I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for the building of a new railway line from Fochville to Houtkop. The report of the Railways and Harbour Board in which the building of this line is recommended was tabled on 14 May 1963 and it contains complete details concerning the line and also the reasons why it has to be built.

At present approximately 25,000 tons of goods are being transported daily over the main line from Klerksdorp in the direction of the Witwatersrand. This tonnage will gradually increase and it is expected that by 1970 it will amount to approximately 45,000 tons per day. In both directions between Klerksdorp and the Witwatersrand the present goods traffic amounts to approximately 46,000 tons per day and this tonnage will increase to approximately 82,000 tons per day by 1970. The ore traffic from the Postmasburg area destined for Vanderbijlpark is expected to increase from the present figure of 1,700,000 tons a year to 4,700,000 tons by 1970.

In order to handle this traffic efficiently, it was until recently the intention to effect certain improvements to the existing main line between Klerksdorp and the Witwatersrand via Bank Station in order to increase the carrying capacity of that line. However, as hon. members know, since August 1962 certain subsidences have taken place both under the railway line and in the immediate vicinity, particularly in the Carletonville area. Although the existing railway line has thus far not been seriously affected by the subsidences, the question has arisen whether it will be advisable for the Administration to rely mainly on this railway line for the transportation of heavy goods and main line passenger traffic. A gravimetric survey has consequently been made of the section between Bank and Oberholzer and as a result the incidence of subsidence in the future is expected to increase rather than decrease.

Apart from the aforegoing consideration, suburban passenger traffic in the Rand area is making increasingly greater demands on existing railway facilities, with the result that it has become increasingly more essential to keep through goods traffic out of that area as far as possible. Under present circumstances a large proportion of that goods traffic is still passing over the railway lines which carry that intensive suburban passenger traffic.

In order to solve the problems facing the Administration, the conclusion has been reached that the best solution will be to reinforce the existing railway line between Potchefstroom and Fochville up to main line standards, and to connect Fochville with Houtkop. The new line between Fochville and Houtkop will be approximately 23 miles long and it is estimated that it will cost R7,500,000; it will be up to main line standards and it will be electrified. As hon. members know, the existing railway line between Potchefstroom and Fochville is of branch line standard. In order to ensure that in future it will be able to carry the heavy main line traffic, the line must be re-routed, where necessary, and at the same time it must be electrified and reinforced up to main line standards. The portion of the section between Potchefstroom and Fochville is approximately 30 miles long and it will cost approximately R6,300,000 to strengthen it according to main line standards.

As the result of the gravimetric survey I have already referred to, it has been ascertained that the existing main line between Frederikstad and Midway, which passes over a dolomite formation, is potentially dangerous in so far as subsidences are concerned. Experimental bore-holes have been sunk, and as the result of the information so acquired the railway line in the vicinity of Bank Station has already had to be re-routed for a short distance in order to put it on safer terrain.

It is therefore essential that the alternative main line via Fochville should be brought into operation as soon as possible; the work will be tackled with the least possible delay and it is hoped to make use of that line by the middle of 1965 already.

In view of the fact that heavy goods and passenger traffic will have to be taken over the alternative main line, the intention is gradually to increase its carrying capacity by means of centralized traffic control. Certain technical difficulties in connection with the introduction of this system of control on electrified railway lines still have to be investigated, and because it may take some time before those problems are solved the intention is to provide temporary station facilities between Fochville and Houtkop. Eventually there will be no manned stations on this section.

In the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works there has already appeared for a few years a preliminary provision for the building of a railway line between Fochville and Houtkop at an estimated cost of R4,400,000 but hitherto a Construction Bill for the building of this line has not been introduced because up to now it has not been urgently necessary. I intend later during this Session introducing additional Estimates in which, inter alia, financial provision for the proposed railway line between Fochville and Houtkop will be made, so that a start may be made with the building of that line.

As a result of the alternative main line which will now be provided between Potchefstroom and the Witwatersrand via Houtkop, the existing line via Bank will of necessity in future be used to a lesser extent. Both goods and passenger train services will still be scheduled over that route to serve the local communities and the gold mines, and it will also still act as a link for the railway line to Lichtenburg and Pudimoe. It is not the intention summarily to suspend all improvements planned for the section Potchefstroom-Randfontein, and the provision of essential facilities to comply with operating requirements will still receive attention.

The hon. the Minister has already explained the general characteristics of the new line and also the circumstances which have given rise to the placing of this measure before the House to-day in order to get the necessary authority to proceed with the work. He has also outlined the method to be adopted for financing the line and the general overall effects of the new line in relation both to existing railway organization in that area and the new developments. As the hon. the Minister has told the House, the placing of these proposals before the House at this stage, although they probably would have had to come in some form or other sooner or later, probably sooner than later, has resulted from the combined effect of the subsidence which is occurring adjacent to a portion of the line, somewhere in the Carletonville area and also the tremendously heavy increase, particularly goods traffic as well as passenger traffic, now having to be conveyed to and fro over the area principally served by the line which is being affected or may become affected by the subsidence. It would seem that what is happening is that the huge industrial development, both in heavy and light industry, which is taking place in the Vereeniging, Sasolburg and Vanderbijlpark area is undoubtedly making heavier and heavier demands on the Administration, both for the raw material coming in and for the finished product which has to be moved out, either towards the Reef area, where so much of it does go, or to other parts of the country. It is also due to the very big increase in suburban passenger services serving the entire Reef area, the affected line forming portion of the system, and, in particular, traffic to and from the very large concentrations of people built up in the non-White-residential areas which are so rapidly being developed around the Reef and particularly in the vicinity of big industrial areas. As a matter of fact this is one of those occasions when nature seems to have taken a helping hand in one respect in pushing the Railway Administration to make a decision to provide a line of this nature, whereas without that little prod it might have taken some time to reach final agreement.

Not only nature, but also the mining industry.

