reports like this. Another newspaper report, talking about the inquest at King William’s Town of this detainee, says—

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to these cases because what is happening is that there are many, many more people—apart from Mr. Mohapi—who are becoming heroes and martyrs to the Black people. They are being built on the edifice of White ministerial decisions without recourse to the courts.

In Ireland detention and ministerial acts have now been abandoned because it was found that they created violence. Detention, for example, was introduced there in 1971. It was immediately directed against the IRA. It immediately produced the worst explosion of violence that Northern Ireland had yet known. It was found that detention without trial turned people towards the IRA. In December 1975 the last detainee was released because—and I quote from the Gardner Report—

The position in Ireland is that they now rely on the surer policy of bringing the people to court. The hon. the Minister is dealing in South Africa with Black consciousness. How did it arise? It arose in the mid ’sixties with the Nationalist policy of Dr. Verwoerd, which made it clear that the Government would never share a common political system with Black people. That was made clear in the early ’sixties. The Blacks concluded that they should make their own Blackness a political weapon. Therefore Black consciousness was an inevitable consequence of apartheid.

There has, in fact, been one trial of Black consciousness in South Africa, namely the trial of the leaders of Saso and BFC. After the accused persons had been in detention for four months, the police came to the conclusion that Saso and BPC were revolutionary groups and they were indicted in the Pretoria Supreme Court with conspiring to bring about armed revolution. That was the whole thrust of the State’s case. The State called an expert witness, thousands of documents were put in, and it was contended throughout that the accused persons were striving for armed revolution. The accused denied this. They said they were a protest group and not a revolutionary group, although thousands of pages of documents, speeches and letters of Saso and PBC were used as evidence, not one word of direct evidence in that trial supported the case of the police.

Are you suggesting that the judge was wrong?

What did the judge find in the end? I shall tell you exactly what he found. On page 236 of his judgment he says—

In fact, the judge found that the State’s contention was totally wrong. On page 242 of his judgment he then found that the defence’s contention was quite right that it was in fact a protest group. The judgment reads—

But, of course, what the judge did find was that, without there being any direct evidence—which he said—the acts of these groups in the circumstances were capable of endangering the maintenance of law and order. Consequently they were found guilty. I do not dispute the judgment in this respect However, the point I want to make is that the police were wrong in their contention that it was a revolutionary group bent on armed revolution.

The hon. the Minister does not know the circumstances and has to rely on the police for information, just as we have to rely on the police and on what the Minister tells us. How many times may the police not be wrong? They were wrong in their main contention in the Saso/BPC trial. That is the difficulty with which the hon. the Minister is faced. Each time there is a restriction order, each time that there is a detention without trial, it is an added danger to South Africa. It emerged from the Saso/BPC trial that what they were found guilty of was the anger that arose not only because of that hon. Minister but because of other hon. Ministers who forcibly moved them from Doornkop, Rooigrond, Stinkwater and Morsgat. All these arbitrary decisions were things which created anger and endangered the maintenance of law and order. I very strongly urge the hon. the Minister that ministerial decisions to restrict and detain should forthwith be stopped and that these people should be brought to trial.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North must realize that South Africa has one problem. As far as the outside world is concerned, South Africa is faced with the problem that an incorrect image of South Africa is being projected abroad. We are being accused of untruths and we are being condemned on the basis of facts which are nothing but half-truths. The problem of the Government still remains the projection of South Africa’s true image abroad. The PRP is the very party which has contributed from its position in this House of Assembly to a false image of South Africa gaining acceptance abroad.

Let us consider two speeches made by hon. members of the PRP to which we had to listen this afternoon. The hon. member for Durban North chose the theme: “How many times were the Police wrong?” I ask in turn: “How many times were the Police right?” How many times in the past did the Police contribute to his security, my security, the security of all of us and the security of the country as a whole? How many good words and words of praise for what the Police have done have come from the PRP? Instead of putting their gratitude on record, the PRP creates an image of a Police Force incapable of accomplishing anything. The hon. member spoke of these things happening in Siberia— in other words, he equates South Africa to Siberia.

After all, we know that political opponents of the Government are detained in Russia and Siberia. But in the cases in question, we are not dealing with political opponents of the Government If the Government had not allowed its political opponents freedom of speech in South Africa, surely the PRP would not have been represented in this House. Their presence here is evidence of free political opposition in South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton quoted a series of figures concerning detainees. What image does she want to create abroad by quoting those figures? What does she want the outside world to believe? What does she want South Africa to believe? What does she want the Black people to believe? She wants to create the impression that the Government is ’overstepping its powers. She wants to create the impression that the Government is unjust in its actions. Does she not realize that every person being detained in South Africa, is not being detained for what he has done in the past Therefore, detention is not a form of punishment. No, if a person is being detained in South Africa in terms of the security measures of our country, he is being detained as a preventive measure. He is being detained in order to prevent there being any interference in State security and consequently in their and my security as well.

The hon. member for Durban Point also said: “The actions of the Minister create an atmosphere for violence”. In my opinion this is an outrageous statement It is disgraceful for the hon. member to act like Ais and to argue like this in this House. [Interjections.]

In the course of her argument, the hon. member for Houghton referred to the number of people who had been acquitted by the courts. What does she want to prove by this? Does she want to prove that there is no justification for the fact that they have been charged?

Yes.

This is not how the administration of justice works in America, England and South Africa, and one cannot say that if a person is acquitted by the courts, this testifies to his having been wrongfully charged. All it means, is that the State has been unable to succeed in providing beyond any reasonable doubt that the person concerned is guilty. The finding of the court goes no further than that I know what I am talking about, if the hon. member is perhaps concerned about this.

We realize that the Department of Justice— the judicature together with the Police, in other words, this whole Government system—is responsible for upholding human rights in South Africa In what way are human rights ensured? Firstly, by ensuring State security and, secondly, by protecting our person and property. When there has been interference with regard to a person’s life in that a crime has been committed against his person, his property has been stolen, etc., it is one of the rights of a citizen of this country that the guilty party be found that he appear in court, that he have a fair trial and that, in the event of his being found guilty, a proper sentence be imposed on him, one that will serve as a deterrent to people who may want to follow in his footsteps.

I know we are not discussing the Police Vote at the moment, but I think it is necessary to refer in this regard to the figures quoted in the annual report of the Commission of Police relating to the solving of crimes. Amongst other things, the following is said: As regards the security of the State and good order, 95% of the crimes were solved; as regards crimes against communal life 93%; against personal relations 90%; property 50%; economic affairs 96%; and social affairs 88%. Therefore, in total an average of 70% of all crimes are solved.

In considering in general the way in which the Department of Justice, together with the Department of Prisons and the Department of Police, upholds our human rights, we may be very proud of them, especially when we compare the figures with those of a country like America. A very interesting article on the Mafia appeared in the leading American publication, Time. Let us take a look at the position in America as far as organized crime is concerned. The article says, inter alia, the following—

At the moment the situation in America is such that the authorities are no longer able to control the matter. The report goes on to say—

The report continues—

This is with reference to organized crime in America—

In other words, the untaxed profits of organized crime in America amount to $25 billion per year, approximately 14 times the Defence budget of South Africa. The report continues—

It is also said that two cents in every dollar a man pays, is paid because there is such a thing as organized crime in America. We in South Africa are concerned about the upholding of human rights in America and we are concerned about the fact that America is not able to protect its people against crime. We in South Africa are looking forward to the day when our friends in America will be able to uphold human rights, also as far as this matter is concerned.

Another interesting aspect is that the Mafia has its own use of words. A good example of this is—

In the Sunday Times of 22 May we read that Mr. Young said the following—

From Parliament today, we want to tell the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons that we are pleased and grateful for the fact that our human rights in South Africa, our possessions and our person is protected by the Minister and his department in such a way that we may tell the world that as far as this is concerned, human rights are duly upheld here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Pretoria Central and I should like to ask him: Was he leaning a little bit to the left when he made his speech in Pretoria recently about the rights of all the people in South Africa? I wondered whether the hon. member was not leaning a little bit to the left on that occasion, but what worried me more about his speech—he made it in a rather flamboyant manner—was that he tried to justify the security laws for our safety. I believe he is right, because we have to have security laws for the safety of the general public, but I want to ask him: Does he agree that it is necessary at all times to remember that we must keep our heads and not ignore the basic precepts of the tule of law when we apply these security laws?

I also listened with great interest to the hon. member for Vereeniging—unfortunately he is not in the House at the moment He spoke eulogistically in regard to the question of the introduction by the Department of Justice of training facilities for the Coloureds and the Indians. However, he never mentioned a single word about the Blacks. With a wave of the wand he wipes the Blacks out of this situation in South Africa. He regards the country as only being populated by people of the White, Coloured and Indian groups. It is incredible that we should have this thought process going on. His entire speech was directed at the question of the introduction of training plans for Coloureds and Indians, but he did not say a single word about the Blacks.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. Firstly, I am asking him very seriously and very deliberately to institute a full judicial inquiry and investigation into, firstly, the deaths of detainees and, secondly, the allegations that are rife throughout South Africa at the moment of the bad treatment that is given to prisoners while they are incarcerated in gaol, particularly those held under the security laws. I ask the hon. the Minister to do this in all seriousness. First of all I want to bring our minds back to the question of what law really means in South Africa. I believe that the law firstly aims at doing justice and, secondly, at maintaining order, or vice versa and not necessarily in that order. The definition of justice is variable but in simple terms it is the prevailing sense of men of goodwill as to what is fair and right. That is a simple definition of what justice is. For justice to be seen to be done there must firstly be ensured an independent, unbiased and fair judiciary. We have this. Secondly, there must be an able and independent Bar and Side Bar. We have this. Thirdly, there must be a procedural system which provides legal assistance to all, and a fair trial. We do not have this. We have a system whereby we provide legal assistance, but certainly not for all. Secondly, in our particular circumstances we do not, under certain circumstances, have a fair trial. It must be accepted that occasionally and under extreme circumstances, the tenets of justice may be in conflict with the maintenance of order, but the test here is for the governing body to attempt at all times to keep a proper balance between the two. In order to get the two conflicting interests in proper perspective I believe that it is wise that we should at all times constantly remind ourselves of the necessity to keep this balance. For that purpose I propose reading what I believe to be a concise exposition of what we should strive for. This is a statement that was made in the Harvard Law Review by a certain Mr. Wechsler. He writes as follows—

This restates what we should keep at the back of our minds at all times, what we should always remember when we are dealing with security legislation. I want to talk about the suspicions that have been aroused not only amongst the people of South Africa, but also amongst the people of the world. These suspicions are current in our newspapers. They are current even in our law reports and of course, they are current in overseas journals. I want to refer to just a few of them. I want to refer first of all the question of maltreatment. In The Natal Mercury of 4 May 1977, only the other day, the following report appeared—

Was that proved?

I am saying that these are the suspicions.

What did the court find?

The report says the case is continuing.

What did the court find about that allegation?

Sir, the case is continuing. This is the report of 4 May …

It is simply an allegation the man made in court.

Correct

But that is not proof.

Correct.

Why do you then repeat it in Parliament?

Because of the fact that, as I say, these suspicions are being aroused.

But why do you repeat it in Parliament?

I have been trying to explain to the hon. the Minister for the last ten minutes that these are the suspicions that are being raised among the people. He must not get angry with me when I say that these are the suspicions that are being aroused. I will quote another one just to make him even more angry. Another case was reported in The Natal Mercury, dated 18 January 1977. There are dozens of these.

Scandal-monger!

I am quoting only a few. I am not going to quote the whole lot. I am saying that these are examples …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order Is the hon. member allowed to call the hon. member a “ scandal-monger” ?

But that is what he is.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

This statement, dated 18 January 1977, says that a Mr. Xaba giving evidence before Mr. Justice Howard and two assessors on events leading up to his arrest and his interrogation at the Loop Street offices of the Security Branch—all these cases are under security legislation …

But what does that prove?

The report reads as follows—

It means nothing and you as a lawyer should know that.

Sir, I am no fool. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister must realize that I have been involved in many criminal cases when witnesses have tried to state that they had been assaulted by the Police. I know that for a fact, but when we see that the people of our country are facing these…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of orden I maintain, with respect that the hon. member is now talking to the Police Vote and not to the Justice Vote.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is incorrect I am talking about the question of the administration of justice. The hon. the Minister will accept that this is under his Vote. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that those are the reports that are travelling around the country. That is why I am asking him please to investigate them. Clear this country’s good name as far as the administration of justice is concerned. Why does he not say to me that he will do it? [Interjections.] Maybe he will just now … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should allow the hon. member to finish his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secondly, I want to refer to the deaths in detention. Here particularly I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at the question of suicides. In the minds of the people of South Africa the question is being raised why is it that there are so many suicides taking place amongst the people who are held in terms of the security laws? I want to talk to hon. members about Mr. Mohapi. He has been mentioned by another member. Mr. Mohapi was being held under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. He committed suicide. This is what his wife had to say, as reported in the Daily Despatch of 9 August 1976—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City asked the Minister this afternoon to appoint a commission of inquiry into the allegations which are being made that people have been maltreated in detention and, secondly, into the death of detainees. Mr. Chairman, since you ruled that the hon. member was allowed to discuss detainees, I want to take this opportunity of reacting to his speech. In the first place, I want to point out that the hon. member did not quote a single court ruling to us in which the judge found that the allegations made by the so-called accused were correct

Yes, in Wynberg’s case.

He merely quoted some newspaper reports of what accused persons were supposed to have said in court I take the strongest exception to what the hon. member said here He is a lawyer himself and he said he knew what he was talking about If the hon. member wants to allege these things in this House today, he must get up here and disclose to us the things he knows, so that we may learn what they are. He cannot just make an allegation about those people and then add suggestively that he knows what he is talking about If he wants to do that, he must produce the proof.

You did not listen to me.

That is not the way in which we deal with these matters. I also want to point out to hon. members that as far as I am concerned, there is no reason for the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry. All the people who are being detained have the right, under the security legislation, to be visited by a magistrate from time to time. The magistrate can then listen to all the man’s complaints and have those complaints investigated. There is no reason for such an inquiry to be instituted. I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that not even the International Red Cross has asked for such an inquiry. They have asked permission to inspect the prisons, but they have not asked for such an inquiry because they know that similar inquiries are being conducted.

As regards the question of people who are being detained under the security legislation and who allegedly commit suicide, I want to say that the hon. members are not completely ignorant of these matters, after all. Surely they know that the communists have instructed the people concerned rather to take their own lives than to disclose any particulars.

Why are you against an investigation?

Surely the hon. member knows that. The hon. the Minister referred to this last year. He disclosed it when we were discussing security legislation in this House. If the death-rate among the detainees under this Act is so excessively high, why does the hon. member not produce figures regarding the other people who commit suicide? The suicide of other people does not receive so much publicity as suicide among detainees. It is not the fault of the system or or the Act that it is publisized. The mass media are the ones who seize upon these things and broadcast them. I think the hon. members should be much more careful in raising these matters than they have been this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I want to sum up the attitude of the PRP to law and order in the country in a few words. I want to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 9 December 1976. In that newspaper they quoted what the hon. member for Johannesburg North had said in New York. If the hon. member has been misquoted, he will just have to arrange for a turn to speak and to tell us whether he has been misquoted. What the hon. member said, according to the newspaper, is typical, in my opinion, of the attitude adopted by that party towards law and order. I quote—

This is what was said in the Rand Daily Mail on 9 December 1976.

I was talking about discrimination.

The hon. member can explain to us later what he meant by saying that the little children of Soweto have it right when they burnt down their schools and do things of that kind. The official Opposition must get up today and take part in the justice and police debates. They must not leave the debate to the PRP. They are leaving it to the PRP, but they must get up and take part.

I should like to devote my attention to another matter for a moment I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister for—I do not want to say a new approach—a revision of our security legislation in South Africa. When I say “revision”, I do not mean that the content of our security legislation should be changed, but I think the time has come for us to take a fresh look at the Suppression of Communism Act and all the legislation dealing with security and.that we should get one consolidated law dealing with internal security or State security, whatever we want to call it. This would hold tremendous advantages for us. We could then put an end to the possible confusion which could arise from the fact that one man is being detained in terms of section 6 of one Act or in terms of section 9 of another Act, while someone else has been banned in terms of section 10 of a third Act We could have one piece of legislation dealing with security in South Africa.

Furthermore, I want to suggest on this occasion that when we consider the consolidation of the security legislation in South Africa, we should introduce a new tendency into our security legislation. We should not only examine the so-called political overthrow of the existing order, but we should also look at the preservation of the economic system, the capitalist system. We must take a fresh look at actions winch are being planned, and which I believe will emerge much more clearly in the future, for sabotaging South Africa in the economic field. When one considers the things that have been said lately, it is very clear that certain groups of enemies of South Africa have decided that the way to bring South Africa to its knees is to sabotage South Africa economically. We must accept that as in the past, when they expressed the wish to sabotage South Africa’s political dispensation, they found support for their views amongst those people in the country whom we know and who co-operated with them in that field, these people, if they want to sabotage South Africa economically, will find people in this country who will help them to sabotage South Africa economically.

It is quite clear to me that the internal peace and order and the internal security of South Africa is just as much dependent on this leg of economic stability as on the leg of political order in this country. If we are prepared, therefore, to review our security legislation and to consolidate this legislation into one Act, we might as well introduce this new idea as well and perhaps look at some other new ideas which could be introduced into such a measure. In this way, for example, it could be a fine subject for the Internal Security Commission which is to be instituted if it were to examine our security legislation, with the examination of this new aspect specifically included in its terms of reference. I hope that if the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Justice includes this in terms of reference of the commission, we shall have the co-operation of that side of the House in examining that legislation. Their objection would then fall away, for that commission would not be investigating organizations as such, but they would be examining security legislation and introducing new aspects into such legislation.

If we get a consolidated piece of security legislation, we shall also be able to tell the world that South Africa has sorted out its situation with regard to its internal security over the years. We do not see the subversion of the State as emanating from the communists only, because an ordinary liberalist—if there is such a thing—can also be a danger to the State without necessarily being a communist. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the hon. member for East London City on what, I think, was a very strong speech. [Interjections.] I entirely agree with the hon. member’s call for a commission of enquiry. I think such a commission could do a great deal to alleviate the fears and the suspicions which have been sown in South Africa during the past months. It is quite obvious that his speech has aroused a certain amount of anger from the NP, particularly from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I do not wish to intervene in the quarrel between the two hon. members, but I believe there is in fact an easy answer, an answer which will avoid commissions of inquiry and avoid deaths in detention. That is to do away with detentions, particularly detention over long periods, and to adopt the principle that where people are suspected of having committed offences, that they be charged. Where there are no charges brought against them they should be released.

I do not, however, wish to deal with this subject. I would like to deal with another matter today. Escalating legal costs and continuing delays in bringing civil court actions to finality are causing companies, individuals and businessmen, as well as ordinary citizens, thousands of rands and a great deal of worry and financial loss. The bare facts readily available to us expose a situation in terms of which millions of raids, both in cash and in man hours, are either wasted or lost, or even abandoned.

In the lower courts in 1976, 751 000 civil cases were recorded—9 000 more than in 1975. 470 000 civil applications were heard. That was 8 000 more than in 1975. Over 572 000 hours were spent on judicial work, representing an increase of over 20 000 hours spent on judicial work. In addition to that, 2 510 000 processes were issued, amounting to a 12% increase in only one year. During that same period the actual magisterial staff of the department remained virtually static at something like 710.

While there have been recent improvements in the staffing situation, there are still serious shortages, and major relief cannot be expected in the near future, if at all. The current staff in the magistrates’ courts, and even in the higher courts—both civil and criminal divisions—are working under conditions of the most incredible pressure. This year steps have been taken to relieve some of the pressure in the Supreme Courts. We have had the automatic review of magisterial decisions abolished and we have had the Lower Courts Bill passed by the House; legislation which granted increased jurisdiction to the magistrates’ courts.

These measures, while assisting in the higher divisions, have in fact increased the burden of work in the lower courts. Answers to questions which I put during the year reveal that the delay after set-down in the hearing of civil cases, is, for instance in Cape Town, something like four months. In Johannesburg it is something like three months, and countrywide approximately three months uniformly. In other words, together with red tape, documentation, pleadings, postponements and the like, the ordinary civil case can take anything from six months to a year before eventually being heard in a magistrate’s court.

Discussing the escalating legal costs the first point to note is that there are two legal tariffs in operation, viz. the party and party tariff which is rigid, and the attorney and client tariff which is more flexible and, in fact, a lot higher. This means that a plaintiff who wins his case and who is awarded costs is nonetheless liable for his own attorney’s bill, which is always based on the higher scale—that is the attorney and client scale. In recent times the difference between the two tariffs has often been as much as 100%.