Well, nature took a hand as well as far as the subsidence is concerned. That gave it a final little push. In a job of this magnitude there are naturally many different interests at stake, interests which do not always see eye to eye, that it is almost impossible to expect that everybody will view the route which the new line is to take as being the most suitable from their point of view. We in the House, as the Minister has said, have had the benefit of the comprehensive report submitted by the Railway Board with a plan of the lay-out of the new line and while it may be difficult to find a solution which is not going to meet the criticism from one portion or other of the areas affected, the Bill does in general give effect to what is in the best interest of the Administration and the country generally in view of the terrain to be covered. Sir, I think some idea may be obtained of the magnitude of the task which has had to be decided upon from a study of the tremendous increase in the goods traffic alone over this area. For instance, over the main line traversing the area from Klerksdorp via Potchefstroom to the Reef, the total traffic to-day is 46.000 tons per day or roughly 16,550,000 tons a year. By the time this line is completed in about 1965 that load will have increased to 61,000 tons per day or a total of about 21,000,000 tons a year, and by the end of this decade, in 1970 the goods traffic alone will more or less have doubled over this line. It will then be 82,000 tons per day or 29,500,000 tons a year. I think that alone is complete justification for bringing forward a proposal now to put the line on a new route where it can be trouble-free if there is any extension of the subsidence. We do find in the report of the board itself that after a comprehensive survey of the whole area, they have come to the conclusion that as a result of the survey carried out in the area referred to by the Minister as being over the dolomite area, “it could be expected that the occurrence of subsidences was more likely to increase than decrease in the future”. With the good record of the Railways for caution and care for the traffic, both human and goods, that it carries, I think the Railways had no alternative but to submit these proposals. One feature of the new line will be to give the Railways an opportunity to demonstrate the proficiency and efficiency of the new road safety measures which we discussed in the House a little while ago, particularly where they affect provincial main road and railway traffic. This line will cross the provincial main road in that area at a number of points, and according to the plans that we have before us and the estimates and specification provided, there will be the modern type of road over rail bridges provided at all provincial main road crossings. Special features will also be adapted for the separation of traffic at all main road crossings or secondary road crossings other than the provincial main road crossings. One can only express the hope that the Administration itself, as I have no reason to doubt they will do, will in completing this line take the most adequate precautions for ensuring the safety of the very large volume of traffic which does move about in that area. In one area the line also does affect certain vested interests in regard to a part of the large non-European development in the area. There the Bill provides for compensation to be paid to the owners of certain portions of that area which will have to be utilized in order to provide access for the railway. Sir, as is to be expected in any matter of this sort, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a difference of opinion between the interests concerned. I understand that an inquiry was held some years back in which the various authorities concerned and the agricultural industry as a whole did meet and discuss with the Administration certain proposals with regard to an increase to the railway capacity in that area. This was before they were affected by the subsidence. Those meetings have taken place and they show the need not only for the expansion of the railway system in that area but the need to cater for the different interests concerned. The line will be one of major importance to the developing industrial area there; it will be one of major importance to the Reef as a whole. If the subsidence goes any further it is only natural that a certain volume of the traffic at present being conveyed over the existing line will be curtailed. There must be different interests there which have been built up largely as a result of the service provided by the existing line. There must be developments which have occurred there as a result of the original provision of these rail facilities. Whatever is to be the future fate of the existing facilities, one would ask that the Administration, to the best of their ability, will safeguard the existing rights and interests which have been built up as a result of these facilities hitherto afforded to them. We will support the Bill as one which is necessary not only for the Administration itself but which is also in the best national interest and which is also to some extent a pointer to the sound development which is taking place in the whole of that area.

This Bill of course deals with the proposed railway line that affects my constituency very intimately, and I should like to mention a few small matters to the hon. the Minister. We quite appreciate that the construction of this line is a matter of urgency, and that is why I should like to bring three matters to the Minister’s attention. The first is the name of the station Houtkop. The community at Houtkop comprises only a few railway officials, but the fact of the matter is that the administration of Houtkop falls within the municipal area of Vanderbijlpark. The hon. the Minister will know that we have been negotiating about it for many years. One realizes it is not an easy matter to introduce a passenger service for Vanderbijlpark. I readily concede that at the moment we have a junction; that we have sidings for the industries; that we have a parcels office rendering good service; but now it happens that with this junction of Fochville-Houtkop to the Rand, or conversely, the heavy passenger traffic to the south or conversely from the south to the north, will come very close to Vanderbijlpark. As I have already said, Houtkop falls within the municipal area of Vanderbijlpark. Furthermore, if the geographical situation is looked at, it will be realized that the whole eastern Free State’s people who wish to catch the train to Cape Town, to the south, now in all probability will be able to use Houtkop. Even the people of Vereeniging will probably use Houtkop. That applies to Vereeniging, Heilbron, Vrede and the whole of the eastern Free State and Vanderbijlpark itself. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, having regard to all these practical considerations, whether it is not possible to call Houtkop Station Vanderbijlpark Station in this replanning. I should like to point out that all the branch lines serving the industrial areas are joined at Houtkop. All consignments of ore, etc., comes to Vanderbijlpark via Houtkop. I may also point out the tremendous development that has taken place in that area. An amount of R56,000,000 will be spent there during the next few years, and in Vanderbijlpark alone, from now until the end of 1965, as many houses as are in existence at Sasolburg at the present time will be built. For that reason I think it will lend status to Vanderbijlpark and it will be the proper thing to do for such an enormous population, to change the name of Houtkop Station to Vanderbijlpark Station. And then, accompanying that, to take into consideration that since Houtkop is at the present time situated some distance away in the veld, reasonable facilities should be provided for both goods and passengers. As this is completely new planning, I think this will be the proper course to adopt. The hon. the Minister has also pointed out that there will be no manned siding between Fochville and Houtkop; in other words, Houtkop and I hope the future Vanderbijlpark Station will definitely be the great junction for the Vaal triangle and for the eastern Free State.

Then there is a final point I should like to mention, and that is that the golden highway, i.e. from Johannesburg to Vanderbijlpark. Sasolburg and the Free State goldfields, will of course cross this line once it has been constructed. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that the traffic on this road is colossal. The road was built in 1953 and since then it has had to be rebuilt in consequence among others of the exceptionally heavy traffic. That traffic is very fast traffic. The road has been built in such a way that it lends itself to rapid traffic. It is a road too that has already taken great toll of human lives at various other points, and I should like to appeal very earnestly to the hon. the Minister that a bridge should be built over or under—at that point probably under the road—the railroad. I know the environment and I know that road, and I can predict here to-day already, that if that is not done, in spite of all the other good methods adopted at the present time to make crossings safe, the crossing there will claim lives as from the first day unless a bridge is built. There is a gravel road crossing this macadamized road in that vicinity, and even with the little traffic on that gravel road, several people have already lost their lives in collisions between cars using the macadamized road and cars approaching the macadamized road via the gravel road. Those are the three matters I wish to bring to the urgent attention of the Minister. The first is the change of name of Houtkop Station to Vanderbijlpark Station: the second is the question of good and effective traffic and goods facilities at Houtkop Station, and thirdly the question of a proper crossing where this railway line and the golden highway will cross each other.

I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the section of line between Bank and Welverdiend which includes the area of subsidence between Oberholzer and Bank is probably one of the most important sections of line on the whole of our railway system because apart from the line going through the Free State, this section virtually links the whole of the northern railway system to the southern railway system. It is virtually the only rail link. I mention this because when we read what traffic increases are anticipated over the next four or five years over this section, it is surprising to find that it first requires a subsidence before positive action is taken to relieve a situation which obviously has been known to the Minister’s planning council, apart from the Railway Board, that is to say this anticipated increase of traffic over this section of line. I mention this because on former occasions we have asked the Minister to give an indication of the future planning that has been taking place, and I mention it also because as the Minister knows representations have been made by important bodies such as farming associations and the Vereeniging Municipality on one occasion, I think, and other important bodies representative of industry and commerce with regard to this matter. The proposals contained in this Bill obviously provide the solution to the situation which the Railway Administration and the Minister have faced over this particular section. Having said that, there are a few points I would like to make to the Minister. I think the Minister will remember that I raised the question of this subsidence in Committee of Supply. At that time the Minister gave a public assurance that the Administration was watching the position on that particular section, where there was a possible danger to life, most carefully. If I remember correctly the Minister also stated that instructions had been given that an investigation was to be carried out as to the likelihood as to further subsidences in this area, and on a subsequent occasion, in reply to a question put to the Minister on the Order Paper, he gave further information which may have hinted at the proposals now put forward in this Bill. Sir, I would like to emphasize what is stated in the report itself; it says that as a result of gravimetric survey, “It could be expected that the occurrence of subsidences was more likely to increase than decrease in the future.” We are faced here with the situation that there is no hope of completing this line within the next two years. In other words all existing traffic together with any increased traffic, despite the fact that the diversionary route to the Free State is practically jammed chock-a-block, will still be conveyed over this section, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give a categorical assurance to the House and to the travelling public that the Administration will take the greatest care with regard to trains which traverse the Oberholzer-Bank section. May I ask too if, apart from the relaying of the track which is taking place at the present time, the Administration has given any consideration to the complete relaying of that section of the track where these subsidences are likely to occur and where the gravimetric survey indicates that the track may be laid with comparative safety. It is clear that this Bill is designed not only to cope with the danger of subsidences in that area but also to meet the traffic needs of that section of the railway line.

Then with regard to the cost, it is estimated by the board that the total cost will be about R7,500,000. That is the total estimated cost for construction and electrification of the 23 miles of new line. The Minister quoted a figure this afternoon which I did not quite catch, but if I recall correctly he mentioned the figure of R6,000,000…

[Inaudible.]

Well, the estimated costs of building the line is given here in the Estimate included in the report namely R7,500,000. Obviously the Potchefstroom-Fochville section will have to be brought up to main line standards. There may be diversionary or minor works, apart from the complete relaying of the rails, in order to bring the line up to main line standards. But must I take it that the figure mentioned by the Minister this afternoon was R6,000,000. I am sorry I did not catch the figure.

I will just give you the figures again: Fochville-Houtkop R7,500,000 and Potchefstroom-Fochville R6,300,000.

Well, that will make a total estimated cost of nearly R14,000,000, which brings the cost per mile for the whole section of the line to a comparatively high figure. Obviously the R6,300,000 will have to be voted on the additional Estimates and will appear under certain heads such as the relaying of the track and electrification, or is it going to be shown as a total estimate for the total reconstruction of this section of the line? We have found in the past that these items are put on the Estimates as minor items and works which are carried through for a period of time. This is virtually an assessment of a completely new section of line between Potchefstroom and Houtkop. I shall be glad if, when the Minister replies, he will indicate how these moneys will appear on the additional Estimates; whether the amount will appear as a globular sum for the whole construction or whether it will appear under different heads such as electrification and so on, with no indication of what the particular moneys are for. We have the Estimates before us and we know what the electrification will cost; we know what the track system will cost; we know what the minor works will cost, the capitalization and the interest; we have the globular amount for the 23.8 miles chain, but we certainly have not got it in regard to the Potchefstroom-Fochville section which is a virtual reconstruction, and I shall be glad if the Minister can give us some information in that regard.

My other point is this: The report makes it perfectly clear that the traffic carried over the Free State section, the Vereeniging-Bloemfontein-Kimberley section, has already reached maximum capacity and that the construction of this new section between Potchefstroom and Houtkop will mean that there will be relief on that line and that the need for diverting the traffic will no longer exist to the extent that it does at the present time. But the report also emphasizes that a large portion of this additional traffic which it is estimated for the next five years will come from Postmasburg, a lot of which will have to travel to Newcastle. The report emphasizes that this diversion will mean that this traffic coming ex Postmasburg destined for Newcastle will go via Potchefstroom, Fochville and Vereeniging to Germiston, and then go south from there. If you look at the railway map it does not seem entirely correct to me, because the traffic will still make a detour. I do not see how it is going to help the position because the traffic will still travel on the double line through Meyerton to Germiston and then along the main line to Newcastle. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could indicate at this stage what plans the Administration has for making the line between Redaan and Grootvlei a line of main line standards so that the through traffic to Newcastle will not have to traverse the Witwatersrand system at all.

It does bypass it.

It still travels up the Meyerton line and then comes down again. If you look at the map it is obvious that it can travel via Redan through Grootvlei and then down south to Newcastle.

Grootvlei is not on the main line.

I know it is not; it is just off the main line. If the Redan-Grootvlei-Balfour line were brought up to main line standards…

It is of main line standard.

My knowledge is that it does not carry heavy traffic…

It carries heavy coal traffic.

But there is no heavy traffic travelling that line. That is my point. The heavy traffic still travels via Meyerton…

Order! That is not under consideration.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he can give us an indication because I know this matter is of interest to other hon. members. As the hon. member for Simonstown has said, we on the Witwatersrand particularly welcome this development because it is in the interests of our industrial economy there and also in the interests of the railway system and the passenger traffic carried by the Railways.