There is a growing tendency in the lower courts for attorneys to brief counsel, and not to appear themselves in those courts. Advocate charges are seldom less than R150 per day. Usually these charges are more, while in many cases I believe advocate charges are escalating beyond all reasonableness.

Another factor to bear in mind is that legal aid has been curtailed and that, in any event, it is only the very poor who can qualify for such aid. In other words, it is becoming increasingly clear that a litigant having a claim of say R500, or less, is, when faced with a defended action, best advised to settle or to write off his claim, rather than to proceed to court, because his costs, both direct and indirect, may in all probability exceed any award which might be made to him at the end of the trial. The Government is not unaware of the problem and by the shortening of the procedures, which is taking place in certain respects, by the setting of new tariffs—which is about to take place by means of one of the Bills coming before the House—and in various other ways the Government is doing what it can to assist.

However, the problem appears to me to be far larger than currently realized. It seems to me that fairly drastic action should be taken in the interests of our citizens. With the ever-increasing volume of litigation coming before our courts and with the onward march of inflation, it is clear that the rapidly rising legal costs and, taking into account the continuing staff problems, the long delays will continue for the foreseeable future. Cosmetic changes are not going to meet this growing crisis in the courts of South Africa. One may ask: What can be done? One possible solution will, I believe, draw protest from the private enterprise-orientated legal profession. That will be to appoint State civil attorneys to legal aid offices whose job it must be to advise litigants in regard to prosecution of their claims for sums of say R500 or less. I do not favour this solution, but I nevertheless place it before the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

The second solution is perhaps more revolutionary, but certainly more practical. It involves a look at the procedures pertaining in nearly all the states of America as well as in several European countries. Is it not possible to institute in South Africa courts which could handle disputes relating to say R500 or less? In such courts the plaintiff might act on his own behalf, sessions could be held in the evenings and could be presided over by magistrates, attorneys or advocates nominated by their associations on a roster system involving no more than three or four such sitting sessions per half year. Procedures could be simple. The plaintiff, in consultation with the Clerk of the Court, could file his claim. The defendant would be notified and the date for trial could immediately be set. No formal pleadings would be necessary and the presiding officer, more of an arbitrator than a judge, would be entitled—not obliged—to make and announce decisions immediately.

In America hundreds of thousands of small claims are satisfactory dealt with annually in this way. It is not intended that such a court should become a collection agency and replace the existing procedure for the collection of debts. I believe that such a court should only deal with matters brought by individuals and matters which are defended. Decisions could be subject to appeal or review. The costs of litigation should not exceed more than R20 or R30 per case. Obviously, the litigant will have the choice of using this procedure or going through an attorney and using the normal court procedure which is presently prescribed by laws on our Statute Book. In the light of rising costs, continuing delays and the complicated legal procedures pertaining, I commend this concept, if not all the details, to the hon. the Minister at least for consideration in trying to streamline the work of his department, in easing the lot of the ordinary man and perhaps even in saving the country millions of rands in wastage and in lost manhours.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the interesting lecture given by the hon. member for Sandton on the problems of legal costs. All of us who have a legal background, and especially those who have been attorneys, are very much aware of the serious problem of rising legal costs. However, this is not a problem which is worrying only the general public, the man in the street. It is a matter of concern to the members of the legal profession itself, and especially to attorneys. In the course of his short speech, the hon. member for Sandton mentioned the tendency which had developed among attorneys to make more and more use of the services of advocates in the civil courts. There is a very simple reason for this. The overheads which the average attorney has to pay to keep his office going during the day have assumed such proportions that it is simply not financially possible for him today to handle a civil case in a magistrate’s court himself. This problem of rising legal costs, although it receives and deserves the sympathy of us all, is not a problem which can easily be solved. I do not believe for one moment that it is a problem we can solve in this House this afternoon. I think it would be advisable to leave it to the respective law societies and the Bar Council in co-operation with the Department of Justice.

In the short time available to me I want to concentrate on the other Vote which is under discussion this afternoon, namely Prisons. I find it striking that hardly a word has been said so far in this debate with regard to the important work done by this department. Only the hon. member for Houghton—who is not here at the moment—pointed out in passing that we had had the privilege of visiting the Pollsmoor Prison last year. In her reference to that visit she said that it was a great pity that members of the public did not have access to our prisons and that they were not afforded the opportunity of visiting our prisons because— according to her reasoning—-this would help to improve the quality and the work of the Department of Prisons and of the prisons themselves.

With respect to the hon. member for Houghton, I think that this was the kind of perverse remark she habitually makes. I do not think that the Department of Prisons and the dedicated officials employed by the department have any need of visits by the public to bring home to them the seriousness and the efficacy of their work or to encourage them to improve the quality of their work. Those of us who paid that visit to Pollsmoor were very impressed by the quality, the nature and especially by the dedication of our prison officials, who have to perform this very difficult task in the interests of society.

This brings me to one specific aspect of the work of the Prisons Department that I want to deal with very briefly, namely the rehabilitation of prisoners. In this connection I want to refer to a very small aspect of the department’s work. If there is one method which the department is applying to very good effect in dealing with prisoners, it is occupational therapy. All over the world people have found that merely to keep prisoners in custody and to isolate them from society does not have the desired effect at all. They must not only be kept in custody, they must also be given something constructive to do. Because the work being done in that field in our country is of such a high quality, we do not have those bloody prison uprisings in South Africa which one often hears of in other and even in sophisticated countries of the world. In the times in which we live, and especially over the past 15 years, the Prisons Department has had to deal with a rapidly increasing prison population. This has confronted the department with two specific problems. The first is the creation of adequate training facilities for long-term prisoners. By that I mean the prisoner who has to serve a sentence of more than two years. The second problem is the creation of adequate facilities for the useful occupation of short-term prisoners.

Because of the normal nature of the offences committed by long-term prisoners, the department cannot lease their services to the private sector, because of the danger that they may escape. Therefore the department itself has to provide for the detention and useful occupation of such prisoners. As far as short-term prisoners are concerned, the ideal is for the department to keep them occupied in its own institutions and by means of its own facilities.

In our country we are faced in particular with a relatively large number of non-White prisoners whose background is mostly of a rural nature. Because they have moved from the country to the city, and have taken to crime in the city through no real fault of their own, the possible solution—the department has in fact resorted to this—is to take such prisoners back to the farm. The department has created a system of prison farms which has met with great success. It is a system in terms of which unsophisticated people with a rural background, without any scholastic qualifications worth mentioning, are afforded an opportunity to work in a rural atmosphere again, on a farm, and to undergo the necessary training, including training in farm affairs and farm work, so that when they are discharged, they can go back as properly trained people to serve their own people in a rural atmosphere. In this connection the department is making use of the extension services as well as other services provided by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in an attempt to ensure that proper guidance and training is provided to the prisoners on the prison farms.

The prison farms render a special service to the Prisons Department because the production of the farms is not inconsiderable and goes a long way towards meeting the department’s own needs in respect of food for prisoners. It is the policy of the department that the produce of the prison farms should not be made available to the public in the open trade. Therefore the produce is not offered for sale on the market, but is used exclusively by the department itself.

I have a large number of figures available which indicate the production of the prison farms, but I do not want to take up the Committee’s time by reading them at this stage. In any event, my time has almost expired. However, I maintain that the production is not inconsiderable.

In conclusion I want to say that if there are people in the country who do not like the department to maintain prison farms, and before the PRP misunderstands me, it should be noted that I am not speaking of farm gaols. I am speaking of prison farms, which are quite different The fact is that the department is to an increasing extent rendering a better service by means of its prison farms, not only to our country, but to the prisoner himself, because he is properly trained in prison so that he will be able to serve his own people when he is discharged.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton made some very good suggestions and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to consider them.

It is not a coincidence and not without significance that in the 29 years of NP rule of which the NP is so proud, South Africa has become one of the most violent societies in the world. In fact, 29 years ago South Africa was a relatively peaceful society. I believe it is significant that the NP has managed to convert that relatively peaceful society into the violent society it is today. A very interesting report, Crime in South Africa, written by Dr. Midgley, has recently made its appearance. I should like to recommend the hon. the Minister to study the report in regard to this particular matter. It is said that in the Cape Peninsula the incidence of violence is double that of New York in spite of the fact that New York has a very much larger population and is supposed to be the most violent city in the world. I want to confine myself to one aspect of violent crime and that is the crime of rape. I would like to call upon the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry … [Interjections.] The hon. members on the other side need not fear the assault of rape except possibly on a very dark night I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister …

Order! What did the hon. member say? I could not hear him.

I am making an appeal to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

Order! What did the hon. member say about rape?

I said that the assault of rape is something that hon. members need nor fear except on a very dark night. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry …

Order! Could the hon. member explain what he is trying to say?

Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes left and consequently I withdraw the remark before there are any repercussions. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to examine all aspects of rape in South Africa. In South Africa 25 cases of rape are reported every day, but we know that that is less than 5% of the actual number of cases that occur. In America only 10% of the cases are reported. That means that about 500 cases of rape take place in South Africa every day. They are not reported because of the social stigma involved. Society and the family disapprove of rape and look with disapproval on the victims of rape. There is also the danger of the intimidation of the victims should they report it, and the threat of violence is often present. There is a belief, particularly on the part of non-White persons who are raped, that it is not worthwhile reporting it because the people who are responsible are very seldom brought to book.

We must in the first place accept that the 25 cases which are reported every day are a very small number. When the medical examination is carried out, the traumatic experience of the raped victim is only just beginning. In South Africa neither the police nor the medical personnel responsible show the necessary sympathy or have the necessary specialized training to be able to deal with a raped victim in a way in which the feeling of guilt and shame will be eased. In fact, the very opposite happens; the feeling of guilt and shame is very often accentuated. Medical examination in South Africa is carried out to establish bruising, the extent of force that was used, etc., whereas in the United Kingdom, for instance, the victim’s nails are very carefully examined for traces of skin which can go for forensic examination and also traces of blood, hair, and other human tissue which can be sent for forensic examination in order to assist in a prosecution which may be brought.

What do you want the judicial commission of inquiry to do?

I want the judicial commission of inquiry to examine all aspects of rape, both in regard to the crime, its incidence, the police examination and the hearing in court which, in South Africa, is a secondary form of victimization, because it is the victim who is on trial. The victim’s morals are under attack. It is attempted to prove that the victim is a person of loose morals.

Do you want to change the court procedure?

The hon. the Minister must leave the procedure to the judicial commission of inquiry to establish whether it is effective at the moment …

I must tell them what to do and therefore I am trying to find out what you want them to do.

The present procedure is unsatisfactory. It is not acceptable, because it is the victim that is under attack and the victim’s morals that are brought under suspicion.

By whom?

By the defending attorneys. I believe that there is a good case for the hearings to take place in camera. I also believe that it is important that the previous sexual history of the victim should not be admissible evidence in cases of this nature. It is a very wide subject and I cannot deal with it fully in four or five minutes. I believe a judicial commission of inquiry is the means whereby the facts could be established and guidelines be set for dealing with this crime. I believe that there has to be new guidelines for, first of all, the police as far as the interrogation is concerned. They should see to it that interrogations are carried out by trained female staff who are properly trained in the social, criminal and personal aspects which are involved. The examination must be sympathetic and understanding, so that the victims do not feel more isolated and do not go through the traumatic experiences which they experience today. I believe that the medical examination must not be the cold, clinical, rushed affair that it is today. It should be aimed at putting the victim at ease, helping the victim and gathering evidence which could be used in a prosecution. I believe that when these cases are heard in court, it must be the sort of hearing which does not result in permanent phychological scarring of the victim, or in the victim being put on trial and his/her morals being examined. It should result in justice being done and in the person responsible for the crime being brought to book. Today that is not the case. I believe that there are two very important considerations here. Firstly, such cases should be heard in camera in order to protect the identity of particularly the victim and, secondly, the whole sordid business of examining from A to Z the sexual history of the victim is something which is totally unacceptable to a civilized and decent society and should not be permissible evidence in a case of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has made a rather sordid speech.

Order! The hon. member should withdraw the word “sordid”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it He made some rather provocative statements in the course of his speech and showed clearly that he does not know very much about the subject.

Do you know more about it?

I prefer to leave it there and to deal with a subject of my own choice.

*Mr. Chairman, earlier this session the House effected some amendments to the Liquor Act, by which, among other things, the annual renewal of liquor licences is facilitated considerably. The simplification of the renewal procedure does not, however, imply in any way that the acquisition of a liquor licence has now become a right which can be exercised more or less automatically. A liquor licence, of whatever nature, therefore still remains a privilege—a privilege to which the hon. the Minister of Justice can link all sorts of provisions in terms of the Liquor Act.

With regard to hotels, the Hotels Act, Act No. 70 of 1965, was placed on the Statute Book “to foster the development and improvement of accommodation establishments with a view to achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards in the quality of the accommodation, meals and services provided by such establishments”. A hotel board, functioning under the supervision of the hon. the Minister of Toursim, was appointed for this purpose. However, section 173 of the Liquor Act, as amended, empowers the hon. the Minister of Justice to make regulations relating to applications for licences and authorities in terms of the Liquor Act, i.e. including applications for hotel liquor licences and “prescribing, generally, all matters which he considers it necessary or expedient to prescibe for the more efficient administration and carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act (the Liquor Act) the generality of this provision not being limited by the provisions of the preceding paragraphs”.

In terms of section 137 of the Liquor Act the designated police officer reports to the chairman of the Liquor Board, inter alia, “any failure by a licensee”, that is, also the holder of a hotel liquor licence,-“to comply with any condition or restriction imposed by or under this Act upon him or determined in respect of any licence held by him or any class of licences to which such licence belongs, or in respect of any right or privilege pertaining to such licence”. It is therefore quite clear that the Minister of Justice has much wider powers in terms of the Liquor Act, also in respect of hotels, than the Hotels Act gives the Hotel Board.

Sir, I am not a language activist; neither am I a bigot with regard to language observance. I do not provoke confrontation by untimely insistence on being served in my own language. Hon. members know that I do not hesitate to use both official languages in the House. Indeed, I regard it as right and good to comment on another hon. member’s argument in the same language as he used. I try to do this consistently because I believe that courtesy demands it But the same consideration which applies in this respect in the House, also applies in the world outside, or rather, it should apply there. Outside the House, too, a person should be addressed in the language of his own choice, a choice he has indicated by the language he has just used.

Unfortunately, it is undeniably true that this approach does not apply in the liquor trade and that Afrikaans is sadly neglected in that sector. With regard to the hotel industry, apparently only the person manning the reception desk is expected to be able to speak both official languages. As regards the rest of the hotel staff, however, there is apparently no such expectation. The same approach also applies to the rest of the liquor trade.

Moreover, in a conversation with Gerard Roux broadcast on the radio programme “Monitor” on 20 May of this year, Mr. Leon Malan, the director of the Hotel Board, admits that justice is not done to Afrikaans in the hotel industry. In answer to a question as to what the Hotel Board does when it receives a complaint concerning a failure to serve in Afrikaans, Mr. Malan explained that there were not enough people able to speak Afrikaans available for appointment in the hotel industry. With respect, that is an explanation which is not quite convincing or satisfactory.

It appears from the latest report of the Hotel Board that on 31 December 1976 the Hotel Board had only 74 employees in its employ. In view of the fact that there are 1 436 graded and grouped hotels supervised by the board with this relatively small staff, and in view of the wide range of work to be done, one wonders if it can be expected of the Hotel Board and its inspectors to keep an eye on the use of language in hotels. The question then arises as to whether this task should not rather be given to the designated police officer so that he may report on this matter, too, in his report to the Liquor Board. That implies that the Minister of Justice will make the necessary regulations in this regard in terms of the powers vested in him by section 173 of the Liquor Act, and that suitable penalties will be determined for the non-compliance with those regulations. In this way one can ensure that the same requirement that is set in the hotel industry, will be made applicable to all licensed premises.

There are better relations and more mutual goodwill today between the two language groups in South Africa than ever before. Also in view of the present circumstances, we dare not allow this relationship to be disturbed by misunderstanding and incidents in connection with the use of language. To this end, the timely identification and removal of levels of friction and potential points of confrontation are necessary, especially in those fields where the danger of confrontation is greatest.

I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister of Justice to reconsider this matter, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Tourism and to take adequate and effective steps to ensure that people do justice to Afrikaans in the liquor trade, including the hotel industry.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Seats of and Areas Served by Certain Deeds Registries in our country (RP 104/1976). It is not a lengthy report and I am not going to deal with the whole report I especially want to deal with the terms of reference of the commission, i.e. to inquire into and report on the advisability of—that is contained in part (c) of the terms of reference—moving the Deeds Registry at King William’s Town to Grahamstown, Port Elizabeth or some other place, and secondly—a matter related to this—extending the area served by the said Deeds Registries, whether in King William’s Town, Grahamstown, Port Elizabeth or any other place recommended by the commission to which it should be moved.

I should like to refer to the report issued by the commission on these aspects and summarize by saying that the finding was that it was not advisable at this stage to effect any change as set out in the terms of reference, and that any change should be towards greater centralization. These are the two points I want to emphasize: That it is unnecessary to effect changes at the moment, and that if changes have to be effected, they should be towards greater centralization.

This matter has been the subject of innumerable inquiries and reports during the past 40 to 50 years in South Africa. The report issued before this report, was by the Committee of Inquiry into Work Simplification in Deeds Registries in South Africa. This report was published on 4 October 1968 and is one of the annexures to the report I am discussing. Evidence was given before this commission by many people representing certain towns and cities in our country, among others Grahamstown, King William’s Town, East London and various other districts. I do not seek confrontation with any of the persons who gave evidence or made representations to the commission. I do not intend joining issue with them in any way. I am a peace-loving person and I want to deal with the matter in that spirit here this afternoon. In any case, I also want to be impartial with regard to this matter. If I were partial, I could of course deliver a plea this afternoon that a deeds registry be established in Aliwal North, but because I want to be impartial and unprejudiced, I should like to consider the inquiry with regard to point (c) which I quoted, a little more closely today. If one looks at it, one finds on page 29 of the report the following quotation—

If we take this proposed move to Cape Town into account, it is important that we immediately take note of what the Registrar of the Cape Town Deeds Registry said when he reported to this committee. He said the following—

Other aspects are also mentioned in the report These are, however, matters with which I do not want to take up the time of the House. However, the fact remains that the Registrar of Deeds strongly recommends that a new deeds registry be built. If one compares what is said here, with the recommendations of the commission that the Deeds Registry in King William’s Town be moved to Cape Town at some stage, there are important aspects which ought to be taken into account. It will result in considerable additional expense. It will cause an almost total disruption of the Deeds Registry in Cape Town especially as a result of the transfer of records.

Anyone is allowed to visit the Deeds Registry. The Deeds Registry is very neatly organized. Its strongrooms are safe. What is more, it is an office which has been here in Cape Town for years. I therefore believe that it would be very undesirable and would cause a great deal of disruption if the Deeds Registry in Cape Town had to be expanded to accommodate the documents of the Deeds Registry in King William’s Town. Therefore I am making a plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, not for centralization, bur for decentralization. In my plea for decentralization I refer once again to the report to which I have already drawn the attention of the House. It is a report which forms an annexure to the present report and which virtually contradicts the present report. It says here very clearly—

This is the 1968 report.

It then states why it should be moved to Grahamstown.

Here we have two reports. One mentions centralization, if the deeds registry should be moved to Cape Town, while the earlier report recommends the moving of the King William’s Town registry to Grahamstown. Because this report says that the registry should be moved to Grahamstown, I want to make it clear that I am not being partial when I break a lance for Grahamstown in this respect Grahamstown already has a full division of the Supreme Court, the Eastern Cape division. In Grahamstown there is also a full-fledged Master’s Office. As far as I am concerned, the three are absolutely inseparable. I say that as a result of the practical experience I have had over the years. The Deeds Registry, the Supreme Court and the Master’s Office should be in the same place. The reason being that there are many cases where reports by the Master’s Office and by the Deeds Registry are requested by the Supreme Court In such cases, the reports concerned have to be procured rapidly and the Deeds Registry should be in the same place to prevent unnecessary wastage of time.