I should like to raise three matters. In the first place, the map that appeared in the newspapers in respect of this proposed new line indicated that the mainline for passenger traffic will now run as follows: Johannesburg, Germiston, Vereeniging, Houtkop, Fochville, Potchefstroom, Cape Town. That means that the East Rand route once again is being loaded and that Germiston will have still more traffic. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why the other route cannot be used, namely Johannesburg-Langlaagte-Houtkop. It will reduce the burden on the East Rand, and it will at least bring the West Rand, which now actually will be losing their main line service, within reach of a station such as Langlaagte for those who wish to travel to Cape Town.

The second matter I should like to mention is the question of vested interests along the existing line, which will not exactly become obsolete now, but which will lose much of its value. I am not really the Member of Parliament concerned, but one feels that as interests in the area where these subsidences have taken place are affected and since the railways are being removed, attention should be given on the part of the Government to the owners who are going to be prejudiced in consequence.

The third matter I should like to mention concerns the existing line between Randfontein and Potchefstroom. That line has recently been tremendously improved, because we were unaware of the subsidences. I know of two very expensive overhead bridges completed during the past financial year. I was given the promise that during this year a further crossing would be eliminated between Middelvlei and Randfontein Station. It is a very important and dangerous crossing. In recent times 68 people have been injured there and more than 18 people have lost their lives as a result of collisions. I know that crossing was going to be eliminated, but because it is now proposed to divert the main line, it seems to me that this matter is going to be reconsidered, according to the Department. It will amount to this, that we shall possibly have to wait a very long time before that crossing is eliminated. In view of the fact that trains will still continue to move across this dangerous crossing, I should like to ask the Minister to see to it that that crossing is eliminated as soon as possible.

I should like to say a few words with reference to the new development taking place there in consequence of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. the Minister and which are known to all of us. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position of the station at Oberholzer is going to be in future; will they proceed now with the proposed station they were building or will there be a change in the general layout of the station, or will there be a reduction in the amount of money to be spent there? Secondly, I should like to express my regret that as a result of a natural phenomenon in the dolomite formation there, this has really come about. Subsidences have occurred as a result of the extraction of gold and the pumping out of water. I am sorry that Carletonville, which is a progressive town, the thirteenth biggest city in the Republic of South Africa as regards its population, will now not, as we may expect, become the centre via which a main railway line will be running. In spite of the disappointment there is, I should like to assure the Minister that we act like grown-up people; we understand the position that this new railway line will have to bypass Carletonville. I am sorry that this is so, and at the same time—before you stop me, Mr. Speaker—I should like to express the hope that these subsidences will not recur, because it is a terrible thing not to know whether your home will still be there the next day.

Then I should like to express the hope that the Railway Administration will carry out the diversion of the railway line between Potchefstroom and Fochville in such a way, even if it should involve a little extra expenditure, that it will cause the least noise and inconvenience to the inhabitants. At the time when the old Fochville-Potchefstroom line was constructed, it was not visualized that Potchefstroom would expand so much. As there were only two little trains running per week, on Fridays and Tuesdays, the people built their homes near the railway line. It was quite an occasion to hear the trains passing. According to the report it is now going to become one of our main lines and according to the tonnage that will be carried over the proposed Fochville-Potchefstroom line, it will now become a very busy section. I should like to urge, on behalf of that whole environment, that the proposed railway extension should cause the people there the least inconvenience. All of us are taxpayers, are we not; the life of the Railway will last till the end of time, but our lives are limited. The Minister must please be merciful and spare the people there any possible inconvenience they may have to suffer.

Furthermore I should like to congratulate the Minister on this expeditious action. We know what the Opposition would say if there were to be an accident in consequence of a subsidence. While we deplore it that this should be so, I express to the Minister our thanks, on behalf of my constituency which is most affected by this diversion. We want to congratulate him on this expeditious action taken in order to prevent possible accidents and loss of life. We hope that the proposed diversion will be completed as speedily as possible at the least cost and with the least delay.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said that nature had played a part in speeding up the building of the new line between Fochville and Hopeville. I interjected and said it was really the mining industry which had played a very significant part. What I meant by that was this that it was as a result of the activities of the gold-mining industry in that area that we have had those subsidences. It is dolomite formation and there are big underground caves filled with water. As a result of the pumping out of that water subsidence has occurred. The dolomite has deteriorated, it has started to break away and that has resulted in those subsidences. As a matter of fact, I am not so sure that I have not got a claim against the mining industry. I have even told my legal adviser to inquire into the matter to see whether I cannot claim the cost of this new line from the mining industry. They are directly responsible for these subsidences.

*The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has asked that the name of the station Houtkop should be changed to Vanderbijlpark Station. I have no objection to that. I suggest that he should approach the municipality of Vanderbijlpark and the residents of Houtkop to apply officially for that. I shall then know that the request comes from the community as a whole. I know the hon. member represents the community, but I do not believe he has discussed it with them as yet. Let them make official representations and I assure him I shall consider it favourably. Of course if there is a need for additional facilities at Houtkop for handling passengers and goods, it will be provided.

As regards the bridge across the highway, I should like to ask the hon. member to look at the route map attached to this. He will then see that provision is made for the construction of bridges across all the important roads.

My reply to the hon. member for Simonstown in connection with the part which nature had played is also my reply to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He said he was surprised that it took a subsidence to get the Minister to build a new line. The position is actually this: A new line has been contemplated for some years; provision has been made for it in the Estimates. I explained in my opening remarks that a Construction Bill had not yet been introduced. Had no subsidence occurred the new line would probably not have been built for some years. The existing line with the contemplated improvements would have been quite adequate to convey all the traffic that will be offering over the next few years. The introduction of centralized traffic control from Klerksdorp to Midway was contemplated; as a matter of fact tenders have already been issued. With the introduction of centralized traffic control and the provision of certain other facilities on that line the Midway-Klerksdorp line would have been able to handle all the traffic offering for quite a number of years to come. These subsidences were quite unexpected. As usual the Administration did not go to sleep on the job. Directly they occurred geologists were appointed to inquire into the whole matter, test boreholes were sunk, the line was deviated between Carletonville and Bank and a decision was taken that the new line must be built immediately as a matter of urgency. As I have already explained the existing line will continue to be used but it will be used mainly for local traffic and traffic to Lichtenburg and Pudimoe.

The hon. member wanted to know whether we had given consideration to the complete deviation of the existing line. Consideration has been given to that but the whole of the area is of dolomite formation. There is no place in the vicinity of the existing line where a new line can be built with any safety. That is the reason why the line has to be built from Houtkop to Fochville. We also inquired whether it should be built from Fochville to Midway, but if that line is built it will also go over certain dolomite formation. To be on the safe side, therefore, we decided to build it to Hopeville.

In regard to the additional Estimates, as usual, of course, the amount required is split up under the heads “Electrification” and “Construction”, The hon. member suggested that the traffic to Newcastle from Postmasburg should go via Redan and Grootvlei. That will be a detour as I said by way of interjection. The shortest route will be over Meyerton to Union and from Union to Natal.

Will you give an assurance that all precautions will be taken?

All necessary precautions are taken. There is continual inspection. There are permanent speed restrictions on that line where it goes over dolomite formation and subsidence can be expected but it is also quite possible that no subsidences will occur. I am acting safely and that is why we are building a new line.

*The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has asked whether main line passengers could use Langlaagte. It is proposed that the main line passenger trains should go via Langlaagte to Houtkop and then from Houtkop to Potchefstroom. As regards the construction of bridges between Randfontein and Middelvlei, as the hon. member knows, that is a matter for the standing committee. That committee must decide whether it will be necessary to construct that bridge over the crossing.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) asked what the position of Oberholzer will be. So far as I know, all the new works have nearly been completed there. From the nature of things, buildings will not be permitted to stand there in an incomplete state; all of them will be completed. Then the hon. member also asked whether something could be done in connection with the new railway line between Fochville and Potchefstroom to safeguard the residents there against unnecessary noise and inconvenience. Both the hon. member for Potchefstroom and the hon. member for Ventersdorp and the residents of Potchefstroom have made representations to me, as they know, in regard to the junction of the Fochville line with the main line, and the diversion of the Fochville line so that the junction will not be at Potchefstroom Station, but away from it. The one proposal was that the junction should be just north of the Mooi River and the other was that it should be at Klington. I have caused both proposals to be very thoroughly investigated, but it will involve tremendous additional expenditure. It will mean a longer line, there will have to be a manned station beyond the bridge and although I have much sympathy with the residents of Potchefstroom I cannot justify the additional expenditure which will amount to more than R1,000,000 in the one case and much more in the other. So I am afraid the junction will have to remain where it is. However, there will not be so very much noise, because electric units will be used on that traject and not steam locomotives, to pull the trains. The real noise they make is when they sound their hooters. Since all the level crossings will be eliminated, there will be very little reason to use the hooters. So I think the residents of Potchefstroom will be able to sleep quite peacefully.

May I ask the Minister a question: With this diversion via Fochville and the road via Carletonville, how much longer will a train take to Potchefstroom?

That is a relevant question. The route to Johannesburg will of course now be longer via Fochville than it is at the moment via Midway and Randfontein. I suppose passenger trains will take about 20 minutes longer to reach Johannesburg than they do now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

It is almost six weeks since the hon. the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions moved the second reading of this Bill. We listened then with great interest to his introductory remarks. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and that we are going to vote for it. We shall move various amendments in the Committee Stage. Other speakers will deal with those changes which we should like to see in this Bill. I feel it is necessary for such a Bill to be passed as soon as possible, and that it should be carried out in effect as soon as possible.

It has been said that we have approximately 100,000 alcoholics in South Africa. This Bill not only deals with the 100,000 alcoholics but it also deals with drug addicts and people who up to now we have been unable to deal with, people who make a nuisance of themselves for one reason or another. In this group of people, I think, we have to include beggars, hoboes and tramps whom we find in the streets of our cities. I think that we, together with the Minister, are undertaking a very big experiment in this country. It is a vast experiment which has not yet been tackled by any other country. I sincerely hope that the work which is now going to be undertaken will be of such a nature that we will be able to set an example to the other countries who wish to deal with this most serious problem. I know that we are going to have great difficulty in carrying out the provisions of this Bill because we are going to deal with people who are not ordinary people. To a large extent we are going to deal with a class of person who is to some extent mentally deranged. It is because the Minister has recognized as a fact, in this Bill, that alcoholism is a disease and must be treated as such, that drug addiction is a disease and must be treated as such, that these people who suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction are in a class apart from the other people with whom they have been grouped previously. He is going to have difficulty in dealing with the alcoholic because of the various social levels that he will find amongst the alcoholic and also because of the various levels of mental ability of alcoholics. Amongst these people you will find, I think, a greater proportion of, I would not say more civilized people, but certainly a greater percentage of better educated people than you would imagine. In my own experience I have found that almost 60 per cent of the alcoholics I have come into contact with, have been people with a very good background and a very high standard of education. If we have to deal with these people on the same basis as you have to deal with those who are not so well educated, and those who have different outlooks in life, I think the Minister is going to find difficulty if he houses these different types of people in the same establishment. So the first difficulty he will have to overcome will be to try to separate the various classes of alcoholics. Then there is a further difficulty you will have to meet because once this Bill comes into operation you will find that a number of those alcoholics suffer from other diseases as well, diseases which will also have to be treated, diseases which have resulted as a result of his chronic alcoholism. It is for this reason that I want to urge, at this stage, that the Minister should make sure that his Department works hand in hand with the provincial hospitals. You see, Sir, we have this difficulty; this is the Central Government administrating a health problem; we have this further difficulty that we have a Social Welfare Minister administering a central health problem which in reality should fall under the provinces via the Minister of Health. These difficulties will have to be worked out by the Minister and his Cabinet. He must recognize that if alcoholism is going to be treated as a disease he might find that Social Welfare will have this particular branch of the provisions of this Bill taken away from it. I would be very sorry to see that but we must beware of such a thing happening. So I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he retains the care of these people even though it will necessitate health measures and that he works in collaboration with the provinces.