The same applies as regards the Deeds Registry. We find, for example, in cases of insolvent or deceased estates, that certain endorsements are requested with regard to deeds being registered In cases of this nature there should be co-ordination, and there can only be proper co-ordination if the Deeds Registry and the Master’s Office are in the same place as the Supreme Court. Unnecessary wastage of time will not therefore occur. Therefore my plea to the hon. the Minister is that attention should be given to decentralization and that a full Deeds Registry be established for the Eastern Cape in Grahamstown, before the recommendations of the present commission are implemented, and the deeds registry of King William’s Town is moved to Cape Town. This will definitely relieve the pressure on the Deeds Registry in Cape Town and it will also have the effect that the Deeds Registry in Cape Town will not have to be expanded because these parts will all fall under the Deeds Registry in Grahamstown. Space, buildings and premises that can immediately be used for this, are in fact available in Grahamstown. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider my request favourably.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Aliwal, I want to say that I know that he has his reasons and I will have my reasons for saying that I believe that the deeds office in King William’s Town should remain in King William’s Town. Only if it is found absolutely necessary to move that deeds office from King William’s Town do I agree with him that it should go to Grahamstown. The hon. member is a peaceful man, and if he moves that it should stay where it is, I shall be prepared to vote with him even if the SAP decide to go across and vote with him as well.

I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I think the hon. member rather misunderstood me because he said that I must stand up and tell the House what I know. However, in point of fact what I said in my previous speech was that I know from previous experience that it is a regular occurrence in the normal courts of law that accused persons state that they have been badly treated by the authorities. I did not say that I knew that there were facts about these matters which were generally being distributed throughout South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister has received my message and understands what I mean. I am asking him to consider the appointment of a judicial committee of inquiry to go into the allegations of ill treatment and abuse while under detention and also to investigate all the suicides and deaths while under detention in terms of the Terrorism Act I want the hon. the Minister to know that as far as we on this side are concerned, under the circumstances of the whole operation of this drastic type of law, where persons are taken without appearing on trial in a court of law, and without having their relations and people notified of their detention, etc., there should not be any suggestion of maltreatment or any suggestion that there are deaths taking place which normally should not take place in the ordinary course of events.

I want to deal, generally, with a few other matters as well. The first is the report of the Commissioner of Prisons. I believe everybody will agree with me when I say that we are pleased to see that the Department of Prisons is developing along lines which we believe the treatment of prisoners should follow. This development is taking place fundamentally along the lines of rehabilitation. We note the fact that increased academic training facilities have been given to the persons who serve in the Prisons Department. We also note that the department’s function, as stated in the report, is to apply as far as possible such treatment to convicted prisoners as may lead to their improvement and rehabilitation. We realize that the Commissioner is acting under difficulties. He states quite openly in his report that the department is still experiencing difficulties in the retention of trained personnel, with the result that one has a plethora of young personnel, perhaps not fully trained in the intricacies of the prisons service and who have to deal with matters which experienced personnel would normally deal with. I believe that this is a serious matter and that the hon. the Minister should apply his mind to it by realizing that the only way that we are going to attract people into what is sometimes considered a not very satisfactory Government service, is to offer all sorts of basic attractions to people to come into the service. Increased salary scales, general benefits, living conditions and recreational facilities should be offered. I know that this will be an expensive programme, but it is an essential service that we must maintain at the maximum degree of efficiency. We must have the best possible men there.

The Commissioner also calls for a national campaign for the prevention of crime. I appreciate his sentiments, as I think will the hon. the Minister. However, in practical terms the prevention of crime is basically a social problem. Any campaign will have to be directed towards the social patterns in our society. Fundamentally the criminal comes from three distinct classes. Firstly, there is the individual who has experienced difficult inter-personal relationships in his family as a child, secondly, there is the individual who has difficulty in the sphere of a disturbance between him, usually as an adolescent, and society itself, and thirdly, there is the individual who suffers from an abnormal personality, such as a sociopath. I believe a public campaign can be directed particularly towards these two objectives, firstly, cementing and propagating the family unit which, I believe, will have the effect of reducing the crime rate, and secondly, educating the adolescent in the dangers of drug and liquor abuse and the concomitant development of lax morals. I believe that if the hon. the Minister can possibly lend himself to this type of action, perhaps for a year, aimed at the prevention of crime, and if he can possibly fund and support such a programme, we will possibly have cut down on the crime rate in South Africa.

Finally, with regard to prisons, I believe the hon. the Minister should examine the question of allowing members of Parliament to visit prisoners for genuine reasons, and providing that the time spent in visiting the prisoner is not deducted from that prisoner’s private visitors’ time. I believe the visiting times of a doctor, a lawyer and a minister of religion are not deducted from the prisoner’s private visiting time. However, if a member of Parliament goes to see that prisoner, that time is deducted.

With regard to the report by the Secretary for Justice, we note with considerable concern the part which deals with buildings. I quote the report—

I believe this is a shocking state of affairs. I believe we should build up our courts. We should have buildings of which we can be proud and with which we can establish the dignity of the court. I think the hon. the Minister should give his careful attention to this.

I now want to refer to the very heavy work load placed on the registrars of the Supreme Court. I particularly want to talk about the question of taxation of bills of cost. It takes six to nine months to get a bill of costs taxed in some of the Supreme Courts in our country today. This is a highly specialized job. We realize from the Secretary’s report that there are special courses being introduced on taxation. However, we believe there should be an investigation to find if it is not possible to get complete specialists dealing only with the question of taxation, to try and alleviate the difficult position we have at the moment in our Supreme Courts.

On page 45 of the report the Secretary deals with the question of courses taken by various officers in the department. We are disappointed that there are so few officers of the Department of Justice who are interested in taking South African Bantu and Native Law as a course. We live in a society where there are millions of Black people who still have their basic Bantu customs and laws relevant to their circumstances, although they may in fact be detribalized. The majority of criminal cases our courts deal with, are concerned with Black people. It is absolutely essential that not only our judicial officers, but also our prosecutors and in fact our legal practitioners should have a background of the thought processes, the laws, the culture and the customs of the Black people with whom they are in daily contact and with whom they daily have to deal.

I believe there would be a better insight into their affairs, aspirations and moral standards. From what I have seen of the courses which are run by Unisa on South African Native and Bantu law, these courses are as wide as one can imagine and give a tremendous background to all the Black race groups in South Africa. I believe it should be made a compulsory subject for the Public Service law examinations and also for the B.Juris degree, which is the standard which the department has now adopted. I also want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that nowhere in the report can I find—except under the heading “Attorneys General”—the number of inquest proceedings that were handled by magistrates’ courts. I believe this information should be in addition to the statistics contained in the report. Similarly I could not find any reference to the number of regional courts that are operating in South Africa today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the second speech of the hon. member for East London City was a very much better attempt than his first one. I think that the hon. member’s first speech was an election speech for the PRP, and the hon. member for Sandton aptly reacted to it by indicating that the hon. member for East London City is welcome there. The hon. member referred to the Department of Prisons and said that he was under the impression that the staff is not always properly trained. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that during the past year the department received 5 608 applications and that 2 845 posts were allocated. I hope to indicate, in the course of my speech, that the Department of Prisons gives its staff individual training, and therefore I do not believe that the hon. member was justified in saying that he was under the impression that the people are not always properly trained.

I talked about the retention of staff.

I am convinced that the people in prison were doing very well, because otherwise the members of the PRP would, this afternoon, have informed us of the feelings of their friends who are there. The hon. members’ friends apparently have no complaints about prisons, and I therefore want to allege that conditions are satisfactory. The people working in the prisons are working there under very difficult conditions. They work long hours and definitely do not have little angels to deal with. I should like to take my hat off to those men and women for the dedicated, disciplined way in which they carry out their task. One thinks with a great deal of appreciation of how the heads, officers and warders at various prisons were practically on permanent duty last year, for weeks and even months, during the riot periods. They even voluntarily offered their services over weekends. This is evidence of responsibility, discipline and a love for their work. The chief function of the Department of Prisons is the safe custody and the rehabilitation of the prisoner. The training of its staff is centered in this function because every member of the staff must be equipped with the necessary knowledge, competence and with the correct attitude to be able to carry out the functions to the best of his ability and with dedication. At the same time the manpower must also be used to best advantage, and this is the aim of the department in the training of its staff.

Basically the staff is divided into three categories for the training system of the department. Amongst other things there are a production unit level, a supervisors’ level and a senior level. As far as the production unit level is concerned, an individual career is planned for every member. Applicants are subjected to strict tests to determine whether they have the necessary interest and the personal characteristics to make a success of their careers. Then the staff are placed in posts that coincide with their aptitudes and interests. After his appointment, the planning of a member’s career is set in motion on three levels. Firstly, there is the introduction and orientation. This, in turn, takes place in three phases. Firstly, there is the reporting period where the needs of the member receive attention and he is received in such a way that he can feel at home and gain confidence in the guidance of the members under whose supervision he falls. Secondly, there is the adaptation period during which the new member is introduced, on an organized basis, to all the facets of the department’s activities. Thirdly, there is the pre-training period during which the new member is subjected to a pre-training programme under the control of a supervisory member, someone who has already completed the basic training course. In this way he is informed about his duties. A new member is therefore not simply given a gun or a truncheon and keys and instructed to begin work immediately. This is the picture presented in debates in the past by the hon. member for Houghton.

As far as the basic training is concerned, members are trained in the basic functions of the department, functions which centre in the chief functions I have already mentioned. After the basic training a placement committee considers the placement of every member, individually and carefully, according to aptitude and interest, before the in-service training project comes into operation.

Secondly, the in-service training proceeds in three phases. Firstly, all posts at the relevant institutions are identified. Secondly, duty schedules and procedure manuals are drawn up for every post that has been identified. Thirdly, a training schedule is drawn up on the basis of the duty schedule and procedure manual for the purpose of keeping a completely up-to-date training record for all members. Fourthly, the people are trained on the basis of the duty schedules and procedure manuals and records are kept up-to-date by means of the training schedule. Thirdly, as far as functional training is concerned, due to the diversity of the department’s functions it is essential for members and officers to take specific functional courses to equip themselves for specific tasks which are entrusted to them. The functional training project involves nine stages. Firstly, training requirements are identified. Secondly, there is an evaluation of the training requirements and certain priorities are determined. Thirdly, suitable training programmes are designed. Fourthly, potential candidates for courses are selected. Fifthly, there is the implementation, on a course basis, of a plan designed to find a solution. Sixthly, there is a practical and theoretical evaluation of those attending the courses. In the seventh place the data is processed and interpreted, and in the eight place there is control with the object of determining whether the overall training objective has been achieved or not. Finally, a trained member is put into the field.

Then we come to continued in-service training. This is aimed at the further intensive training of the member in accordance with a previously drawn up duty schedule and procedure manual for the post for which he received his training. Here provision is made for more detailed requirements of the work situation of every member since these requirements differ from institution to institution and can therefore not be covered in a functional course. By keeping a continuous progress report up-to-date by way of a training schedule, it is possible to have an uninterrupted picture of the member’s training from the basic training level to the final training level. In other words, those people receive a very thorough training.

The second fundamental aspect of the department’s training system is the supervisors’ level. Supervisors are equipped in a specific way. Firstly, training officers offer supervisors’ courses. The object of this is to introduce supervisors to the basic principles of supervision of members and their work in order to ensure that the available manpower can be utilized and developed to maximum capability to carry out the work in the most effective way possible. This is also aimed at helping supervisors in the application of training and supervisory principles. Further more, it must stimulate supervisors to achieve self-development over and above the demands made by their courses. Fourthly, supervisors are trained in the implementation of the in-service training project. For the heads of prisons conferences are held dealing chiefly with supervision. It is essential for the heads of prisons to meet regularly in order to iron out and correlate problems of supervision. Thirdly, there are courses for the heads of prisons. These are separate functional courses in which they are prepared for their task. Fourthly, there are staff discussions where subordinates also have the opportunity to air their grievances and to exchange ideas amongst themselves.

The third fundamental aspect of the department’s training system is at the senior level. The essence of the functions of the officials dealing with management functions is to make optimum utilization of the available manpower. This group must therefore be specialized in its fields of employment because it must set the standard and determine the quality of production. I briefly want to focus attention on a few ways in which the department tries to provide for this. There is a management orientation course for mid-level managers. Since I do not have much time I shall just say that it deals with determining the policy, organization, financial administration and control, etc.

There is a cadet officers’ course which aims at final selection and the granting of officers’ ranks, as well as the grooming of officers. Thirdly, there are conferences for commanding officers at which ideas are exchanged about how adaptions can be made and challenges can be met. Fourthly, this is done by attending seminars which are held by bodies outside the department, for example by the Social Workers’ Association, the Human Sciences’ Research Council, the S.A. Council for Mental Health, etc. The department also endeavours, as far as possible, to give officers an opportunity for self-development. Bursaries are made available for this purpose, and we can see in the annual report how many bursaries were granted for undergraduate and post-graduate study. This is development at an exceptional and unique level. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to react to what the hon. member for Klerksdorp said. I enjoyed listening to him, especially if one takes into consideration the superficial and frequently negative debate we have had from that side of the House this afternoon. I also agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Klerksdorp. It is a fact that this hon. the Minister has already piloted 15 Bills through this House this year, including the very important and bulky Criminal Procedure Bill. Apart from the 15 already passed by the House, there are still five that will be dealt with shortly. As far as I could determine, this is a record for one Minister, and I think it is a record that will stand for some considerable time. In this regard I also want to make a few remarks about the parliamentary officers of the Department of Justice, those people who had a hand in this legislation. All of us who have had anything to do with them can testify to the exceptional way in which Mr. Coetzer, the head of the department, and Messrs. Theron, Van Niekerk and Swanepoel were always prepared to help us with our needs in this regard. They really went out of their way to facilitate our task. Neither do I think that a discussion of this Vote would be complete if we did not express a word of thanks and appreciation towards the officers of the Department of Prisons. The hon. member for Klerksdorp has already done so, and I should like to endorse what he said. Every day these people are working under very difficult conditions and with extremely unsavoury, dangerous characters. The defiance and provocation they are exposed to from certain types of prisoners is really terrible, and it must be nearly unbearable for some of them. Nevertheless they do the work with the utmost conscientiousness and sometimes work for months on end without the relief which is due to them. We thank them for this. We appreciate the sacrifices which they and their families make in this regard to help ensure peace and order in South Africa.

I think we have had an amazing debate here this afternoon. The Opposition is sitting over there, lifeless, weak and punch-drunk. I do not know what is wrong with them. I am saying these things, and yet even now there is no sign of life amongst them. [Interjections.] Life at last! Those hon. members will have to wake up, because if that is the way they carry on, the new party will not get off the ground on the 29th either.

Don’t fall off your soap-box!

He will never get off the ground.

The hon. member for Carletonville says he will never get off the ground. We had a remark from the hon. member for Durban North here this afternoon—I see that he is not in the House now—which he must not be allowed to get away with. The hon. member for Pretoria Central also referred to it. The hon. member said here that we speak in shocked tones when people are restricted in Siberia, though it happens in South Africa all the time, he added. I think that this is a shocking remark to have made. I find it incredible. It is incredible that an hon. member sitting in this House can say these things. He is either incredibly stupid or incredibly naïve, and has already been indoctrinated to such an extent by the propaganda of our enemies that he can drag these issues in here without batting an eyelid. It is with the utmost displeasure that I note such remarks by an hon. member.

The hon. member for Bryanston also said a very nasty thing here this afternoon, viz.: “South Africa today has one of the most violent societies in the world.” This is as I noted it down—I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. Without any evidence, he goes on to attribute this to the NP. I reject this with contempt because it is completely untrue. It is also a misrepresentation of the facts. I shall prove this. Let us just apply one test, and that is the test of the number of prosecutions per 1 000 of the total population of South Africa. In 1912 there were 46 prosecutions per 1 000 inhabitants. In 1947, just before the NP took over, there were 89 in South Africa. In 1948, when we took over, there were 92. In 1975-’76 the figure dropped to 17. Nevertheless the hon. member blatantly tells South Africa and the world that “South Africa has today the most violent society in the world. ”

I said: “One of the most violent societies.”

Mr. Chairman, I think that is disgraceful. In doing so he is not only doing the NP a disservice—we reject it with contempt—but he is also doing South Africa a disservice. Other people read these things. They read that a supposedly responsible member of the Parliament of South Africa says that “South Africa has the most violent society in the world”. I think that is a disgrace. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself. He owes us and South Africa an apology.

The hon. member for East London City also complained generally about the suicides in prisons. The hon. member for Sandton summarily linked up with what he said and they asked for another commission to be appointed to investigate this matter. At the beginning of this year there was also an hysterical fuss about this whole matter. It came from some of our newspapers and from members of both the PRP and the UP. Headlines such as “Resign, Mr. Kruger” and “13 Questions for the Minister, and Jimmy Kruger answers 12 of them” were the order of the day. This creates a certain image, in the outside world, of what is going on in South Africa’s prisons and of the conditions that prevail there. This type of thing does not promote South Africa’s cause. On the contrary, I believe that it seriously complicates it. It is with displeasure that we take note of this type of thing. It places our prison staff and our prisons service under completely unjustified suspicion in the eyes of the world and also in the eyes of the inhabitants of this country. According to the report of the Commission of Prisons, the majority of the prison population in South Africa are Black people. The insinuation that is being made is that the staff of our prisons are responsible for the death of these people. Such an insinuation bedevils the relations between the various population groups and between people here in South Africa.

This is the type of story which is being presented to the world by the hon. members of the Opposition and certain newspapers. What are the facts? During 1975-’76 there were 13 cases of suicide in our prisons. Sentence had already been passed on seven of the persons concerned and six of them were still awaiting trial. So far, in the year 1976-’77, there have only been five cases of suicide. Four of the persons concerned had already been sentenced and one was awaiting trial. Suicides in prisons are not, however, only limited to South Africa. For instance, in 1975 there were 44 cases of suicide in French prisons, whilst there were 36 cases of suicide in 1976. If 13 take place in South Africa, however, or if five take place, they act as if the heavens are falling. If we want to eliminate all the cases of suicide in South Africa’s prisons, we shall have to take one of the following steps. We shall have to lock the prisons up completely, something those humanists will welcome, but what would be the result of this? Chaos and disorder which this side of the House is not prepared to allow in South Africa. There is another step we can take. We can literally remove everything the prisoners have in their possession. We can take away their clothes and their bedding. We shall have to lock them in completely empty cells; we shall have to put them in strait jackets and shackle their feet together, and then what fuss would we not have from that side? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, because due to a lack of speeches by the Opposition and the poor quality of those which were made, as far as their principles of law and justice are concerned, it is impossible for any hon. member on this side of the House to reply to anything raised by Opposition members on this aspect of the matter.

I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the report of the Viljoen Commission, which has not been dealt with in detail up to now. Up to now general things have been said about the good work done by the Department of Prisons, and about prisons in general. I should like to draw attention to the concept of sentencing. There is a modern trend in this regard and a great deal of new work is also being done at the prisons and in modern society, but still more work ought to be done. Jeremy Bentham explained this deficiency in England in the times in which he lived in the following way. He said that the matter of convicting a person and his subsequent sentencing could be compared to a fox hunt, in that the fox was hunted midst the blaring of trumpets on horseback and with hounds in accordance with certain rules, but as soon as the fox had been caught no one was interested in the poor fox any longer. This was the state of affairs in Britain and in other countries as well, because once the accused had been convicted, the passing of the sentence followed within a matter of minutes.

As far as South Africa is concerned that state of affairs has improved a great deal but much remains to be done in that regard nevertheless. In this respect the Viljoen Commission drew special attention to the fact that, as far as short-term sentences of up to six months were concerned, it was neither in the interest of the State nor in the interest of the accused, for the accused to end up in prison, and that he should rather be given a fine. If he did not want to or was unable to pay that fine, he was to render a certain service to society in general. If he was unable to do this too, the alternative prison sentence would become effective.

The finding of the commission was that a short-term prison sentence, i.e. one of up to six months, should be imposed only on a person who showed criminal tendencies. As far as the more serious sentences were concerned, i.e. sentences exceeding six months, the finding of the Viljoen Commission was that the provisions of section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was placed on the Statute Book this year, made adequate provision, apart from a suspended sentence, or a postponed sentence, for a variety of conditions to be attached to the sentence so as to ensure that the convicted person would not end up in prison, but could nevertheless be dealt with in a different way.

In the first place there is the example of compensation as a condition for a suspended sentence. One finds it surprising that in spite of the guidance already given by the courts as regards compensation in this regard, so little use is made of the order that compensation be attached to a suspended sentence.

Then there is what is described in England as a revolutionary method, i.e. the so-called “day training centres” developed during the past few years in which the accused is subjected to training or treatment. The commission asks the hon. the Minister to consider the establishment of such centres to which persons have to report every day. Although they still live at home and are in normal contact with their community, they have to report to these day training centres in order to receive training and treatment.

The compulsory attendance of some centre for a specific purpose is also a condition which may be attached to a suspended sentence in terms of section 297. In this case, however, it is also necessary for rehabilitation centres to be built for these people.

One of the new provisions, in terms of section 297, is that the rendering of some service for the benefit of the community may be attached to a suspended sentence. This is an important innovation and presents the possibility of an imaginative approach to what may be done with an accused in circumstances like this. For instance, a person convicted in the Transvaal of negligent driving, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, on condition, inter alia, that he was to do weekend duty in the casualty ward of a hospital without remuneration. There are various other examples of suspending a sentence in a similar manner. This is further proof of the advantages attached to the effective implementation of this provision. I do not want to go into this any further, however. This modern trend can be summed up in the words of Appeal Judge Holmes—

Mr. Chairman, this debate has become so one-sided now that it is not possible for me either to react critically to a previous speech. Therefore I want to come straight to the matter on which I should like to exchange a few ideas. It concerns a rendered service by the Department of Justice to the community. It is true that it is a modest service, but it is nevertheless a very important one, one for which there is a great need and for which there is great appreciation and high praise from all quarters. I am referring to the matter of legal aid made available in terms of Act No. 22 of 1969.

This is a very important service which is being rendered, one which is closely connected to a matter which the hon. the Minister raised recently. Two previous speakers also referred to this matter in this debate this afternoon. I think they were the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Barberton. They referred to the question of the high costs of litigation. On the occasion to which I referred, the hon. the Minister spoke of the “unsavoury twins” in the administration of justice, i.e. the excessive costs and the unjustified delays which occurred at times. As the hon. the Minister subsequently indicated, this was a problem to which a solution would apparently be found at some time in the future when the one-man commission to which he referred, presented its report. The expected report would possibly also suggest a solution with regard to improved procedures.

I also want to refer to the fact that, apart from this being a very useful and a very important service, we have also started giving a new dimension to this matter in recent times. The hon. members for Vereeniging and Durbanville referred to the fact that more and more opportunities were being created for non-White professional men to make themselves useful and serviceable. The hon. members referred particularly to the opportunities being created for people in professional and administrative capacities. There we have another opportunity, for our non-Whites, especially those here in the Western Cape— the professional people in the ranks of the Coloured population—to make themselves useful in their own communities. To be more specific, the position is that in the course of last year, a branch office of the legal aid service was opened in Athlone, in the Cape Peninsula, an office entirely staffed by Coloured professional people. Consequently they are able to render a very important service to their community.

After this year’s Budget this matter is in actual fact even more topical and has acquired a special meaning due to the fact that it was necessary, unfortunately, for the hon. the Minister and the department to reduce the amount appropriated for this service. Especially because such a great need exists and because there is so much appreciation and praise for this service, there is also widespread disappointment that it was necessary to curtail the service. In legal circles there is disappointment, and virtually dismay about the fact that a drastic curtailment was necessary. There is talk of representations being made to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this decision to curtail the service and I think that throughout legal circles it is hoped that it will be possible later this year to relax this curtailment.

The people involved in these services, have to budget and the unexpected curtailment has serious implications for them. They have to base their budget on projections of the estimated increase in the need and the demand existing for the service. However, they also have to base their budget for the following year on obligations accepted during the current year or previous years. It is especially as far as this second aspect is concerned, viz. the obligations that have already been accepted, that it is very difficult, of course, to make any adjustments in the course of the year. The curtailment is fairly drastic and consequently it will have very serious implications for the service. For the past financial year the budget was R1,12 million as against an estimated obligation during the present financial year of R1,5 million. This year’s appropriation, however, has been curtailed by one-third and this makes a radical difference.

There is also the additional problem that a decision has just been taken to increase by 25% the tariffs payable in terms of the agreement between the Legal Aid Board and the law society. This will also complicate the position for the board, especially since it has also been decided to review the means test. The means test will be increased by about 6,5% in the case of Whites, by about 16% in the case of Coloureds and Asians’ and by about 25% in the case of Bantu. One should say that this is a very good thing, because— and this was the intention—it will narrow the gap between the groups. Together with all the other factors, however, it will greatly complicate the position for the service.

The question which arises is what the board can do in this regard. The great pity is that the scope of the service will inevitably have to be curtailed. It is unavoidable that the field of divorces will be the first to suffer. In future, there will probably be no aid at all for litigants who want to institute divorce proceedings. There may perhaps be aid for those who qualify in respect of the defence of divorce cases which are already pending. The unavoidable consequence will be that, as far as divorces are concerned, we will very soon be back to the position as it was in 1971, before the service was started, in that the cases of in forma pauperis divorces will increase once again and will reach the same volume as in the time before the service was started.

One other measure which can be considered in order to deal with the situation is to make more use of legal aid in the case of third party claims. The reason for this is that there are great advantages for the board in third party claims, due to the fact that these are cases where costs can more easily be obtained from the opposing party. As hon. members probably know, the costs obtained in successful litigation is practically the only other source of revenue for this body, apart from the amount which is voted by Parliament.

In this regard there is already an agreement between the Legal Aid Board and the law society of the Transvaal that the public will be made more aware of this service and that public relations officers will deal with liaison between the board and the law society. These public relations officers will then visit the potential cases in hospital in order to bring the service to their attention and to offer them the opportunity of making use of it.

It is interesting to note that this same matter was also raised in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance. The commission also had the opportunity of taking a look at this matter. They also came to the conclusion that an almost inexplicable ignorance exists amongst the public as to this service which is provided by the Legal Aid Board. One of the specific recommendations of this commission of inquiry is concerned with this matter. It did not form part of their terms of reference, but they nevertheless considered it necessary to make a specific recommendation that the service rendered by this board be brought more pointedly to the attention of the public. They suggested that only a small percentage of needy claimants were aware of it and consequently made use of it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on his positive explanation and clearly presented ideas in connection with the Legal Aid Board.

In contrast with the hon. member for Houghton, who expressed her contempt for the Free State platteland this afternoon, I just want to say that I know Brandfort very well because I practiced there as an attorney. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein West indicated, we have a great deal of respect for that beautiful town. I want to quote her a passage from page 21 of the book Genl. J. B. M. Hertzog en die Ontstaan van die Nasionale Party by J. D. Naude—

I also quote from page 23—

Just as Brandfort left its mark on Gen. Hertzog, it also left its mark on Dr. Verwoerd. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we have a great deal of respect for our Free State towns. I challenge her and her party to put up a candidate there. [Interjections.]

Internationally, in the past few decades, South Africa has been regarded as the polecat of the world and the oppressor of human rights. We know, however, that the Government in South Africa places a high premium on the rights of people, and this includes the rights of people in prison. We have a clean record as far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned. What is more, we set an example and do not stand back for any country in the world. The modern-day world, however, no longer has any conception of “truth”. When will law and justice once again prevail in the international relations between States?

We want to set the outside world an example of justice and humanity by way of the treatment that our prisoners receive. In terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Prisons Act, 1959, prisons can be established to function as observation centres for the diagnosis of prisoners. Such observation centres, which are very well-equipped for the purpose, exist for Whites at the Central Prison in Pretoria, for Bantu at Leeuwkop prison near Bryanston and for Coloureds at the Allandale prison farm near Paarl. This centre will be moved, in due course, to the Pollsmoor prison at Retreat.

All long-term prisoners, i.e. prisoners with sentences of two years or more, are sent to the relevant observation centres, as quickly as possible after reception, for an average period of six weeks.

The reason why short-term prisoners are treated differently is obvious. One must bear in mind that about 90% of all prisoners imprisoned in any one year are sentenced to periods of only six months or less. Of these about 50% are sentenced to one month or less. The observation process forms the cornerstone of a specific and individual treatment programme which includes, amongst other things, purposeful training and which, because of the time factor, cannot be applied at all efficiently to short-term prisoners. Because of the numbers involved, as against the limited specialized staff available, at this stage any other dispensation is impossible. It is, however, desirable that the services also be extended to short-term prisoners in future.

Various types of staff work in the observation centres, representing the following fields: Psychological services, social work, educational services and spiritual care.

Over the years prisoners have been classified in terms of the following horizontal classification, and certain privileges attach to each of the groups: In group D one finds prisoners whose careers in crime include atrocities such as rape, murder and violence in some or other form of prisoners who, during a previous period of imprisonment, were guilty of irregularities such as gang activities and incitement. Members of the community must be protected against prisoners by way of absolute safe custody, and in addition the deterrent factor in imprisonment must be brought home to them. In group C we have the best of the bad eggs in respect of whom it has become apparent, during the observation period, that although they cannot be trusted sufficiently to be placed in a higher group, they are nevertheless not so degenerate as to warrant placement in the lowest group. Group B is the average group in which the majority of prisoners are placed. The criminal who falls into that group is the one whose crime was directed against property rather than persons in the community. These prisoners are trusted to such an extent that they are allowed to work under guard outside the prison. In group A one finds the prisoners who were selected on the basis of zeal, diligence, good conduct and proof of the fact that they can be trusted. This group receives the most privileges and is normally subject to less strict custody.

Accordingly it can be determined at what type of institution a particular prisoner should be held. Although the classification is important, it is merely the point of departure for really individual treatment. For the treatment to succeed, a depth classification of prisoners is essential. In that respect clinical psychologists play the leading role, and the basis of the depth classification is to be found in the recognition of the existence of differences amongst individuals in regard to physical characteristics, mental ability, personality structure, aptitude, temperament, etc. In the light of these requirements all White male prisoners with sentences of two years or more are classified with due consideration to the particular characteristics of each, i.e. personality structure, ability, etc.

With due regard to practical considerations, it appears that prisoners can be divided into the following categories: Group 1A represents the cases where the prognosis is really good, i.e. where there is no doubt about the prognosis. Their chances of rehabilitation are therefore considered to be exceptionally good. With regard to the cases in group IB there is some uncertainty about the prognosis, but it is nevertheless such that the ordinary methods of treatment are thought to be sufficient. In group 2 one finds those who, although they cannot be certified as mentally defective in terms of the provisions of the Mental Health Act, nevertheless have below average intelligence. It also appears that their lapsing into crime is, to a large extent, the result of the defective functioning of their intellectual powers. Group 3 represents the palpable psychopaths, whether they are certifiable in terms of the Mental Health Act or not. Groups 4 and 5 are not of great importance. The importance of this depth classification system is to be found in the fact that treatment can be concentrated on the particular needs of each group.

The system of depth classification has also been extended to the Coloureds in the Western Cape and it is the intention to extend it to the Bantu as well. There are, however, certain practical problems.

Bearing all the relevant factors in mind, it appears as if the Department of Prisons has a unique programme for and an approach to the handling and treatment of prisoners. The treatment programme is placed on a more scientific and practical footing. As far as is known, an intensive and individualized system such as that of depth classification is not applied anywhere else in the world. It can therefore be regarded as unique in every respect. Here South Africa is again setting the rest of the world an example. Will the world, and the UNO acknowledge this truth or ignore it again?

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to all the speeches that have been made during the discussion of these two Votes. I have great appreciation for what was said here in a positive spirit. That which was said in a negative spirit, inter alia, by the hon. member for East London City, I shall try to reply to. I shall also try to reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

Before I come to that, I want to express my greatest appreciation, as far as these two departments are concerned, to the officials who have during the last few years tried their best to help me serve and build up these two departments. I should like to mention briefly to this House some of the achievements of the officials in this respect. In the first place hon. members will recall that we appointed the Viljoen Commission to conduct an in-depth investigation into the penal system of South Africa with a view to adapting our penalties in such a way that they give effect to rehabilitation instead of merely placing people in prison. We were very successful with this and, as hon. members know, many of the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission have already been placed on the Statute Book. We succeeded this year in piloting through the Criminal Procedure Act. The Opposition did object to some of the provisions of that measure, but there is no doubt that our court procedures will be far more streamlined after this Act comes into operation on 1 August. It will also save costs. Country-wide seminars will be held by the department to explain the new legislation to the magistrates. At the same time the arguments raised by members on both sides of the House during the discussion of the measure will be brought to their attention. In this way they will be aware of the criticism which was levelled at the measure. Hon. members will know that we appointed the Galgut Commission to investigate the civil court procedure in the higher courts. The increased cost of litigation was a major problem, and we hope that it will be possible to alleviate the position to a great extent after the findings of this commission have been made known. As far as the magistrates’ courts are concerned, legislation was passed last year which simplified the procedures in regard to the collection of debts. Two investigations have been instituted into the deeds registries. One of these resulted in legislation by means of which the system of deed registration has been improved. The other provided clarity in regard to the registered offices and the areas served by certain deeds registries. I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to all the commissions which are still sitting, and to those which have already finished sitting, for the work they have done. They have truly made a very great contribution to our administration of justice in general.

A new era has also arrived as far as our liquor legislation is concerned. The new liquor licensing procedure will result in great efficiency and savings for licence holders. An important milestone has also been the consolidation of the liquor legislation. With this, a long-cherished dream has been realized.

Other examples of the department’s sustained efforts to eliminate unnecessary work and to modernize working methods, are the Inquests Act and the Deeds Registries Amendment Act, both measures which were passed this year by this House.

In contrast to the old practice of providing only a minimum of data in its annual report, the department has since 1975 adopted another policy, namely that of covering all the facets of its activities fully in the report. In this way Parliament and the general public is kept fully informed, and a permanent record of the activities of the department is built up. It also affords hon. members of this House an opportunity to obtain more background information about what is happening in the departments. Greater satisfaction among the officials was effected, inter alia, by means of improved salary structures for the professional divisions. As soon as economic conditions permit, further improvements in the magisterial division will receive attention. This is already receiving proforma attention from the Public Service Commission. The departmental head is visiting magistrates’ offices throughout the country. Approximately 100 offices have been visited during the past 18 months. In this way magistrates and their staff are kept informed of the latest developments and are afforded an opportunity to state their problems to us. It can be stated without any doubt that the morale in the Department of Justice at present is very high. Only the best cooperation is being obtained, and for this we have great appreciation. As an example it could be mentioned that although extensions to the establishment to the amount of R1,5 million had to be deferred this year, the work is still being done and has been brought up to date. Our regional courts have an average production of 130%, measured against accepted norms. The fact that their appeal record is still very good, despite the great pressure under which they are working, is truly remarkable.

An important event was the announcement last year that a justice college would be established in Pretoria. The department sets a very high value on training, academic as well as practical. The department is also convinced that the high standards of the administration of justice in lower courts is in no small measure attributable to the training facilities we have. Expansion and improvement of the service by a well-planned college will inevitably mean that it will be possible to achieve greater success. The construction of the college has already been accorded a position on the building programme of the department. It is expected that the construction of the college will commence in 1980.

By way of summary it may be said that the department is intent on keeping our administration of justice as up to date as possible. I should like to express my appreciation and thanks to all who are involved in the administration of justice.

I come now to the hon. members’ speeches, and their requests to me.

The hon. member for Jeppe congratulated us on the step we took. He said that at present there were still shortages as far as Coloureds and Asians were concerned. Hon. members will realize that we have posts for Coloureds. At present we only have two Coloured prosecutors and two Asian prosecutors. We are prepared to create more posts. We have also made arrangements now with the Coloured university and also with the University of Durban Westville for better law training facilities. I hope that we will in future be able to accomplish far more in this regard.

As far as the Bantu are concerned, the hon. members know of course that there is Bantu legislation by means of which this matter is being regulated. The Bantu Homeland Citizenship Act of 1970 provides that each Bantu in the Republic is also a citizen of a homeland. Consequently it would be in conflict with the policy of the Government to appoint Bantu to professional posts in the Public Service of the Republic or to award bursaries to them so that they are able to acquire the necessary qualifications for such posts. Applications of this nature are channellized to the various homelands, so that the services of the Bantu can be employed in the homeland of which he is a citizen. I want to express the hope that the various homeland leaders will seize this opportunity. A nation saves itself. One hopes that they will make use of this opportunity to establish institutions in their respective departments which will bring alleviation for them in this respect. I do not think that they expect us to do everything for them. Here is an opportunity for them to do something for themselves, to improve their administration of justice themselves. The Department of Justice assists them wherever possible. We assisted them as far as magistrates’ courts were concerned; some of our judges are being seconded to the homelands and those judges are assisting them in every possible respect. The administration of justice there is, according to my information, on a good level, and the judges who are involved in it exercise supervision over it.

The hon. member also referred to buildings. I agree with what he said in this regard. As our report also indicates, there are quite a number of buildings which are in such a poor state of repair that they have to be replaced. Hon. members will realize, however, that this is something which another department has to do on our behalf. Where we have to have new buildings, we try, where possible, to get them on to the works list. After that we have to leave it to the Department of Public Works. That department has always been sympathetically disposed to the Department of Justice, and we have, in the past, received exceptionally good service from them. The hon. member for Jeppe referred to a magistrate’s office in Wynberg. I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Wynberg did not discuss this matter himself. In any event, we shall go into the position and ascertain whether it is necessary. If it is really necessary, we shall evaluate the situation.

The hon. member also referred to the Galgut Commission. He made the same point which I made at the centenary celebrations of the Transvaal Supreme Court, namely that people in the middle income group in South Africa find it difficult to have their rights tested in a court. This is something we shall look into, but what we should do about it is not clear to me at this stage. It most certainly cannot fall under legal aid. Loans may possibly be made available to enable people to go to court, but the private sector will immediately object if we make such loans available from the State. It is a real problem, and I shall give attention to it. I cannot do any more than undertake to give the matter the necessary attention.

The hon. member also referred to the 12 persons who died in detention in 1976 and alleged that in seven of the cases inquests had not yet been held. I have, in the meantime, received the figures and names. Firstly, there is the case of Frank Mohapi. The case was postponed until 4 August 1977. The case of Luke Mawembe was postponed until 9 June 1977. The case of George Botha was disposed of on 5 May 1977. It was found that he committed suicide. No one was responsible for it. The case of Matthews Mabelane was disposed of on 3 May 1977. It was found that he committed suicide and that no one was responsible for it. Samuel Malinga died of pneumonia. This was certified by the doctors, and there was no inquest. The case of E. Mamasinla was disposed of on 14 April 1977. The finding was that he committed suicide and that no one was responsible for it.

In the case of Amon Malele the date for the inquest has not yet been determined. The case of Aaron Khoza has been postponed until 7 June 1977. The hon. member also asked me about the young people who are being detained—these are young people who are not yet 18 years of age, and who are being detained under the Terrorism Act. Unfortunately it is a fact, and I think hon. members know it—except of course for the few who do not want to know it—that last year people under the age of 18 years committed the most atrocious deeds a person can commit. To expect the Government to take no steps to combat these crimes and to bring the people responsible for them before a court, would be absolutely impossible. I just cannot imagine that any State in the world would show more leniency towards that group than towards any other criminal, simply because they were under the age of 18 years. The policemen who stood up to these people in Soweto, these so-called children, were in most cases far younger than the Black people who attacked them.

They were running away.

There the cackling starts again. Yet we must constantly read in the newspapers that the policemen are always older than those people. But it is a fact that the policemen were younger than most of their attackers. But one sees nothing about that in the newspapers. There is no sympathy at all for the young White constables who are being exposed to dangers. All one hears is an outcry over the so-called children who are being detained. Hon. members know what the law states. The law states that children under the age of 18 years may not be detained without a magistrate having certified that there is no other place where he can be detained, and he also has to specify under what circumstances that person may be detained. Where we were able to obtain addresses from these people, i.e. when those young people were not lying about their names and addresses, we let their people know about them. In all the cases where it was possible to place the young people under the care of their parents until they had to appear in court, we did so. Only in very serious cases did we detain people. There are hon. members who are now complaining that we are detaining them for too long. Yet they were hon. members who opposed me when I tried to speed up the procedures. I cannot help it if there are not always courts available, if the court cases have to be entered on the rolls, and if court cases have to be held one after another. I cannot help it if, as in the Saso trial for example, people received R283 000 from abroad for that trial and every possible point is raised so that the trial consequently drags on for two years. I cannot help it if, for every minor disciplinary offence on Robben Island, a whole lot of advocates arrive there and trials lasting months and months are built up and interdicts and Supreme Court rulings are requested. There is more than enough money from abroad to spend on this kind of thing. I am not saying that justice should not be done. Nor am I saying that people should not go to court. But I am saying that money is deliberately being poured in to delay cases. Then we are blamed if there are no courts available. I think hon. members should get their priorities in this regard straight and strive for a little more balance in their criticism.