We will come to the stage very soon where we are going to have a large number of alcoholics housed in various institutions, and the basis of this Bill as it is now emphasizes rehabilitation and occupation in the treatment. I see further difficulties that the Minister is going to have because, as I see it, it is not sufficient to simply keep the alcoholic occupied. That is one aspect of treatment; physiotherapy is another aspect, good feeding is another aspect of the treatment. But the difficulty that we are going to meet soon is to have sufficient personnel for these institutions who are specialized in this particular type of work. I know, and I think the hon. Minister is fully aware of it, that we have a shortage of that group of nurses who have had an opportunity to study this particular branch of therapy. Not only have we got a shortage of nursing staff, but we also have a shortage of medical personnel to deal with that. This is going to be a new venture as far as we are concerned, and it is no good us getting into a rut and simply having a retreat where an alcoholic or a drug addict is housed and say “Well, you are going to stay here for three years, and during that time we hope that you will no longer want to drink and when you come out of here, after three years we hope you are going to be cured”. I know that it takes a long time to break the habit of drinking. But I also do know that it is a habit which is readily acquired again for a second or a third time, even after a long period of abstinence. During the three years that we have that individual under control, we have to find other ways and means of dealing with the alcoholic, and here is where he requires the assistance of a first-class research team. We have got to find out what is happening in other parts of the world, and we have to use any successful plans in our own institutions. There must be other ways of treating an alcoholic, other than what we have got set out here. Whether it is going to be shock treatment, whether it is going to be massive doses of vitamin, whether it is going to be operations to the brain centres, that is for these people to see to. We have got an opportunity of starting now on the right foot, and it is my earnest plea to the Minister that he should leave no stone unturned to make sure that he has got the best personnel in these institutions and that we continue to improve our knowledge both as a result of what we find out in these institutions and as a result of what is going on in other parts of the world. If we do that, we will have a model for other people to work on. If not, then I am afraid that all we are going to have here is a home for the derelict. And that is what we do not want.

It is not my intention to go on very much longer because there are several people on our side of the House who want to put their views on these matters, which I have briefly outlined here. But before I sit down, I want to say to the Minister why I personally welcome this Bill. Firstly, I say that the alcoholic must be separated from the other misfits of our society. During the years that I have been a general practitioner in a large city, and in a part of a city where unfortunately I have come into contact with very, very many cases of alcoholism, I have found that when the father is a drunk or an alcoholic, the family suffers; they suffer mentally and they suffer physically. When the mother is an alcoholic, the family suffers, the children suffer, the husband suffers. When both are alcoholics, as very often happens, one following the other, then you find no family life whatsoever. You find children who are best taken out of such a home.

Maj. VAN DER BYL; The children often also become alcoholics.

As the hon. member says, the danger is that when these children grow up, they in turn become alcoholics. Over and over again we have heard stories of a father assaulting a mother in the presence of the children. We have heard over and over again that these cases are brought to the notice of the police or to the notice of the resident magistrate and yet they are put down as domestic squabbles and nothing is done. I hope now that if reports come from welfare officers to say that something must be done to these people who are leading lives which are ruining their children or others near and dear to them, something will be done and that the people who are responsible for the unhappiness in families will be taken away and looked after. If they are going to be taken away, they must not be taken away under a stigma. They must be taken away just as if they were sick people needing treatment from a specialist. There is no difference if we are going to say that alcoholism is a disease. Then it is a disease in the eves of everybody and it must be treated as such, and we must never point a finger at these people, because it is possible that our own at some time or other may be subjected to strains leading to such a disease.

I like very much the clause in this Bill which deals with after-treatment. That to me probably is one of the most important aspects of the treatment of alcoholism; not only to treat them during their stay in the hospitals, but to make sure that when they come out of the institution via the hospital, they will be well looked after, that they will be under supervision. Here I say to the Minister that he must do everything possible to make sure that large industrial concerns, that business establishments, that city councils, village councils, no matter where these people come from, shall help in the rehabilitation and after-treatment. They must be settled in permanent employment, they must be given outlets for their abilities. They must not be shunned by society. These things I hope the hon. Minister will take into consideration and make sure that when they come out of the retreat, they will not be thrown back again because of the stigma which may be placed on them by some people.

As far as the other group of people are concerned, those that will not work, those that beg, those that make use of a crippled state of health to make a livelihood from the alms that they collect in the streets, these people must also be rehabilitated, but in their case I feel the great thing is occupation. They must be made to produce something which they can sell, something which is saleable, and they must take a pride in the work they turn out. Here again I cannot see any of these people being cured without special treatment because to me these people also suffer from a disease, from some mental quirk. What makes them want to sit on the side of the road with a deformed hand out rather than go to work and use the good hand? These people must be made to take an interest in life, must be shown that it is not as easy as they think to sponge on the goodness of others. If they do not do it, then it may be necessary to even take punitive measures of some sort. I have got my own ideas about these things, about how these people should be treated. I do say that those who are physically fit in body, those who are able to work, must be made to work. They must know that to eat you must work. I hope that these people will be taught the importance of doing a day’s work. As I said once before, we in this country cannot afford to have in our population hundreds of thousands of won’t works. There is no room for them. They are not included in the unemployed. They are employable. There is work for them. But they are the people that will not work, and for them special measures must be taken to teach them to work, to teach them the goodness of work, and when they come out they must be put to work and kept at work.

Finally, I want to just say to the Minister that we on this side of the House hope that this Bill will bring to South Africa a measure which will save not only the hundreds of thousands of alcoholics but the dependants of these people, will be saved from unhappiness. It will save the country hundreds of thousands of rand. That is what it costs the country to keep these people going. I hope that the children from these broken families will soon be united in families which can be united.

I think I have the right to say, from what the hon. member has said, that we can infer that the other side of the House also welcomes this Bill. That being so, I should like to say from this side of the House that I think this it is one of the Bills introduced this year which is welcomed, and ought to be welcomed, by all. It is the kind of Bill on which there certainly will not be disagreement, and it would be wrong if we were to quarrel about it. Here we are concerned with people who need our sympathy. I can also tell you, Sir, that there is tremendous interest in this Bill. I know that this side of the House has for years insisted upon it, and there have been discussions and there has been keen interest from all quarters to have such a Bill introduced in the House, and I assume that on that side too there has been a real desire to have this Bill brought before the House.

Now the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has pointed out that alcoholics ought to be divided into various categories. I think there is much to be said for that, but the truth of the matter is that much progress is being made with this Bill in that the alcoholic is now separated from all other social misfits and deviates. It is a big step forward. I agree with the hon. member that the alcoholic frequently is a person from a very good family. I think it was his experience in practice too that one finds that people who are addicted to liquor, are without exception good people. When sober, they are the best fathers to their children and the best husbands to their wives. But when they take to the bottle, the circumstances in those homes become tragic. I do not think, judging from the report we have, that we realize how serious the problem of alcoholism is. We do not have very reliable figures before us, but we do know it is a very grave problem. Certainly it has destructive consequences in South Africa. People practising certain professions particularly see this from day to day. The hon. member has referred to cases where the father is addicted to liquor; sometimes the mother follows; sometimes they drink together. What he has said is quite true, that many children coming from such families also become addicted to liquor. But now I have to add at once that in a very large percentage of cases it is found also that children from such families are the very ones who have such an aversion to excessive indulgence that they are the very people who try to stop others from drinking. I say this merely by way of introduction.