The hon. member for Waterkloof discussed the centenary celebrations of the Transvaal Supreme Court, and conveyed his thanks to me because the Palace of Justice will be preserved. I myself am very pleased that the Government decided that the Palace of Justice there should remain as the centre of the administration of justice in the Transvaal. The hon. member also referred to resolutions adopted by the Christian Institute. I wonder whether all hon. members who heard them, understood them, or wanted to hear them, and I think the hon. member did us a favour by pointing out how dangerous the Christian Institute actually is with all its resolutions.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me when the Law Commission will have finished with the divorce laws.

†A Draft Bill relating to matters of divorce and matters relating to matrimonial property will again be considered by the South African Law Commission on 11 July 1977. It is expected that reports on both matters will be submitted to the Minister in the course of this year. The recommendations will then be considered in the normal manner. If it is deemed necessary, legislation will be introduced in due course.

*Then the hon. member began to harp on her old theme again by, after having tried with a few smiles to create the right atmosphere for us, simply starting in on restrictions again. She said it was a disgrace that Winnie Mandela was taken to Brandfort. She told me very scornfully that I had allegedly said that Brandfort was the same as Soweto. Every day we have to hear in this House how terrible the conditions in Soweto are. However, when one takes a person away from Soweto, one has suddenly taken him out of heaven. And to take Winnie Mandela to the Free State? I watched the attitude of hon. members of the PRP carefully when Brandfort was mentioned. It is because the Free State is in reality Afrikaner-orientated, because there are so many Afrikaners in the Free State, that hon. members of the PRP cannot endure to have Winnie Mandela brought to a Free State stronghold. That is the real reason. They want to keep her in the cosmopolitan Johannesburg, in Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton never saw an Afrikaner before she came to this House. [Interjections.]

And you had never seen anyone like me until you came to the House!

That is the hon. member for Houghton’s problem. She lived, swaddled in the liberalistic cotton wool of Houghton. Now she has suddenly realized that there are Afrikaners, and she cannot endure to have Winnie Mandela end up in the Free State. However, I can assure the hon. member for Houghton that it will not be long before the Black people of the Free State have taught Winnie Mandela a few manners. It is a fact that she cannot live in Soweto. The hon. member for Houghton knows it better than I do.

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Houghton must tell me whether Winnie Mandela did not incite people in Soweto last year. Did she not incite them to commit acts of violence?

She is a banned person. She is not supposed to have meetings.

Ah, she is not supposed to have meetings, but meanwhile she does have them.

*Why have five people from Soweto suddenly arrived in Brandfort to come and speak to Winnie Mandela?

I shall go and visit her as well!

You should go, of course. She is your friend. You must go. You admire her. [Interjections.] One should stand by people who are alien to one in spirit. I am pleased to hear that. I have always felt that you and Winnie Mandela were akin in spirit.

Who said that?

I am making the allegation now.

Well, I am a proud spirit and so is she.

And I say you should visit her.

I shall go!

You should go.

*But be careful we do not catch you there! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton went on to hold Mr. Dembani Phantsi up to us as a person who had ostensibly been so terribly wronged. However, I furnished a full reply in this House in regard to Mr. Phantsi. Phantsi was detained as from 17 October 1975, since he was needed as a State witness in a case against his compatriots. On 8 June 1976 he refused to testify in the case and was, in terms of section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment. From 17 July 1976 he was once again detained. When, on 30 August 1976, he once again refused to testify, he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. On 29 October 1976 he was once again detained for questioning. On 12 March 1976 he was released. His two compatriots were sentenced to five and ten year’s imprisonment, respectively.

Phantsi was a person who persistently refused to testify, while his testimony was necessary to ensure that justice was done. However, he is interceded for in this House. The people who are being detained, are being detained because we are waiting for a court. They cannot be released; that is why they are being detained. They cannot be released, because they will either be killed or they will flee. Surely hon. members know what happens in cases of this nature. In order to save South Africa, we have no choice. We must do this kind of thing. These people are terrorists. These are real cases of terrorism with which we are dealing.

These people were all charged with terrorism. Phantsi’s two compatriots were sentenced to five and ten years’ imprisonment, respectively, for terroristic activities. He was an accessory. However, these are the people for whom the hon. member for Houghton takes up the cudgels.

The hon. member congratulated me on the prisons being opened to the public. However, I have not yet heard her retracting very much of her criticism that she levelled at the prisons. Not only have we allowed the public to visit prisons; we have also invited journalists. They have all written good reports on the South African prisons. I really thought the hon. member for Houghton would compliment me this afternoon on the way in which the prisons are being managed by the department. But no such luck; all she did was to level criticism again. She even said: “Newspapers should be allowed to see security prisoners.” She even wants journalists to be able to speak to those people. Why should they speak to them? Surely we are not concerned here with what these people believe. The journalists know very well what those prisoners think. What one wants to see in the prisons is whether the prisoners are being treated well and whether their sleeping hours, working hours and food are all that they should be. Those are the things which the International Red Cross is interested in. However, the hon. member wants to speak to the prisoners. Every year she asks for permission from me to go and speak to the prisoners. She admitted in the House that more than 100 letters had been smuggled out to her. When I asked her to give me the letters so that I could investigate these people’s grievances, she collaborated with the prisoners and refused to hand the letters over to me. We then had to find out why the letters had been smuggled out.

I want to state frankly that nothing is happening in the prisons which I need feel ashamed of. There is absolutely nothing I need feel ashamed of. Allow me to furnish a few statistics in this regard. From 1 January 1976 to 1 January 1977 1 095 members of the public visited the prisons. Fifty-two judges, 269 magistrates, 112 foreign visitors, 641 local visitors and 21 members of the House of Assembly and the Senate visited the prisons. I want to quote to the hon. member from a letter which was written by a Mr. Justice Jeladi of Israel, after he had visited the South African prisons. I hope that the hon. member will at least believe him. He visited various prisons in the Western Cape during 1976, and wrote a letter to the Secretary dated 9 April. It read as follows—

Now let us see the sceptical expression return to the hon. member’s face. The letter went on to state—

In this vein I can also mention the visit of Senate and Congress assistants from America to the Leeuwkop prison on 9 November 1976. The visitors were Mr. Feinberg, Dr. Fredenberg, Mr. Moran, Dr. Rougeau, Mr. Barry Schachet, Mr. R. Shelton, Dr. Teague and Dr. Tiemy Jun. After the visit Dr. Fredenberg said—

Did they see the detainees?

The detainees are seen every year by the International Red Cross, and if the hon. member wants to see the reports of the International Red Cross she can see it in private in my office.

I would like to see it.

I would like the hon. member and any other hon. member of her political party to see the reports.

*Any one of those sceptical people may come to my office and read that report. I shall welcome it.

They do not see the internal security detainees.

The International Red Cross sees everything there is to see, but the hon. member will never believe anything good of the prison system or of the police. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop interjecting.

Every time I say something, she has some answer or other, such as that the visitors did not look under the bed or under the table or behind the doors. One can stand on one’s head here, and give her everything in the world. She will still refuse to believe it because she does not want to believe it. That is why the easiest thing to do is to show her and tell her nothing. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bloemfontein City asked questions in regard to making information of a political nature available to the Black people. This is a very excellent idea, and we shall have to give attention to it.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned, I was replying to hon. members’ speeches. I had just finished replying to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein City.

For the sake of completeness, I should just like to refer back to the questions asked by the hon. member for Houghton. She quoted from a publication and furnished certain figures. She said that she had not received satisfaction as far as statistics on detention were concerned. That is not true of course. The hon. member is entitled to put questions to us. She knows that she will, at any time, receive replies to her question. I am now furnishing the figures at my disposal for the period up to 26 May 1977. In terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act there are 230, in terms of section 22(1 )(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 62 of 1966, there are 13 and in terms of section 12(b) of Act 44 of 1950 there are 73 people who are being detained as witnesses for reasons of safety, and in terms of section 215bis of Act No. 56 of 1955—this has no bearing on political cases—20 people are being detained, a total therefore of 336.

I should like to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland. He spoke about pinball machines, and said they were an evil, and also pointed out that it was also alleged that dagga was being sold and smoked in such places. I agree entirely with the hon. member. Last year a notice was promulgated in terms of which all pinball machines were prohibited in terms of section 7 of the Gambling Act. A court case is pending in the Transvaal owing to an allegation that the so-called “flipper” machines are not pinball machines. The case was postponed until 2 August 1977 in order to hear evidence. The hon. member will recall that the first prohibition on pinball machines was imposed as long ago as 1962 by the Minister of Justice, the present hon. the Prime Minister. Since that time the question has been thrashed out in the courts. Proclamations are promulgated, and court cases and appeal cases follow and then the proclamation is changed, and so on. I am of the opinion that the proclamation we have now promulgated is entirely watertight, and that it will do what it is supposed to do, viz. to put a stop to gambling as far as pinball machines are concerned. All provincial ordinances make provision for the licensing of pinball machines, electronic apparatus, etc. If such apparatus is not prohibited in terms of the Gambling Act, it is the function of the licensing authority to decide whether the apparatus should or should not be allowed in public places. However, if the pinball machines are declared illegal by the courts, the local authority cannot of course issue a licence. Even if they were to win the court case, the licensing authority may still determine for itself whether the pinball machines should or should not be allowed in public places. As far as gambling machines, pinball machines and games of chance are concerned, this matter is now in the hands of the police and the courts. There will probably be an appeal. I do not desire to short circuit the court proceedings now, and issue another proclamation, for I think it would be wrong to do so. I am inclined to say that the court should first give its ruling and that that ruling should first be decided on appeal. Then one can reconsider the matter to see how far it should still be taken. In principle however I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. We shall do our best to eliminate the evil of pinball machines. I may point out to the hon. member that after we promulgated the proclamation we received a tremendous number of letters from mothers thanking me and urging me to carry on and to eliminate this evil. According to them it is the young people and small children in particular who gather at these places and waste tremendous amounts of money there, including their pocket money and even the money they receive to buy books with. It is definitely an evil.

The hon. member for Vereeniging advocated a dispensation for Coloureds in the Department of Justice. I have already pointed out that at present there are two Coloured prosecutors in the employ of the department. One of them is still studying law. One is attached to the staff of the magistrate of Johannesburg and the other falls under the Wynberg Magistrates Office and is stationed in the Coloured area of Athlone. Posts for Coloured magistrates have not yet been created, but such posts will be created as soon as the need arises and as soon as we are able to fill such posts. With the development of townships such as Atlantis and Mitchell’s Plain, there will be posts for magistrates and legal assistants on the establishment of the magistrates offices which are going to be established. Possibly the establishment at both the offices would be made up as follows: A chief magistrate, a magistrate, three legal assistants and four or more clerks. Qualified and competent Coloured officials of the department will be appointed to the posts. The department will pay the class fees of Coloureds in our employ who are studying or who wish to study law. In order to encourage the acquisition of legal qualifications even further, the University of the Western Cape, at the request of the department, has decided to offer the B.Juris degree, as well as a three-year diploma course in law, starting in 1977. This year the Administration of Coloured Affairs, in co-operation with the Public Service Commission, made 30 bursaries available to Coloureds who wish to obtain these qualifications. There were 14 applications, of which 10 were approved. In addition there are two posts for Asian law assistants. Both these posts are in Natal, one at the Pinetown office and the other in Durban. Only one of the two law assistants is qualified in law. The same promotional possibilities as in the case of the Coloureds apply to the Asians as well, and it appears that a sufficient number of Asians are qualifying at universities, such as Durban-Westville and others, for a career in the legal profession. However, the department receives very few applications from Coloureds for professional posts. This is apparently because the salary is not attractive enough. The Public Service Commission is at present considering a better dispensation for Indians who are qualified in law, and if a favourable salary structure is introduced, we could expect more applications from them.

What all this amounts to is that under the dispensation introduced by the Government, there are possibilities and opportunities for Coloureds and Asians to serve their own people. For example, I believe that the Government is desirous of the University of the Western Cape being staffed by Coloured people from top to bottom. As far as my department is concerned, I should very much like to have Coloureds served by Coloureds, from the court up to and including the level of magistrates. That is our policy. However, these people must come forward to fill the posts. They must qualify themselves and they must seize the opportunities which South Africa offers them with both hands. Only then can we make progress. However, if people drag their heels and want everything for nothing without studying or going to some trouble, I am afraid that it creates problems. Every nation must save itself, and the Coloured people have the opportunities. All they need do is stretch out their hands and seize the opportunities.

What about the Black people?

I have already replied on the Black people. I do not know whether the hon. member was here or not.

Tell us more about it.

If the hon. member has any ideas, he should tell us about them. The hon. member for Durbanville also made an appeal as far as the employment of Coloureds was concerned. I think the information I have now furnished, will satisfy him. As far as I am concerned, he made a very constructive speech, and I want to thank him for it.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban North is not here. He apologized and said that he had to attend some meeting or other. He launched the usual attack on the Government. He referred to Dr. Rampele. I am not going to say anything further about this case.

I am not prepared to furnish all the facts in regard to every restriction. What I will say, however, is that restrictions are not simply imposed in an arbitrary way. A properly worked out submission is first made to me. It is first worked out by a committee which consists of members of the Security Police and the Bureau for State Security. There is also a representative from the Department of Justice on the committee. After a recommendation has been made, it is first sent to the Department of Justice. There it is properly considered again, and eventually the submission is sent to me. I then go through the facts which have been submitted to me. If I am satisfied with the submission and I am convinced that restrictions ought to be imposed on the person in question, then I do so. If I have any doubts, I call the people who made the recommendation to my office and discuss the matter again. I must satisfy myself that the facts are correct. When I have satisfied myself …

You must talk to the accused.

Why talk to the accused?

Why not talk to the accused?

If I have satisfied myself fully that this is a case in which restrictions ought to be imposed on these people, then I do so. The hon. member says: “You must talk to the accused.” It is not a case of an “accused”. I issued invitations—I do not know how many times—and if the hon. member would take the trouble she could ask those friends of hers because they know about this—to people who were restricted to come and see me in my office. I bring these people to my office and tell them what the facts are or, rather, what part of the facts are, the reason for their restriction. They know that this is the case, and I need not ask them for admissions. I say that they need not admit or deny it, because I do not want to take them to court. I tell them what the position is and I assure them that I will not prevent them from making a living, that I should in fact like them to make a living. I ask them to think about the matter and then to tell me what exemptions from their restriction they want so that they can make a proper living. I have discussed these matters in this way with several of these people or their representatives, and have granted exemptions to them so that they could find a decent subsistence. We are not callous. The whole purpose of restrictions is to prevent a conflagration in South Africa. It is my responsibility and not the responsibility of the hon. member for Houghton or her little party. [Interjections.] The hon. member is laughing because she believes that the Saso people are in fact making publicity for the PRP. They would like to conclude an agreement with the Saso people. Is that not true? Why do hon. members not wish to conclude an agreement with them?

We do not agree with them.

Why do you want to go along with them if you do not agree with them?

We do not agree with them.

Do you not agree with them? Why does the hon. member then say that we are wrong when we restrict them?

We do not agree with you either.

That hon. member agrees with anyone. That is his trouble. Those few hon. members form a small clique and call themselves a party. In 1974 the hon. member for Houghton told a reporter oi To The Point that the policy of her party was “one man, one vote”. Does she wish to deny it?

I cannot remember.

Mr. Chairman, she says that she cannot remember. It is the first time since I have been in Parliament that she has made an admission like that. She told To The Point that her party’s policy was “one man, one vote”.

[Inaudible.]

It won’t help the hon. member for Yeoville to try to get out of this now. His trouble is that he is trying to squirm out of it, but cannot. The leader of the PRP repudiated her last week.

*I wonder what those two hon. members are going to do with one another now? Will they still be fond of one another? They just keep one another warm; that is all.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central replied to the hon. member for Durban North, and I want to thank him for that. The hon. member for East London City asked me to institute an investigation “re the death of detainees and suspicions in our newspapers of maltreatment.”

†To be quite frank, I was surprised. That is why I reacted in the way I did. The hon. member came to this House and read us a beautiful piece about justice out of a book. He gave us to understand that he was a legal and learned man, a man who understood the workings of justice. After he did that he quoted two court cases, and said that one witness had made certain allegations of a very, very serious nature.

As examples.

This great lawyer who knows so much about justice, instead of waiting for the court to make a decision whether the witness was lying or telling the truth, accepted in this House that the witness was telling the truth, because he said that this was the sort of thing that was upsetting the people.

No.

Of course!

He did not accept it.

Of course. He said that was why people were suspicious. Suspicious of what? Just because a person makes an allegation like that in a court of law?

That is the rule of law!

Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely surprised that the hon. member can dissect a court case to that extent and then come to this House and use the evidence of one side only and before the judge has made a finding and hold it up and says that because a witness says that people are suspicious.

You missed the point.

I did not miss the point; I got the whole point.

It was an example.

He comes to this House and tells me what Mr. Mohapi’s wife said. He recounts to us what Mohapi’s wife said as though it were from the Bible, instead of saying in this House that Mohapi’s wife could have been lying and that he did not know what the truth was. Now he comes to this House and says that I should become alarmed at the gossip-mongering of Mohapi’s wife and appoint a commission of inquiry. Why should I appoint a commission of inquiry? He quoted two cases to me here. Surely the court is there. Is that not in fact a commission of inquiry?

I could have quoted dozens of reports.

The hon. member can quote 30 or 40 cases if he wants to. As a matter of fact, in just about every case of this nature you get these allegations and in every case the court makes a proper inquiry there and then. It happened in the Saso trial.

They are not before the court.

They are before the court. In the Saso trial it was said that they had been mauled. And what happened? Judge Boshoff there and then had a full inquiry and found that they had been telling lies. That is what happened.

But why do you not want to appoint a commission of inquiry?

Why must I appoint a commission of inquiry if I have a court right there?

Because there are suspicions in the minds of …

Are you casting doubts on the courts? If a man says in the court where he is being tried as an accused that he has been mistreated by the police then what more do you want than that? Will the hon. member tell me what inquiry he wants? The hon. member is just joining in the sing-song of the Press.

I cannot argue with you across the floor.

Order! The hon. member can make a speech later.

The hon. member is allowing the PRP to lead him by the nose; there is not the slightest doubt about that. I have no doubt that when the hon. member does join them he will agree with them.

Come off it!

You are entertaining, but not convincing.

I am glad you put your tongue in your cheek just now.

I am very pleased the hon. members are saying that, because I wondered when he was going to cross over. It now appears that he is not one of those who cross over.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that there ought to be consolidated legislation on State security. He said that the aspect should be submitted to the Commission for Internal Security. As hon. members will understand, I am acquainted with all the security legislation. Therefore it does not bother me, but when the Commission for Internal Security is appointed, I think it is a matter which they could well go into. As far as I am concerned, they can consolidate the security legislation. It may perhaps facilitate matters for the public. It may also be easier for the hon. member for Houghton. She will then be able to get more het up about it than she does about the legislation we now have. It also gives them another chance to oppose it. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. We can do it.

The hon. member for Sandton made a few very interesting points. He pointed out that legal costs are soaring. I agree with him. The hon. member then came forward with two suggestions. He said, quite justifiably in my humble opinion, that his two proposals will quite probably shock the legal profession. As I understood it, he said that the State should appoint attorneys to take certain cases at R500 or less. I do not believe that his colleagues in the legal profession will like that. As far as a “small claims court” is concerned, I want to point out to the hon. member that the committee of inquiry into the collection of debts considered they systems in the USA and England, but found that those systems were not feasible in the Republic. What they saw their way clear to accepting was the system in the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Act, 1976, i.e. a simpler system for the collection of small claims which could be done without the aid of a legal practitioner.

The hon. member will also recall that we had a court for minor debts, but that that court never worked. No one made use of it. It was done away with last year. Although I therefore have sympathy for the hon. member, I want to tell him that the answer lies elsewhere. It does not lie in the two solutions which he suggested. I also want to point out that the Galgut Commission is looking into legal costs as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. On the basis of its report we will in fact be able to determine to what extent we can save the magistrates courts.

The hon. member for Barberton spoke about prison farms. He made a very constructive speech about it, and I want to thank him for doing so. The present farms occupy a special position in our administration. I have also been to one of our prison farms, i.e. the one at Goedemoed near Aliwal North.

How long were you there?

I was tremendously impressed. The prisoners learn how to farm there. They learn to work with horses and to breed horses and cattle. I learnt from the farmers in the vicinity that when prisoners are released on parole, they are immediately snatched up by farmers and appointed as foremen.

The hon. member for Bryanston discussed the question of rape. He asked for a judicial inquiry into the matter. I am in entire agreement with him that rape is one of the most heinous crimes one can ever commit. I think, in all honesty, that the women of South Africa are entitled to the greatest measure of protection that we can possibly give them. In principle I therefore agree with the hon. member, but he will remember that I asked, by way of an interjection: What should the judicial inquiry do?

†What ought to be the purpose of the judicial inquiry? The hon. member said that the previous sexual history of a woman should not be admissible. But if consent is to play any factor in the crime itself, how can one ever get rid of the fact that a woman’s past should be admissible in a court of law, I do not know. Consent is absolutely relevant to her past. How one gets out of this I frankly do not know. That is why I wanted the hon. member to tell me what he wanted the judicial inquiry to find. In principle I am with him. We all like to protect women. I think they should be protected. I think it is a dastardly crime. If the hon. member will think about it—even if he gives it to me in writing after this debate—I would be pleased to see what his ideas are on what the object of such a judicial inquiry should be.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay complained about Afrikaans being neglected, particularly at hotels. Receptionists and telephone operators should be equally proficient in both official languages, according to the requirements of the Liquor Act. Failure to be proficient in both official languages is a punishable offence. As far as other employees are concerned, it is almost impossible to lay down bilingualism as a requirement, for example for Indians and Bantu and that type of person in Natal. The public must bring the bilingual problem to the attention of the Liquor Board. It is very important. The public do not let us know often enough when they have been insulted. It is simply a fact that the Afrikaans-speaking people are bilingual. I am not saying that the English-speaking people are not bilingual, but I think that Afrikaans-speaking people are a little more bilingual than English-speaking people. It is easier for them to learn to speak English owing to the fact that the commercial life is conducted primarily in English. Unfortunately it is a mistake our people make, i.e. that as soon as a person speaks English to them, there is a tendency to change over to English. I do not want people to insult one another about nothing. Language is, when all is said and done, a means of communication through which people have to learn to understand one another. If an Afrikaans-speaking person arrives at an hotel, he should simply say: “I am Afrikaans speaking, and I would be pleased to be served in my language.” That would help things a great deal. I think that the people behind the counter are entirely willing to speak Afrikaans, provided only that they know that the client wishes to be served in Afrikaans. But because so many English-speaking people frequent the place, and because so many Afrikaans-speaking people are willing to speak English, those people become spoilt and they speak English only. I think this can be rectified, and if there are any complaints, they must submit them in writing to the Liquor Board and we shall have a word with that hotel.

The hon. member for Aliwal discussed the investigation into the deeds registries. He said that the deeds registry at King William’s Town should not be moved to Cape Town, and I am in complete agreement with him. I read through the report, and I could not see any motivation in the report for our moving the registry at King William’s Town to Cape Town, particularly in view of all the problems which already exist in Cape Town. I believe in a measure of decentralization. The same applies in the case of Grahamstown. Why should one centralize at Grahamstown if there is an office at King William’s Town? In reality the outcome of the inquiry into the deeds registries was therefore that the correct decisions and recommendations were made, viz. that we should not at this stage tamper with the situation and move the deeds registries.

The hon. member for East London City spoke about prisons. He set a great value on the rehabilitation aspect of our prisons system, for which I thank him very much. He said that the prisons people should receive more benefits. But one should also be practical. It is easy for him in the Opposition to ask for increased salaries, and so on, but when one is sitting on the Government benches and has to administer these things, it is not so easy. I think in all honesty that in spite of the fact that the people in the prisons service work very hard, work long hours and do difficult work—for which I am very grateful—the administration is doing its best to make life as easy as possible for them. If we were to visit some of the large prisons and were to look at the accommodation which is being offered to those people, if we look at the recreation halls and observe the pleasant conditions under which those people associate with one another, I am certain that hon. members will agree with me that they are in reality a perfectly happy community.

The hon. member wanted to know from me whether hon. members may visit prisons. Any hon. member is entirely at liberty to visit a prison at any time. In fact, I have told the hon. member for Houghton this many times. However, hon. members are not at liberty to hold conversations with prisoners. I shall tell them why not. It is a tremendously large administrative task on the shoulders of the prison service to make arrangements for every person who wishes to speak to a prisoner. The hon. member for Houghton, of course, wishes to sit down and chat to every security prisoner on Robben Island. The last time when she was there—that was when I was still chairman of our justice group, she held a kind of commission of inquiry there. [Interjections.] She walked around there with her notebook, spoke to everyone, and wrote down all the complaints, even the most trivial. Hon. members ought to know that as far as complaints are concerned, a procedure exists whereby complaints can be brought up for consideration. All complaints are recorded in a book, and each complaint is checked. Of course I cannot allow hon. members to speak to every prisoner there.

The hon. member for East London City said that he was concerned about the buildings. I have already replied to that aspect. I am also concerned about it. I receive assistance from the other departments, and that is something for which I am very grateful. The hon. member also referred to inquests. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House when I furnished the figures and the names, etc. I think that I have satisfied him in that way.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp made an interesting speech on the functional training of prisoners. I found it very interesting. I agree with the hon. member that very good work is being done there. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke about prisoners in general. It was also an interesting speech. I want to thank him for his commendation of the prison system. I agree with him on that aspect.

The hon. member for Windhoek discussed the Viljoen Commission and requested that certain prisoners be sent to the day centres. Everything in regard to this matter is being considered at the moment. I shall in due course arrive at a final decision in that regard. The hon. member for Algoa spoke about the legal aid service. He expressed his regret that the funds for the legal aid service were somewhat curtailed this year. I regret it too; however, I have to economize and there is no other sphere in which I can do so. I had to economize in all the branches of my department. Unfortunately legal aid is one of the branches in which it was also necessary to cut down. The hon. member suggested that the means test should be raised. For the sake of the hon. member I should just like to draw a comparison. It is a comparison which we made in co-operation with the Houston Legal Foundation. According to the Houston Legal Foundation parents with one child can annually receive $2 330 in legal aid, as against an amount of $2 340 for a similar family in South Africa. A family with two children receive according to the Houston Legal Foundation $3 000 as against $4 680 for a similar family in South Africa. A family with three children receives $3 780 according to the provisions of the Houston Legal Foundation, as against $5 079 for a similar family in South Africa. So I can continue. I think that I could satisfy the hon. member that our system compares very well with any system overseas.

The hon. member also discussed legal aid for third party claims. In my opinion we cannot, at this stage, give legal aid for specific kinds of court cases. It can only be given in general cases and where a means test has been successful. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member and would have liked to have done it. I have already said that the people with a middle-class income should be assisted in some way or other to institute legal proceedings in a court of law.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a very interesting speech. It was a very learned argument. I could not hear his speech very well, but it was nevertheless very interesting. I shall read his Hansard and subsequently furnish him with a written reply.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Commissioner of the S.A. Police on his frank statement in his introduction to his annual report where he said—

After outlining the long and arduous hours that the police have to work, he ends up by saying—

No one can disagree with him less and I am pleased to say that according to the newspaper reports that I have seen, this has met with general acclamation. I hope the Government is going to take heed of the commissioner’s request for considerable expansion of the Police Force. It was also interesting to read that the commissioner says that riot squads have been reorganized in 1976. In this respect he admitted that up until then they had been somewhat neglected. I can remember the times when we used to work together with the Defence Force, Citizen Force units, on internal security measures. In later years this arrangement was dropped. I want to call for the establishment of what we in the police used to call “the mobile squad”. This mobile squad, admittedly, was mounted, but with the motor vehicles today we can have a proper mobile squad on standby duty for each police division. They could perform the duties which I envisage for the special riot squads.

Talking about riot squads, one is pleased to see from Press reports that the police is now being issued with proper, up-to-date riot equipment. One welcomes this step. I also wish to thank the hon. the Minister for having allowed me last year to visit Soweto to see the damage and the conditions under which the police were working at that riot-tom and troublesome time. I wish to pay tribute to the bravery and the steadfastness of the Police Force, not only in Soweto, but also elsewhere where there were riots. These men worked virtually night and day and virtually lived in their riot uniforms night and day for the best part of three to four months without any break or without receiving any let-up.

One notices that the authorized establishment is 35 635 and that the actual strength is 33 837. This means a shortage of 1 798 of all ranks of all colours. This is actually a terrible indictment, because, according to the commissioner’s report, in 1976 there were 1,32 policeman per 1 000 of the population. Somehow or other we have not made any progress. In 1931, when I joined the Force, that was precisely the number of police per thousand of the population. In 1948, when this Government came into power, the number was 1,73 per thousand of the population. Such is the progress the Government has made as far as extending the police service is concerned. [Interjections.] I can say a lot more in this respect. I am glad to see that the value of the women police is appreciated. There are 653 women police of all ranks, including students. In this respect I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to authorize the police to enrol more women, because I know that they are doing magnificent work. As far as I am concerned there is no need to put them into sheltered employment. They can do the work which men would otherwise have to do, particularly in sexual cases. It is gratifying to see that these women are well educated and that there is no shortage of them. I think we should take them on instead of turning them away.

There is another point I wish to make. When the five-day week for the Police was brought into effect, in order to cover certain defects which had been in force with a system of one rest day in seven or 14 days’ we lost an effective 33 ⅓% of our manpower in the streets, because we had to arrange our shifts in such a way as to cover all duties. There was no corresponding increase in the authorized establishment. In view of the Commissioner’s call, I think the time is now ripe to enlarge this establishment. This is now envisaged.

It is also gratifying to see that matriculants comprise more than 50% of the recruits who are now enlisting. I am also pleased to see that English-speaking applicants have more than doubled on the previous year’s intake. I want to make an appeal to English-speaking lads to join the Force. It is a grand profession and is today virtually a white-collar job in comparison with the days when I was in the Force, make no mistake about that. What is more, their services are sorely needed.

I want to suggest that recruits be more integrated during their term of training at the college. I know they have English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking platoons. However, I think the time has now come when these people should be integrated. After all, they all learn the same languages at school so there should be no question of language difficulties there.

The Reserve Police Force, which is made up of businessmen and civilians, is doing sterling work. One can only give praise and thanks to these people, because they work more than the requisite four hours which is laid down. I can assure hon. members that were it not for the reservists, many police stations would have to close down over weekends and public holidays. I was disturbed to see in the Press not so long ago that the Amateur Radio League had called upon the SAP Wachthuis Radio Reserve to disband. I am not quite sure what has happened, but I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance on this.

It was wrong.

I am glad to hear that. At one or two places, particularly in the large metropolitan areas, many of the reservists are unilingual English speakers. Some of them have made complaints to me to the effect that they feel that their promotion is blocked because they are not bilingual. I should like to know whether this is true or not. I try to reassure them.

I am also glad to see that in-service training is being undertaken and is being maintained at the pace that it is. Recruits come from all walks of life and they have different backgrounds and different attitudes towards their fellow-citizens. In this heterogeneous country it is absolutely necessary that they should learn a little bit of sociology and psychology, subjects which would teach them how to treat their fellow-citizens. Courtesy, compassion and co-operation must be the constant theme so that no amount of provocation and personal insult will make the policeman vindictive. They must be taught to maintain an Olympian dignity and calmness. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi spoke as an ex-policeman, and I must honestly say that I cannot match his effort and that there is nothing about which I want to cross swords with him either. That hon. member is, in fact, the only specialist who has remained in the UP and who can speak with authority on at least one subject. If hon. members of the UP were all to adopt the tone that the hon. member adopted this evening, there would not be as many pieces of their party scattered across the length and breadth of South Africa as there are at the moment. To judge from this evening’s debate the UP has rendered itself “incommunicado”—to use the Prog expression. The UP has quite simply become a party that cannot communicate and a party with which no one wants to communicate.

The S. A. Police has probably just been through one of the most difficult years in its history. The difficulties began on 16 June 1976 with the student unrest in Soweto. Until very recently they have not had very much chance to catch their breath at all. We have reflected at great length upon the causes of the student unrest, but the hon. member for Houghton took it upon herself, in the “Guest Column” of the Times of 19 January 1977—it may perhaps have been another date—to tell the world why the rioting was actually sparked off. The hon. member began by discussing the role of the “high school pupils” and stated the following—

A little further on the hon. member stated—

The hon. member took it upon herself to tell the outside world her side of the story in columns such as these and in television appearances.

Let us take a brief look at how the police handled the riots. I say, without fear of contradiction from people in South Africa who can think for themselves, that the police handled the riots with firmness, patience and competence and that the police deserve the congratulations of all right-minded South Africans, whatever their colour, for the way in which they handled the riots. I want to state that they did, in point of fact, handle the riots with kid gloves. There was extreme provocation and defiance, and the relatively small number of casualties attest to the self-control and the excellent discipline on the part of the police. The hon. member for Houghton, however, tells the readers of the Times a different story—

Here she is referring to the “high school pupils”—

Would the hon. member not rather be more specific than this lavish reference to hundreds and thousands in the article? Further in the same article the hon. member states the following—

The hon. member goes on in that vein.

Is it untrue?

As you put it, yes. I was amazed at the way in which the police handled the riots. In this connection I agree with the hon. member for Umlazi because I think the new equipment they have received is excellent. Apart from the way in which they handled the riots, however, I was also amazed at how the police managed to keep up their normal duties. They combated crime, did patrol work and manned all stations. I was pleasantly surprised, in particular, to see how young fellows, only just out of school, held their own. I think that in this connection a special word of thanks should go to the S.A. Police Reserves because I accept the fact that they made a big contribution towards relieving the pressure on the police.

What is the attitude of the PRP towards the police? They are the people who, like any other South Africans, and perhaps even more than the poorer South Africans, enjoy the benefits of the day-to-day security which the S.A. Police ensure for them. They thrive on it, but does a positive word of thanks or a compliment ever cross their lips? If it does, we never hear it. If it is possible to insult the name of the S.A. Police, the hon. member for Houghton, in particular, makes lavish use of it, as in the debate on the indemnity legislation, or whatever the case may be, and also as she did in the Times article. Whenever she can disparage or belittle them, she does so. Completely out of context, and completely incorrectly, she states in the same Times report—

Today the hon. member heard from the hon. the Minister that at the moment there are thousands of shebeens still doing business in Soweto. The article was written in January when the shebeens were doing equally flourishing business. It was the legal liquor marketing outlets which were the targets of the attacks, and today the shebeens are doing as flourishing a trade as ever. The hon. member, however, compliments young activists, tsotsis, who are too big for their boots, on the closing down of the shebeens. Throughout the period of unrest did a word of warning or criticism cross her lips about the conduct of the so-called Black students in the non-White residential area? Nothing that I heard of. All one heard about was the police, and in this article in The Cape Times she actually justified and condoned the actions of the students. She did so in word after word and sentence after sentence. I want to warn PRP members, in case they do not know what they are doing, that they are discrediting the police, which is one of the bodies of authority in the country. If they do not come to their senses, we shall have to tell them that they are doing it on purpose, that being the only conclusions we can come to. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be my unhappy fate in this House either to follow the hon. member for Waterkloof or to have him follow me. I cannot get rid of him, one way or the other. I will return to his speech in a few moments, as well as to the very interesting article from The London Times which he read to this House and which I wrote for them at their invitation. I just want to ask him one thing: What is untrue in that article? There is not an untrue word in that article. At the time when I wrote it, the shebeens were closed. Christmas was dry in Soweto in 1976.

That is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, let us leave that to one side. I want to return for a moment to a subject which I intended to raise under this Vote, but which was raised by the hon. member for East London City under the Justice Vote. That is the question of the suicides amongst detainees. I will not go into it in great detail, as the hon. member has covered the subject to some extent and the hon. the Minister has replied thereto. The hon. the Minister keeps on repeating a statement which he made earlier on in connection with the suicides, interesting enough, also in an interview in To The Point. We seem to be following each other’s interviews in To The Point quite closely.

The only thing is that you are switching your policy, while I am not.

I am not switching at all. I would like to see the article the hon. the Minister is referring to before I agree with what he said I had said. I am now going to read out what he said, so that there can be no question of any mistake here. The hon. the Minister has said on several occasions, amongst others in this article in To The Point on 29 January, in reply to the insinuations that had been made that the police assisted detainees to commit suicide—

He then goes on about their being the leaders of the terrorists and that they have been trained in Russia, Algeria and in eastern Europe. I presume that the hon. the Minister will agree that he said that?

I read it out to the House.

I missed the golden opportunity of hearing the hon. the Minister.

I read the communist pamphlet that said it.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister did not read the pamphlet out accurately. The head of Boss has given it to the Eastern Province Herald a few months ago, and it is not quite the same.

I will give you the publication itself.

It says, and I quote as follows—

Right at the bottom it says—

What does that mean?

It does not say, as the hon. the Minister has interpreted it to say: “Do not submit yourself to interrogation”.

I said: “Rather commit suicide than allow yourself to be interrogated”.

Why should the hon. the Minister put that interesting construction on this? Is it so bad to be interrogated that it is better to commit suicide? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that he is condemning the police out of his own mouth? Why cannot people just keep quiet? There is no need for them to commit suicide. Unless they are so terrified of the investigation that the hon. the Minister mentioned, and unless the interrogation contains torture, there is no reason why they should commit suicide, rather than betray the organization. They just need to shut up. They just need not talk.

The hon. the Minister condemns the police out of his own mouth, because he says that, rather than submit to interrogation— incidentally, that is a misinterpretation of this pamphlet, as I see it—those people commit suicide. They would only do that if there was torture, if torture was known to be carried out and they were frightened of that torture. I advise the hon. the Minister not to give that ridiculous explanation again. Some people may commit suicide; some people may—I do not know—have been assisted “to commit suicide”. I do not believe that they would have been assisted intentionally. I think people often get knocked around and, before the Police know it, the people are no longer alive. That can certainly happen. I do not know whether an independent judicial inquiry would reveal anything or not, because obviously— this even applies to inquests—a man who has been a prisoner and who had therefore been incommunicado is at a grave disadvantage. The only other witnesses will be the police. Are the police likely to give evidence against themselves, either at an inquest or, indeed, at a judicial inquiry? Of course not! Therefore, I do not know what this would reveal—I am not prepared to say one way or the other. I only know that since March last year there have been 15 cases of people who committed suicide while in detention under the security legislation and that some of them did so under very strange and mysterious circumstances which to this day have not been cleared up. One of the strange cases is the case of Mdluli. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that that investigation was never concluded satisfactorily. To this day nobody really knows why he died. I shall leave it at that. Let me just repeat that I hope the hon. the Minister will stop using this silly explanation by which, quite obviously, he condemns the police out of his own mouth.

Now I want to come to the use of equipment by the riot police. I fully agree with what the hon. member for Umlazi has said in this connection. I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister last year. In return, he sneered at me and said: “What do our police need special equipment for?” He went on to say: “They like to be unencumbered.” I see the hon. the Minister now has the magazine article with him. He can pass it across to me in a few minutes. I am sure he will agree it is a lovely photograph.

We have got you verbatim here.

Sir, I will tell the hon. the Minister if it is verbatim. The hon. the Minister complained about being misreported in Town and Country. I suppose it is possible, then, that I was misreported in To the Point. We shall see. Anyway, let me continue with what I was saying. I am glad to see that at last the riot police have been given proper, sophisticated modern equipment, because it is my contention that the vast number of people who were killed during the unrest—over 600 of them were killed during the unrest …

Who killed them?

They were killed by the police, of course—who else? Did they kill each other?

That is nonsense.

The hon. member can shout “Nonsense” as much as he likes. He seems to specialize in self-deception. The point is that over 600 were killed.

You change the figure in every debate! When the matter was first raised, you said there were 300 killed. Then you said there were 400, then 500 and now it is 600.

Well, the figure went up as more deaths were discovered as the months went on. Sir, there is a document which the hon. the Minister is at liberty to see. If he disagrees with any of the names shown there, he must immediately say so. I shall give him the document. Again, it has been published by the Institute of Race Relations and is based on Press reports and various other reports. The point is that if the riot police had had that equipment originally, I maintain that these 600-odd people would not have been killed. The temptation to shoot when one is being menaced by a stone-throwing mob must be very great indeed. There, if you like, is a word of understanding for the police.

Let me now get on to the use of bird-shot by the police. The hon. the Minister made another very stupid statement some months ago. He said the police used bird-shot and that it was not lethal. He said it maintained the authority of the gun and that a person hit by bird-shot just itched for a month or so afterwards. I pointed out that people could be blinded by bird-shot. In reply the hon. the Minister said sand can blind and so can salt. My answer to that is that the police used neither sand nor salt: the police used bird-shot.

So can a baton.