In welcoming this Bill, I think it will be a good thing for the country to take note that we are not always indulging in political squabbling here in the House of Assembly. I have frequently been asked what part of the work I do is devoted to party politics, and I do not think it is more than 10 per cent or 15 per cent. And I am very active in party politics. I do not believe that more than 10 to 15 per cent of my work really is of a party political nature. The rest is the kind of thing we are dealing with this afternoon, to render the country a service to a greater or lesser extent—we to a lesser degree, and the Minister and his Department to a much greater degree. I also think that this type of legislation with which we are dealing here this afternoon is proof that South Africa bears the stamp of civilization, that we are a grown-up nation. Only civilized people, only adult people and nations who care for these kinds of people and who place this type of legislation on their Statute Book, really attempt to solve such problems. Having said that it bears the stamp of civilization, I wish to say that civilization also to some extent bears the stamp of alcoholism. I know that in the under-developed countries there are large numbers of people who are addicted to intoxicating liquor. But it seems to me it is one of the things that does not disappear with the advent of civilization. If one looks at other countries—I am not very keen to mention other countries—then France is a country that is constantly being brought to one’s notice. Surely France is one of the most civilized countries in the world, but it is one of the countries with the greatest problem as regards alcoholism.

But apart from that, I think another fact that must be recognized is that this type of legislation testifies to the culture and refinement of the South African nation as a whole.

Now I should like to point out that alcoholics are no longer regarded as criminals, and I wish to welcome that cordially. We know that in Clause 14 (1) of this Bill it is provided that if in a criminal court it appears that an accused falls within the provisions of Clause 14 (1), he may be dealt with differently from an ordinary criminal. Then the proceedings in such a court may be converted into an inquiry. In addition the public prosecutor is required to call for a report from a welfare officer. I sincerely hope that this procedure and what follows will persuade an increasing number of alcoholics to report themselves, or will move their relatives to report them for treatment. They are no criminals. I do not wish to plead for alcoholics and inebriates, but one thing is certain and that is that an inebriate is not a criminal primarily. While under the influence of liquor he may perpetrate acts that border on crime, or may even be crimes, but primarily such a person is not a criminal. One therefore wants to welcome it heartily that they will now become inmates of retreats. Another point I wish to mention in passing is that while we are in earnest in regard to this whole matter, I think there are a few groups of people who deserve the thanks of this House and of everyone who is interested in this matter, and they are the large number of private individuals who exert themselves from day to day to assist inebriates, to assist deviates and try to bring them back to a normal life, and particularly the large number of people who were addicted to alcohol but have now been cured, and are endeavouring to bring back to normal life those who have lapsed into that unfortunate state.

As one has this sympathy with these people —and after very serious reflection I agree with the people who say that alcoholism is a disease —I should like to make one more remark. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) asked me whether overeating also is a disease. But when this is analysed, I think alcoholism must be classified as an abnormality which one could rightly call a disease. It is a fact—and I hope that the alcoholics who may come to hear of this debate will particularly take note of this—it is a fact that far more than 50 per cent, and perhaps 75 per cent, of these persons may be cured either temporarily or in many cases permanently of their problem. Where one pays tribute and thanks to the people who as individuals, as churches or as other bodies devote their time and their energies to assisting these people, I think there is still another group, and that is the staff of these retreats where these people are treated, who deserve our appreciation. I do not know whether you have already paid a visit to one of these retreats. I had the privilege once of visiting one of them, and when one sees the devotion, love and sympathy these workers show in dealing with these people who are committed to their care, they really and truly deserve our praise and our thanks. In regard to the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, I should also just like to say that there is no doubt that alcohol is a poison. However, the social problems we are faced with may be attributed to the fact that alcohol is such a weak poison and takes effect very slowly. A man has to consume a very large amount of alcohol over a very long period before he will actually be affected physically. And because that is so, we have to cope with the enormous social problems. That is an additional reason why we welcome this legislation which makes it clear beyond a doubt that it is now made the task of the State to assist these people and to aid them.

Having referred to inebriates with sympathy I should like to emphasize in conclusion—for I do not think we need speak at length on this matter, save to emphasize that we welcome it—that while one feels that provision must be made and that an alcoholic must not be regarded as a criminal; and while one feels that he should not be dealt with together with other misfits; and while one feels that his treatment should aim at his rehabilitation, and that his treatment should also include the other diseases and illness manifestations that go with alcoholism; while one accepts all those things, I should yet like to say that this measure of sympathy should not be construed further as meaning that one has any sympathy with a person who drives a vehicle while under the influence of liquor. I want to separate these two things very clearly, and I think too that the members of the judiciary must not infer from this debate that such a person should also be dealt with sympathetically. The fact of the matter is that a person who while he is under the influence of liquor voluntarily gets into a vehicle and voluntarily drives that vehicle…

Does he realize what he is doing?

He certainly realizes that he is dealing with something that moves, and I feel that we should not endanger the lives of the public, of children and of others, and even their possessions, in any way because we are now dealing with a different aspect of alcoholism. I think we should distinguish very clearly between these two things. Let us admit it is a disease, and that the problem of the man is that he cannot stay away from liquor. But I cannot accept for one moment that this disease also includes the act of driving a vehicle under the influence, and that must remain an offence that is heavily punishable in South Africa.

I should like to thank and congratulate the Minister sincerely on this splendid piece of work before the House. And not only that, but also his overseas visit in the second half of the year to give attention to the problems of the people who are entrusted to the care of him and his Department, deserves our thanks. I want to tell him that he has a Department of which I believe both sides of the House are very proud. We are grateful for the work done and the sympathetic attitude adopted by them in respect of cases we submit to them. I may say that in recent times particularly I have been receiving speedy attention, sympathetic attention from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and I have no complaints at all, especially when one takes into consideration the tremendous amount of work they have to perform, and I think if one moves about among the people in general, one will find the same thing. We want to say to the Minister that as he has such a Department, and as he has plans for the future, we as a House and as a nation are very grateful to him not only for the work he himself is doing, but also for what his Department is doing. We hope that what he aims at with this legislation will be very fruitful and that in the coming years we may perhaps introduce into this legislation such improvements as time may show us to be necessary, but we realize that at this stage we do not want to introduce too much perfection in this legislation, while we do not yet have full experience of how it will work.