Anyway, the point is that the hon. the Minister maintained that nobody had come forward to give him any figures or information about the people who were blinded. Has he still not had any information about the number of people who were in fact blinded by bird-shot? I believe those figures are available. I have been given figures for the Cape—not for the Transvaal, because there has been an absolute conspiracy of silence from Baragwanath. The medical profession there—I believe to its eternal shame—has entered into this conspiracy of silence and they will not give any figures. There are some figures, however, and the hon. the Minister can check these with the Medical Association. The figures are that some 30 people suffered eye injuries through bird-shot in the Cape alone. Of those, 19 were either blinded or suffered very severe loss of vision. I think that is a very tragic thing to have happened.

What is your “skinderstorie”? How many were blinded?

32 people were injured in the eyes by bird-shot and 19 have either been blinded or they have very serious loss of vision; they have so little vision left that they are virtually blinded. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, that is probably one of the poorest speeches we have heard in many years from the hon. member for Houghton. The arguments she dished up here this evening were actually childish ones, particularly when one thinks of what she had to say about those who committed suicide whilst in detention. There have been so many statements by the hon. the Minister about those people who committed suicide whilst in detention that one cannot imagine the hon. member for Houghton making another attempt to sow suspicion about the people who took their own lives whilst in detention. It was not only 15 people who were questioned. How many thousands of those people who were questioned did not commit suicide? And how many never even tried to commit suicide?

Since she spoke about the 15 people who had taken their own lives, there being very good explanations for that, let me focus the hon. member’s attention on another point in connection with the riots last year in Soweto. The people who were shot and killed there were surely not all shot by the police. There is conclusive proof that many of those people were killed in other ways and not shot by the police. Fire-arms were used of a calibre never carried by the police. The people were shot with those fire-arms. How the hon. member for Houghton could come along again this evening with that old story of hers to create doubt in the minds of people throughout the country and to make them believe that the police shot and killed 600 people, she alone knows because all the proof is stacked against her. The events last year in Soweto have been discussed in detail throughout the year, up to the present time, and it was virtually the main topic of discussion by the OAU and overseas. The hon. member for Waterkloof also pointed out what the hon. member for Houghton had had to say about that overseas. It was really the main topic of discussion, but consistently people try to sow suspicion by way of their references to the events in Soweto.

It is not only hon. members in this House who sow the suspicion; it is also our newspapers. The newspapers asked questions about this matter, and they continue to place the police in a poor light. I also recall an incident on the boundary of my constituency, a matter about which many questions were asked. The hon. member for Houghton, and I think another hon. member on her side of the House, asked questions about the so-called incident at Dennilton where a certain number of Bantu were shot and killed. The incident actually took place at Verena which is not in my constituency. Dennilton is, however, situated in my constituency. The name Dennilton is frequently quoted in connection with this incident. I therefore made it my task to determine exactly what had happened. Certain of my voters also approached me and said they had heard that questions were being asked about the matter. They wanted to know what exactly was going on. One thing is certain, however. If the police had taken any other action than the action they did actually take, the public would definitely have lost confidence in the police. There was nothing whatsoever wrong with how the police conducted themselves, however, and I want to praise them for that fact.

What actually happened at Dennilton? On a certain day in December last year a certain Mrs. Kapp phoned the police at Verena and said that a lorry with a large number of Bantu on the back had driven past her house. According to her she and another woman were in the house—a house situated near the road—and shots were fired at them from the lorry. According to Mrs. Kapp that was the same lorry that was seen near the Trichardtspoort primary school a week earlier. On that occasion a small group of Bantu had made rabble-rousing speeches and had conspired to murder the Whites. Mrs. Kapp lives about 12 km from the police station at Verena.

When she phoned the police station, a policeman immediately took up a position in the road with his R1 rifle to stop the lorry. Fortunately for him he had a witness with him, a certain Mr. Jan O’Neil. Verena virtually consists only of a police station, a small shop, a small school and a few other buildings. When the lorry approached Verena the policeman, a certain constable Van den Berg, stood in the middle of the road to stop the lorry. Something which is conveniently suppressed by certain people is the fact that constable Van den Berg was in uniform. He took up a position in the middle of the road, as the police usually do when they stop a vehicle.

What did the driver of the vehicle do then? He headed straight for constable Van den Berg. The constable had to get out of the way quickly. He jumped out of the road, but the driver of the lorry still bore down on him. It was clear that he wanted to run the constable down, to all intents and purposes at any rate. The driver of the lorry thereafter sped away, however. The only thing the constable could do was to shoot at the tyres of the vehicle with his R1 rifle. Fortunately he himself had received the telephone call. He had been told that rabble-rousing speeches had been held the previous week. He had also been told that shots had been fired from the lorry at people in a house. He was therefore acting quite within his rights when he shot at the tyres of the lorry.

The lorry, however, sped on and Constable Van den Berg instructed Mr. O’Neil, who happened to have his car nearby, to chase after the lorry. A kilometre or so further on they overtook the lorry and forced it to stop beside the road. After the lorry had stopped, the two saw that a few of the Bantu on the back of the lorry had been hit. They were actually Bantu women. There were, in fact, eight Bantu women with light gunshot wounds in their legs.

A terrible fuss is made of the whole affair, however, as if the police had gone “trigger happy”—which they frequently are according to hon. members of the PRP—and had blindly shot at innocent Bantu.

Such speeches, questions and suspicion-mongering on the part of the PRP are repeated ad nauseam year after year. In my view the time has now come to put a stop to that. One need only note how many policemen die annually. Only recently the son of one of my voters, a member of the Police Force, received instructions to investigate a certain matter. That was at Kinross in the Eastern Transvaal. He was sent out to investigate an incident at a café. I am referring to a certain Constable Aldridge, it so happens originally from Marble Hall. While trying to restore order he was shot in the stomach and died. There are numerous such cases. No mention is made of them, however. There is only suspicion-mongering against the police. I really think there should be an end to that now.

When one looks at the Police’s annual report and reads of the incidents over a number of years for which policemen received honourable mention or received the Police Star for faithful and distinguished service or bravery, one can only think of the S.A. Police with a deep sense of gratitude. There were occasions when they had to risk their lives for other people; not only for Whites, but also for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. Those instances are never mentioned, however. If our newspapers would read up such cases and write articles about them so that they could positively be brought to the public’s attention, they would be doing the S.A. Police a very great service. The really good work of the police would then also be highlighted. In the latest annual report of the Commissioner of the S.A. Police one can see, in any event, how many policemen there are per thousand inhabitants of the Republic. The number is amongst the lowest in the world. Again one can merely be thankful for the hard work the police are doing, in spite of their small numbers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what was said by the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Prinsloo, in the introduction to his annual report where, inter alia, the following appears—

I want to express the hope that as soon as the economic situation improves and is again normal, the hon. the Minister and the Government will take a very serious look at the salaries and the conditions of employment of the members of the S.A. Police. I think the whole of South Africa owes it to those people. To link up with the last remark of the Commissioner in the paragraph I quoted, I want to make an appeal to the people of all population groups in South Africa to do everything in their power to grant assistance to the police. According to the report of the Commissioner of Police it is clearly apparent that it is in this connection that the available manpower in the police find it difficult to carry out their task. The public can assist by merely doing a few small, considerate things. It is a fact that many people go on holiday without cancelling deliveries of their newspapers and milk. When newspapers pile up at the front door and milk bottles at the back-door, this is an open invitation to thieves to break in. Every burglary means extra work for the police. The police’s manpower is very valuable and their time and energy ought to be better utilized. In addition White men can join the S.A. Police Reserve Force in greater numbers. I want to quote the position in which the police found themselves in December of last year in the Vaal Triangle—

I want to make a very serious request to the hon. the Minister. Those of us who know the Black man in South Africa—and here the White people can learn something from the Black people—know that he is very attached to his traditions and customs. One of the traditions and customs that figures very prominently with the Black man is the exercising of discipline. One of the methods employed to maintain discipline involves the makgotla system. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister, in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, will ensure that the makgotla system is re-introduced in our Bantu townships because the makgotla council is, in my view, the eyes, the ears and the rod of discipline of the Black man. If the makgotla system had been in operation in Soweto for a few years, I wonder if we would have had the Soweto riots last year. Those Black stalwarts are the rods of discipline for the young Black people and they make the decisions. The young Bantu fear the discipline of the old stalwarts in their own community.

We are grateful to note in the report of the Commissioner of Police that the organization in the S.A. Police is excellent. The police force is divided up into 19 divisions under the control of 19 competent divisional commissioners. It is divided up further into 80 districts under the command of 80 district commandants. There are 908 police stations. I am grateful and proud to be able to say this evening that the very latest police station was taken into service only two weeks ago in my own constituency, Meyerton. On this occasion I should like to express my thanks, on behalf of my voters, to the hon. the Minister and his wife, the Commissioner of Police and his wife, and the various high-ranking officers in the S.A. Police Force who attended that opening, thereby lending colour to the proceedings on the occasion of the opening.

If one wants to wax philosophical about the farmer, one can say that the farmer has the most important vocation in our country because he is the person who keeps a people alive. He is the one who feeds and clothes the people of his country. Without the farmer there would be famine and eventually death and the complete extinction of humanity. Likewise the people who are fed and clothed by the farmer would, without the teacher and the clergyman, be impoverished in soul, and in the total essence of their being, and hunger for the deeper things of life until they eventually degenerate into inferior human beings. The doctor and the nurse are likewise there to look after the health and lives of human beings. The work of the farmer, the clergyman, the teacher, the doctor and the nurse would, however, be in vain if the men of the S.A.

Police were not there to maintain order in an ordered State. The policeman is the guardian of our borders, the watchful eye in the night, the friendly and resolute helper by day, the one who maintains order, authority and security for the sake of peace and prosperity. We say thank you very much to the thousands of men of the S.A. Police because when many people in South Africa are sleeping, they are awake; when many people play, they work, and when some people are engaged in subversive activities, they are engaged in upliftment. They have the tribute and thanks of the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi asked the hon. the Minister a question in regard to bilingual police reservists and I would like to say something about this. The ability to be bilingual includes both the use of Afrikaans and the use of English. In 1977 there can be no excuse for any person in public life or any person in the public service not to be able to speak both languages.

Police reservists are not full-time members of the Police Force. They are civilians.

That makes no difference, because with modern aids such as language records and crash language courses any person who wants to perform public services should have no difficulty at all in becoming bilingual. I believe the hon. the Minister would be quite wrong if he were to make an exception in the case of police reservists or in the case of immigrants. There is no excuse for anybody not being able to speak both languages in South Africa in these days. These people are dealing with the public and theirs is a vital exercise in public relations. In the year 1977 it is a pity that some members in this House do not realize that it is an ordinary courtesy to the people whom they represent to be bilingual.

I want to remind the hon. member for Houghton that last year we had the worst riots in the history of our country. They lasted from June until December. I would like to ask the hon. member how many millions of rands worth of damage was done to property in the various townships throughout South Africa, property built with the taxpayers’ money. Why does the hon. member not wait for the commission of inquiry, the Cilliè Commission of Inquiry, to report before she casts aspersions on the actions of the members of the Police Force? Seeing that the commission will report in the near future, I would have thought that she could have waited until such time as the report was tabled before indulging in mud-slinging against people who are unable to defend themselves. Six hundred people were killed, she says. I think the hon. member for Houghton should put things into perspective. The 600 people she alleges were killed—I have no official figures—were part of stone-throwing mobs who were plundering houses, burning down shops, burning down beer-halls, rioting and committing arson. Tear gas was not effective against them. When dealing with a rioting mob, tear gas is of very little help. I would say that the provocation that existed under those circumstances—I do not want to prejudge the commission’s report either— would have been very considerable indeed.

As regards the duties of the police, I think we in South Africa are lucky indeed that we have a Force that is able to maintain law and order and I think we too often take the duties of the police, in protecting us, our families and our regions, for granted. In addition to their everyday duties, they have to protect us against criminals; they have to try to solve crimes that have been committed, and they are, to my mind, sometimes unnecessarily subjected to duties which should not be performed by policemen. I have raised the matter once before and I want to raise it again tonight. I do not believe it is right for policemen to have to be on duty at sports meetings. I think this is unnecessarily bringing the policemen into disrepute. When sports meetings are held the people responsible for organizing those meetings should be able to marshall a sufficient number of their members and of their supporters clothed with the necessary authority to maintain law and order at such meetings. It is not the responsibility of the police to be on duty at a test match at Newlands. Obviously there must be policemen there, but for them to have to stand inside the field area and to be subjected to the taunts of the crowd, bottle throwing and other things of that kind, is wrong. The police should not be subjected to such indignity. Therefore I would urge the hon. the Minister to approach the sports bodies concerned and to see that there is, in the case of emergency, a body of police present, but that the sport bodies themselves should police their own grounds for that particular purpose.

We in these benches are indeed grateful to the police for the part they played during the riots last year. We commend to the hon. the Minister the necessity of training Coloured and Black riot police. I think it is manifestly unfair that White policemen, when there is arson and rioting taking place in Black and Coloured townships, should be sent in there in the numbers that they were sent in during last year’s riots. If we can train sufficient Black and Coloured riot policemen, they should police their own areas. They would probably meet with more success and there would be less possibility of racial animosity being aroused by the presence of White police in the Black and Coloured areas. Obviously the White police cannot shelve their responsibilities. Most of them are in leadership positions and I think they should be in charge of the operation. However, the ordinary riot police in Black and Coloured townships should in my opinion be Coloured and Black police.

Police reservists are very often left unnoticed. Some police reservists are on duty throughout the Peninsula at night. They do unspectacular work and they do hard work. Often too little praise is given to the police reservists. The role that they played during last year’s riots was one that was most commendable. South Africa should be grateful to them.

I want to raise the question of public participation. In some of the areas, during the riots and the unrest last year, a number of members of the public who were not members of the police reserve, who were not even members of a civil defence organization, banded themselves together on a voluntary basis into what was called “vigilante groups”. I want to say that those people deserve commendation just as much as those others who also played a part at that particular time. There were hundreds and hundreds of people throughout South Africa who stood guard at schools, hospitals and most post offices doing what they thought was necessary to assist under the circumstances prevailing at that time. I read in one of the newspapers that the hon. the Minister said that it was a dangerous development. I hope he does not mean that too seriously. I think that if one has public spirited people, people who, in times of an emergency like that, are prepared to come forward to perform those duties, they should be welcomed and should not be criticized.

I appreciate the service rendered by people who stood guard at schools, but said that it was a dangerous development for people to patrol the streets.

I understand that there are dangers in a situation like that. It is obvious. On the whole the people who come forward and volunteer their services at a time like that are responsible people, people who want to do a responsible job. I do not think it should be discouraged. On the contrary, I think it should be encouraged.

In another debate a few days ago I raised the question of people being underpaid in relation to the jobs that they do where they are exposed to temptation. There is no job that I can think of where a man is exposed to more temptation, and possibly also corruption, than a policeman. Too often our policemen are not paid commensurate with the job that they do. The hon. the Minister will have to give attention to the fact that pleas have now been made to him for years and years that the police should be taken away from the control of the Public Service Commission. A case has been made out for that, but I do not have time to deal with that tonight. I would like the hon. the Minister to say whether it is possible for the police to be taken away from the control of the Public Service Commission and whether they can be paid better salaries, salaries commensurate with the dangerous work, which involves danger to life and limb, that they do. Recently one read in the newspapers of corruption in one of the best Police Forces in the world. The British Police Force always had a worldwide reputation of being an excellent Police Force. Recently the situation was exposed that some of the top policemen in London, with a whole crowd of other policemen below them, have been involved in pom gangs and pom activities and have been engaged for some years in corruption. I wonder when last there was any large scale corruption exposed in the S.A. Police. I cannot remember any. There were a few individual cases here and there, a few black sheep here and there, but on the whole the standards of integrity of our Police Force in South Africa are something of which we should be very proud. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown made a very good speech. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will give him an adequate reply to it. I hope he will excuse me if I do not follow his line of thought.

I should also like to deal with the hon. member for Houghton because it appears that she is the only member on the Opposition side who is still putting up some fight. It is a very quiet debate this year and not the type of debate that we are accustomed to hear emanating from the Opposition side. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned she has once again demonstrated her palpable and pathological bias when dealing with matters where the police are concerned. She states with all the feminine venom that she can muster that detainees rather commit suicide than to submit to interrogation by the police because of the severity of the interrogation.

That is what your Minister said!

Flowing from that, it has not dawned upon her that they do so, not only because of superior orders, but also because they fear that very important information may emanate as a result of such interrogation. It has never dawned upon her that that is a very probable possibility.

*Mr. Chairman, when one is dealing with allegations that the police torture detainees, one must take a certain number of facts into consideration. One fact is that these people, and particularly people who are charged with having threatened the security of the State and public order, are reckless individuals, desperados who tax the vigilance and competence of police officials to the utmost.

Secondly, one must take into account that they are bent on destroying the very best aspects of our country and are bent on the complete disruption of public order in the most cunning and treacherous manner possible. When they end up in the hands of the police, however, they use and abuse all the aids that the democratic set-up places at their disposal. They scream to high heaven about supposed and actual grievances.

There is a third fact one has to take into consideration, and that is that in recent years the Police Force in South Africa has been taxed to the utmost and has had to strain every nerve. That was also mentioned by my friends, the hon. members for Waterkloof and Potgietersrus.

One has seen the statistics contained in the police report. In South Africa there are 1,34 policemen per 1 000 inhabitants of the Republic as against the USA’s 2,1 and Israel’s 3,5. On page 5 of the report one has also seen that in the past year the police have investigated more than a million offences and almost 1 400 000 infringements of the law. In the case of offences, 70,76% of the cases were solved and in the case of infringements of the law, 99,65% of the cases.

The fourth consideration—also one that was mentioned this evening—is that people like the hon. member for Houghton and her spiritual allies will leave no stone unturned to exaggerate all suspect cases out of all proportion and blazon this abroad. In spite of the fact that she can sleep peacefully every night, thanks to the continual vigilance of our police, she simply cannot help being hostile to the police, and no word of praise, appreciation or encouragement for the police will ever cross her lips. She also has certain friends, such as the Christian Institute, which assist her in these efforts. There was recently a pamphlet of the Christian Institute entitled “Torture in South Africa”. This pamphlet suffered the fate it deserved, i.e. it was banned. It was accompanied by a short letter from the Christian Institute written by the regional director, Ds. Theo Kotze, in which he stated—

At the end of his letter he states—

The pamphlet also draws up a summary of South Africa’s security legislation, and on page 4 the following claim is made—

What, however, are the facts? In his conditions of detention, the commissioner makes provision, without exception, for visits by anyone who can prove himself to have an interest in such a visit. In the majority of cases there is also no question of solitary confinement, because there is always the presence of the investigating officer and ample provision is also made for daily exercise. Except in exceptional cases, the security branches inform the next-of-kin, nominated by the detainee, of the detention and the place of detention Even family care is done, if necessary. The commissioner’s conditions of detention also make provision for the selective availability of reading and writing materials. This is allowed on a considerable scale.

Secondly, in the pamphlet there is a list of deaths in detention over a period of almost 14 years from 5 September 1963 to 22 February 1977. The total number of deaths over that period was 35. In the same period there were 14 million prisoners convicted of offences, and a further 14 million convicted of infringements of the law. In other words, out of a total of 28 million detainees, 35 died. This represents 0,0001%. Let us take only cases in which State security was involved. According to the annual report there are about 40 000 per year. Over a period of 14 years there were consequently approximately 560 000 such cases. Hence the 35 people who died in detention before they came up for trial, represent 0,006%. Of these 35, 13 committed suicide; two died of tuberculosis, five cases have not been finalized; four died of pneumonia and related illnesses; two as a result of heart attacks; one has not been identified; in respect of two there is no record; three died of brain haemorrhage, and one died of myocardiac ischaemia. In only one case was the cause of death ascertained to have been due to neck injuries sustained as a result of physical violence, but the persons who were subsequently charged were found not guilty of culpable homicide. Let me just refer to the case of James Lenkue. In that case the pathologist, who was summoned from America and examined the body three days after the State had released it, claimed that death had been caused by electric shock. He claimed that there was an abnormal concentration of copper present. A so-called world expert in this field was summoned from America. In its reply the State called upon a local scientist who proved that concentrations of copper normally form in the body when injuries are sustained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan must excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I should like to compliment him on a very interesting and illuminating speech. My colleague rightly pointed out that up to now this debate has been very lifeless as far as the Opposition speakers are concerned.

A matter of very great importance, as everyone in the House will realize is that the maintenance of law and order is a duty imposed upon the police by law. Nothing and no one may restrict the police in the execution of that task. We are living in a world in which crime is on the increase. This means more work for our police. In this connection I want to point to a very interesting question which is constantly being asked in this House, particularly by the hon. member for Houghton. It was asked in the 1975 police debate. She was not present for last year’s debate. This year, too, it was put to the hon. the Minister. The question is: when may the police use a fire-arm? This is an important question on which there can be divergent views. It is of the utmost importance that every police officer should be aware of the non-juridical and juridical aspects relating to the use of fire-arms. I should like to pay tribute to our police officers, to the commissioner and his men who are constantly sending out circulars and publishing articles in periodicals with reference to this important question. Our police are kept fully informed and are abreast of developments in regard to when fire-arms may or may not be used. After all, the task of the police is to preserve life and property and not to attack and damage property and lives in a reckless and injudicious manner. It is beyond question that the S.A. Police carry out their task.

Let us come back to the question asked in this House by the hon. member for Houghton with reference to the number of people fired at by policemen in the performance of their duty during 1976, and let us take a look at the figures. The number of people killed: Whites, 2; Coloureds, 32; Asians, none; and Bantu, 168. People wounded: Whites, 13; Coloureds, 68; Asians, 2; and Bantu, 365. Now these figures must be properly analysed. The number of people mentioned above shot by policemen while attempting to escape arrest is as follows: Killed: Whites, none; Coloureds, 29; Asians, none; and Bantu, 135. People wounded: Whites, 9; Coloureds, 62; Asians, 2; and Bantu, 281. If we take another look at the figures we see that the number of people mentioned above who were fired at in order to protect the lives of the force or the lives or property of others are: Killed: Whites, 2; Coloureds, 4; Asians, none; and Bantu, 65. People wounded: Whites, 3; Coloureds, 4; Asians, none; and Bantu 75. A figure which is never requested in this House and which has never appeared in any newspaper relates to the use of fire-arms on police officers over the same period. Members of the force killed in the execution of their duties, 2; members wounded, 6; and cases in which escapees have been armed with fire-arms, 126. Crime is on the increase. Crimes are becoming more and more sophisticated. That is why these figures must rise in time. I want to give the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that our police act with a full sense of responsibility. It is unnecessary for Press reports of such a nature to appear in our newspapers with regard to this question. Not only is the hon. member harming the police of South Africa, she is also harming South Africa. In the process she is going to burn her fingers and I want to give her the assurance that she is not going to burn the fingers of either the police or South Africa in the process.

Let us come back to the Press reports. The following appears under the heading “Matter of concern” in The Natal Witness of 29 March 1977—

Now we get another heading “Shooting by Police”. The hon. member for Houghton made a certain analysis of the period from 1968 to 1975 and I trust that her figures are correct. The question is asked: “What has gone wrong? Is there not a case for a Select Committee of Parliament to be appointed?” In The Natal Mercury of 25 March 1977 the following heading appears: “Alarm over the number which police shot.” I trust that the hon. member for Houghton was quoted correctly—

With all respect I ask: Where has the hon. the Minister “just pushed aside” this matter? I also want to refer to another report, an absolutely irresponsible report which appeared in The Natal Mercury on 3 March, in which the police are accused of becoming “trigger happy”, as it is called—

There are certain members of the Police Force—fortunately they are very much in the minority—who exceed their powers. However, immediate action is taken against them. Nor will the hon. the Minister be prepared to protect such police officers. Let us look at the number of policemen who have been called to order. Let us look at the number of members of the Police Force against whom proceedings have been instituted as a result of their reckless use of fire-arms. Two Whites and three non-Whites have been charged with murder, whereas three Whites and six non-Whites have been charged with attempted murder. Three Whites and one non-White have been charged with culpable homicide, whereas only one non-White has been charged with assault with intent to murder. Apart from that, only one non-White has been charged with robbery. Then, too, only two non-Whites have been charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It is unnecessary for reports such as the following one which I quote from Oosterlig, to be written—

We are giving the outside world the idea that we live in a police state and that we are unable to exercise any control over our police. I want to put it clearly this evening that the contrary is true. We have an outstanding Police Force, a police force of which we can be proud.

No policeman does as he likes. Standing orders have been laid down with which every police officer has to comply. As it happens, the hon. member for Houghton has quoted from the Police Standing Orders on innumerable occasions in this House. I am therefore convinced that she is acquainted with the contents thereof, particularly Standing Order No. 202—

Then, too, the question arises as to when a policeman is entitled to use a fire-arm. In this regard I refer to Standing Order No. 202(6)(c)—

I refer, too, to Standing Order No. 202(16) and (17). I quote (16)—

We must stop criticizing the police. The police in South Africa are saddled with many problems. Many of them are problems which do not occur in other countries. The nature of a policeman’s work require of him that he has to act aggressively in certain circumstances. Instead of the support of society, the police often have to endure undeserved and venomous and destructive criticism. They do not deserve it and the sooner it is stopped, the better.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Overvaal said in the beginning of his speech that it was the duty of the police to maintain law and order. We know they have to do that. That is their task; that is their duty. There was general commendation for the way in which the police handled the recent riots. However, there were the odd cases in which individual policemen overstepped the mark. They are no doubt being dealt with. We all agree, however, that in the most trying circumstances they acquitted themselves well of their task.

It is not necessary, however, for hon. members on the Government side to remind us of our dependence on the police for our safety and protection. We are fully aware of that. As I have already said, that is the duty of the police, and that is why they are there. However, there is one thing that causes concern—and this is not necessarily meant as an attack on the Police Force as a whole—and that is the number of suicides committed by people while in detention. This must be a matter of concern to the hon. the Minister as well. We know that the inquests have shown that there have been suicides, although some detainees died from natural causes. However, the preference for jumping out of windows when committing suicide, is far too common.

I want to know why these people, in view of their attempts to commit suicide, are always interrogated upstairs. Why can they not be interrogated on the ground floor or in rooms with barred windows? Then they would not have the opportunity of jumping out and committing suicide as they are doing now. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will have something to tell us about these inquiries and the whole question of suicide of persons while under detention.

I want to raise another matter. On 24 May the hon. member for Umlazi put certain questions to the hon. the Minister about stock theft in East Griqualand, in the Ongeluksnek area. The hon. member wanted to know (Hansard questions, col. 1177)—

The reply to this was that 13 cases were reported. The hon. member also asked—

The hon. the Minister replied that the cases were successfully investigated and that the value of the stock recovered was R6 460. That is lot of money and certainly not just the value of the 13 that apparently were reported stolen. The last part of the hon. member’s question was—

The hon. the Minister replied—

The Ongeluksnek Farmers’ Association wrote to the hon. the Minister on 10 May in this connection, and I have no doubt that he has followed up their complaints and will be able to give a reply as to what he intends doing. These complaints of the farmers in that area are not new. I represented the area when I first came to Parliament in 1948, and also the hon. member for Aliwal will know that it is an old complaint. We had several meetings with the farmers up there, and it was decided to build a fence. We had police patrols and the farmers offered to build huts for the police to sleep in up in the mountains, and that sort of thing. This is really an old complaint. The hon. the Minister says that day and night mounted patrols are carried out. However, I do not think such patrols are carried out. According to my information it is not. I met some farmers from East Griqualand in Matatiele last week and they say that these patrols are not carried out. What worries them is the following of the spoor. When the hon. member for Umlazi asked the hon. the Minister the other day if he could tell us anything about the farmers right to follow the spoor, the hon. the Minister said that the hon. member should raise the matter during the discussion of his Vote. That is why I am raising it now.

With the constitutional development in Lesotho, the close collaboration between the police forces is apparently not as close as it used to be. We can only hope that the visit of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to Lesotho recently will ease whatever differences there are at the moment and that there will be a renewal of the close collaboration.

I see from the letter which the association wrote to the hon. the Minister that the stock thefts across the border have increased by 80% in the last three months and that it is many more than the 13 that the hon. the Minister referred to in his reply. In the winter months, of course, the thefts increase, because of the long hours of darkness which enable the thieves to operate more freely. I am told that the White farmers used to follow the spoor into Basutoland and if they were accompanied by a Black South African policeman they were allowed in. Not so long ago, too, White policeman were allowed to enter the country quite freely to follow the spoor and find the cattle. If they find the cattle the farmers send their herders in as they themselves are not allowed free access into the country any more.

The cattle are held and impounded and the farmer has to enter the country to identify the cattle. This means that the cattle are held there for a considerable time. One must realize that these cattle are, according to my information, driven for a distance of up to 102 km. They have to be driven over barren mountains. It is beef stock which need to be fed. Especially in the winter months there is no feed for them at all. I have here a few reports of stock theft which were given to me and to the hon. the Minister. A certain gentleman, whose name I am not going to mention, lost four head of cattle in September 1976. They were recovered by the Lesotho police and are still held at Quthing. He has had to go to Quthing twice to identify his stock. Yet they have not yet been released and one has recently died. Another farmer had 17 head of cattle stolen in mid April 1977. His herdsman followed the thieves into Lesotho and recovered 11 head. On meeting the Lesotho army patrol he appealed for assistance to recover the rest of the cattle. He was threatened with arrest. The cattle are still missing. On 30 April 1977, two months ago, his shepherd was in Lesotho and saw a number of sheep with his paint brand and newly cut earmarks. With the aid of the Lesotho police 30 sheep and six skins were recovered. There are still 102 sheep missing after this raid. This gentleman accompanied the S.A. Police Stock Theft Squad to identify the sheep. He was now to go 120 km further into Lesotho to identify them again and make a statement at Quthing. Also in April another farmer lost nine head of cattle which were stolen from his farm. He followed them and found them. However, they have to be identified and he cannot get them back.

I ask the hon. the Minister whether anything has been done to arrange with the Lesotho police or Government that there could be a follow-up either by the farmer or his herdman with the S.A. Police, Black policemen, if necessary, to follow the spoor to find these cattle? The loss of cattle is considerable and the farmers cannot afford to lose that amount of money today.

Their trouble is that they are in an area which has been zoned for purchase by the Bantu Trust. The farmers must get out as that land is going to be handed over to the Transkei Government. However, the Government is not buying. These farmers cannot sell out to anybody else and as a result they are stuck there. If the hon. the Minister cannot arrange with the Lesotho police or Government to give more protection to these farmers on the border, he must use his influence with the Government so that they can buy all those farmers out and not only one or two. They must go as a body, because if one goes, the next one becomes a neighbour of the other state. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke about cattle theft, a subject which he dealt with in a very striking way with reference to his part of the world. He will excuse me if I do not reply to him since I am convinced that the hon. member will get a reply from the hon. the Minister.

The attitude and approach of the various Opposition parties to the police in South Africa was again very clearly apparent from this debate, on the basis of the speeches by the hon. members for Umlazi and Simonstown on the one hand and the hon. member for Houghton on the other. The type of debate on the police we have had from the hon. member for Houghton shows once again in what light she views matters of this nature. I want to show how that hon. member and other hon. members of her party simply repeat parrotwise and mindlessly accept accusations, rumours and gossip concering the S.A. Police. I now want to refer to the circular we all received earlier this year from the “Ministers’ Fraternal of Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga”. The circular appeared in January this year and referred to the unrest which took place on 25 and 26 December last year between the contract labourers and the inhabitants of Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu.

This “Ministers’ Fraternal” writes as follows—

They say the following, among other things—

Is that not banned?

It does not matter. They go on to say—

These gentlemen go on to level the gravest accusations at the riot police unit. Not only does this amount to grossly unlawful action but is also to the effect that the police committed offences during the unrest. Moreover, they go on to say—

They go on to say—

They go on to say—

In this document, allegations are made in respect of certain people. I am not going to mention names, because they are unidentified. However, I want to refer to the statements made in the document, and then give the true facts. “A certain Mr. ST” supposedly said: “We were in time to see a Mr. D. trying to flee from a group of migrants, as we came to save him, the riot squad accompanying the migrants, shot at us and we were halted. They held us back with guns pointing at us.” I have before me an affidavit by the same “Mr. ST”. The police traced these people and investigated the matter further …

The affidavit is not banned.

No, the affidavit is not banned. What does this “Mr. ST” say? I am again not going to mention his real name, because the evidence will have to be submitted to the commission of inquiry at a later stage. He says the following—

These are the “migrants”—

This is important—

Surely that is clear now. What does this man say? He says that they wanted to attack the contract labourers. The police stood between them and when they attacked with sticks and other weapons, the police opened fire in order to stop them. That is all that happened. However, if one reads the document issued by the Ministers’ Fraternal, it creates the impression that the police opened fire on these people in order to assist the contract labourers.

This is the type of scandalous remark made here. Here is another one. This, too, was a person who was in the group of “residents”. It concerns the same matter and he says—

This fact is not mentioned in this document. It is not said that the police did it. That is an affidavit by someone who was identified by the man who is quoted by the so-called Ministers’ Fraternal.

I also want to refer to another statement which appears in this document. It was made by one Mrs. G. According to the Ministers’ Fraternal she said the following—

I have an affidavit from this woman, Mrs. G. Hon. members must note that she is not at all well-disposed towards the police. She did not make this affidavit to the police because she refuses to speak to the police. She made this affidavit before the attorney for the Ministers Fraternal. In other words, he is their attorney. I have the affidavit before me. What does she have to say about the incident which the documents I have been quoting, refer to? She states in it that she was standing in front of an open window. When she closed the window, a riot policeman opened fire at her. She has the following to say in paragraph 7 of her statement—

That is something entirely different and hon. members will agree with me. However, let me read the last paragraph of what she has to say. She states—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure and a privilege to listen to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He expounded his case like a lawyer and clearly indicated what fraud and lying was going on in the country under the cloak of religion, among people who call themselves clergymen. I want to thank him for that.

†It was with great pleasure that I listened to the hon. member for Houghton. For some time I have been struggling to find a niche for her, a pigeon-hole, in which I could file her away and forget about her. This evening I think I found the pigeon-hole in which I could file her away and forget about her. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Houghton is absolutely “verkramp”. She has closed her mind to every ray of light, to every message of reason. It is impossible for any ray of light to enter her mind. Tonight we listened to her and we heard that it was not only the police who commit atrocities, but also the medical personnel of Baragwanath Hospital. They have entered into a so-called conspiracy of silence. Everybody is out of step, but our Helen. That I think is her attitude and her approach to life. I say again that she is “verkramp”.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to a different matter and discuss the training of our police. The police force we have today, with all its excellent qualities, did not come into being overnight. It is ascribable to a process of training which has taken place over the years and which has given us a force today of which we have every right to be proud. It is a major and important force. According to the figures at my disposal this force, viz. police and reservists, comprises about 48 700 persons. It is a big force and is designed to preserve our security in this country. There is much for which we have to thank these people who have the character to keep the morale of our nation high and to ensure our security.

In this regard there is a subdivision of the police force which we sometimes forget about and that is the Corps of Chaplains that plays a very important role in the forming and the spiritual welfare of the policeman and the recruit in the police college. I want to convey my sincere thanks this evening to the 14 persons who make up this corps for the outstanding example they set and the outstanding work they are doing on the borders, in homes and wherever the police may be.

Then, too, I want to refer to the staff of the police college. They provide training to the young men and girls who go there and prepare them, not only to be policemen, but, with the training they receive, to rise some day to the highest rung, the rank of Commissioner of the S.A. Police. The training our police undergo there is undoubtedly among the best in the world.

I just want to give a brief survey of the type of training offered there. The young policeman or policewoman attends about 226 lectures there in technical legal subjects. The course on investigation of crime etc. comprises 214 lectures. There are about 160 lectures on intellectual development, viz. human science subjects. For drilling, marksmanship and physical training there are 512 lectures. Furthermore, specialized training is also given according to the demands of the times and circumstances. It is also true that the best-trained men and women are the people who can give the longest able service and can give their nation the best service. In the spirit that our men and women who occupy these police posts are entitled to the best we can give them, I want to make a few remarks about training. I should like to begin by mentioning a few points in connection with the reservists of whom, as I said, there are more than 13 000. Firstly, I want to refer to the uniforms issued to reservists. The fact is that some of the reservists do police service over the weekends for up to 45 hours. They are issued with one summer uniform and one winter uniform. In the circumstances I want to suggest that this is too little to enable them to look neat at all times, since they have to serve for long periods on end. I want to ask that consideration be given to doubling the issue of uniforms so that these people can stay proud of their uniforms when they have to work for long periods on end. These people also have to work in dust and mud sometimes and it is quite expensive to keep these uniforms clean and neat. I should like to request that in these circumstances we also increase the maintenance allowance to some extent since these people are at present doing a tremendous amount of work for us and also take part in raids.

I also want to discuss training, particularly marksmanship, which is very important. The fact of the matter is that the reservists are not issued with fire-arms. The reservist does not become acquainted with the fire-arm with which he may have to go on duty some day. A further aspect is that there is no place where these people can go and practise marksmanship. Consequently the reservists join private shooting clubs, which costs them a considerable sum every year, in order to be able to shoot there. Then, too, they have to pay a great deal for the ammunition they use there. I should like to ask that consideration be given to allowing the reservists to go to the police college to shoot and that they be issued with subsidized ammunition, because they will be using it to train with.

Then there are the annual camps which are held on a voluntary basis. The reservists themselves pay the expenses of a training camp so that they can undergo training. These are motivated people. I know that it costs them R20 to R25 to undergo the training we should like them to receive. That is why I should like to suggest that consideration be given to providing that these people need not pay to undergo that training where such training camps are organized voluntarily under due supervision by police officers.

A final point I want to mention here is the fact that when a reservist on duty sustains serious physical injury or is even killed, it seems to me doubtful whether he is fully covered by insurance or in any other way. Perhaps the hon. the Minister and the department could give attention to this so that these people can be properly looked after.

In conclusion, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Commissioner of Police and the police officials for their fine report. I also want to congratulate the Commissioner on the high percentage of cases solved. If one looks at pages 5 and 6 of the report, one sees that with regard to 45 of the 62 classifications, viz. about 73% of the classifications, more than 80% of the cases in question were solved. This is really an outstanding achievement. It attests to ability and devotion to duty. I also want to mention—as has been done before—that the number of prosecutions per 1 000 of the population has reached 17. In 1963 (a half year) that figure was at its lowest—at that time it was 13. However, it may be noted that in that year there were 1,65 policemen per 1 000 inhabitants of the Republic as against 1,32 at the present time. If we want to achieve the same again we shall have to enlarge our Police Force.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of matters raised by the hon. member for Pretoria West with which one can agree, particularly with regard to training and the question of reservists, to which I want to come back in a minute. However, he seems to suffer from the same kind of disease from which so many other hon. members of the governing party seem to suffer, namely that he has a preoccupation with the hon. member for Houghton. Almost nobody in the Government benches seems to be able to get up without somehow referring to the hon. member for Houghton. I have little doubt that Prof. Freud would have found a very good reason for it. There must be some reason for it because one cannot explain it in any other fashion.

I would like to deal with the question of the police reservists. The issue has been raised in the House as to whether a man who voluntarily without being paid, seeks to render assistance in this particular capacity should be bilingual or not. The hon. the Minister will have to deal with this matter in his reply because in the report of the Commissioner which has been put before us, amongst other things we are told that it is particularly worthy of note that a large number of immigrants enlisted to do something—as they put it—for their country. Are we going to say to these people: You cannot render this assistance until you are fully proficient in English and Afrikaans? In many cases the immigrants are not proficient in English; let us be very clear about that. Must we, as the hon. member for Simonstown has said, turn them away, or are we going to tell them that there are enough jobs to do, there are enough things to be done in South Africa and that these volunteers should be brought into the service? I agree completely with the hon. member for Umlazi who says that we must utilize this manpower. I think that what the hon. the Minister should do is not to discourage people. On the contrary, what should happen is that there should be a recruiting campaign in order to bring more people into the reserve forces so that they can relieve some of the burden on the police. The hon. the Minister must speak on this because if he does not it will leave confusion in the minds of the public after this debate.

I want to come to another aspect. A basic concept of civilization is the protection which is given by the State to the community. That is one of the reasons why communities were formed in ancient times, so that as a result of this combination protection could be given to the individual. In return, the individual had to make a contribution towards the community, as is still done in many ways by the individuals in our community. He had to show respect for the rules which were laid down by that community. He was bound by those rules and that is why we have respect for the law. He had to show respect for the authority of the State and in return the State had to protect him and in particular had to render services to him and protect him in regard to his physical security. That is still one of the major functions of the State today. The submission I want to make today and the theme with which I hope to carry on tomorrow, is that in so far as the police are concerned, what should be projected more is the image of the policeman, not as the symbol of authority, but as the protector of the community, the person to whom the individual in the community can look for help, the person to whom he can look for assistance. I want to give a classic example and in this respect I deal with the Black community. Is the policeman looked upon by the Black man as a symbol of White authority or is he looked upon as a protector to whom the individual can turn?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.