I would like first of all to commend those members who drew up this report of the inter-departmental committee of inquiry to investigate the treatment of alcoholics and also the valiant efforts of the Minister and the Department in transporting the recommendations into the Bill now before the House. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) mentioned a very interesting point when he said that he agreed with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that it was essential to differentiate between types of alcoholics, because there were different types of alocoholics coming from different social strata. I would like to make the point here that this is already done in the provincial hospitals with psychiatric treatment, and I would join with the hon. member for Rosettenville in urging on the Minister the closest possible link between the Department of Social Welfare in administering this Bill and the provincial hospitals that have for a long time past dealt with alcoholics. I am referring particularly to Tara Hospital in Johannesburg that deals with the neurotic cases of alcoholism and the Park Road Hospital here in Cape Town, which does excellent work in the treatment of alcoholics. It is a very important point that alcoholism to-day is treated as an illness and that it is so regarded by this Bill. It is in the same category and it is as severe as tuberculosis. When tuberculosis is arrested in its early stages, the patients have complete confidence that they will be able to recover, and even where the disease is in an advanced stage they can be treated with the correct drugs and receive medical attention and they have many years of useful life before them. Doctors all over South Africa are in direct contact with alcoholics, and those who are at the clinic at the Johannesburg General Hospital, who are psychiatrists, have urged the Government to introduce legislation to treat alcoholism as a disease and to give alcoholics every chance to rehabilitate themselves. I think that this Bill to a large extent sets out to achieve that purpose. Recently Dr. Gillis, the chief psychiatrist at Groote Schuur, who is also in charge of Park Road Hospital, said that alcoholics are embedded in the community and the greatest problem is to get them to hospitals and to rehabilitation centres for treatment. But the community always has a silent conspiracy to keep the alcoholic away from the type of treatment which can be his salvation, because many people still regard alcoholism as a disgrace rather than a disease. Therefore we on this side of the House feel that the Bill should be welcomed, and that it reflects the advances made in the treatment of alcoholism, and one of the most important principles implicit in the Bill is the realization that punishment may fail in its purpose of treating the alcoholic, who is a sick man.

I feel that I would like particularly to draw the Minister’s attention to the statement in the report of the inter-departmental committee in connection with work colonies for White women, on page 44, where it says that White women who are incurable alcoholics and whose degree of mental deviation and general circumstances are such that they cannot benefit from the existing rehabilitation centres should be sent to work colonies. The committee took note of these representations and recommended that certain types of people who are not amenable to adjustment should be sent to work colonies.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to certain clauses in the Bill. There are many improvements which are to be welcomed. I think we should welcome the improvement in regard to the committal of persons convicted of criminal offences to institutions which are not the same institutions as those to which alcoholics are committed. Specialized treatment will be given to the aloholics. There are other provisions which I feel should be commented on, like the extension of time in Clause 29 from one month to six months. While this increase may seem drastic, it appears to be necessary. After consultation with doctors and hospitals, the period of one month was not considered adequate for treatment of the alcoholic, and therefore medical opinion agrees that the extension to six months is justified.

But I would like to criticize three points in the Bill and I feel that if the Minister would consider these criticisms the Bill may to some extent be adjusted. The first of these is in Clause 6, which deals with the establishment of the National Alcoholism Advisory Board and the composition of the board. I notice that while two members will be drawn from the Department and eight from the provinces and five will be selected from the Minister from among persons who are actively interested on a voluntary basis in the problem of alcoholism, the Minister has not included the psychiatrist. I would have thought that it was essential to have a psychiatrist on this board, who could give his advice on the type of problems with which the board would deal. Psychology and psychiatry play a major part in the treatment of alcoholics and the role of the psychiatrist is recognized in this report of the inter-departmental committee. It is recognized that the psychiatrist is called in for consultation on numerous occasions and he visits the work colonies regularly. Talbot House Women’s Retreat in Pretoria North is visited regularly by a psychiatrist. At Tara, which is a psychiatric hospital, they deal with the psycho-neurotic cases of alcoholism, and also at the psychiatric clinic of the General Hospital in Johannesburg. So I feel that there is ample support for a psychiatrist being a member of the board.

There is another matter. In regard to the appointment of the board, I notice that no period of time has been inserted, although it is recommended in the report. It says that the members shall be appointed by the Minister for a period not exceeding three years, but I note that this has been left out of the_ Bill. One may well ask the Minister why this recommendation was not included, and why this period was not specified.

There is a further point I referred to earlier on, under the Minister’s Vote, and that is the question of finance. The amounts that are recommended here on page 110 of the report are an expenditure of R400,000. Under this year’s Vote, the amount for these particular institutes is only R20,000. At the time I asked the Minister this question he said that there might possibly have to be adjustments in the future. I will be glad if the Minister can give us some idea as to how the finances will be adjusted and how it will be spread over the next four years, including the capital expenditure, to implement the provisions of this Bill.

Finally, I can say that if the Minister can give the House these assurances on these clauses, that he will seriously consider the suggestions I am putting forward, this Bill can be commended as a forward step in combating alcoholism and it will be welcomed by members on this side of the House.

I think speakers on both sides of the House have already emphasized it very strongly that this legislation is definitely an important step forward, but in order to understand it better you must look at its background, Sir, namely, the very thorough investigation which was conducted by an inter-departmental committee and which brought out a very significant report which actually resulted in the legislation which we have before us to-day. When you read that report and the legislation before us you are impressed by the fact that we are dealing here with a very important national problem which is very complex. It is clear that when we seek the cause for this problem of alcoholism it is quite wrong to think that you can point to one single cause. This report makes it clear that this is a problem with many different aspects. We have, in the first place, those people who maintain that the reason for alcoholism is purely physiological, that it is simply an illness with physical causes. But then you have other authorities who emphasize the psychological aspect of it and who find, on examining the alcoholic, that he has a peculiar personality, or a tendency to run away from reality. Then you have the sociologists who emphasize the social factors, the effect of the environment on the person, the example set by the masses, the influence of cocktail parties which have an effect on the weakling and cause him to degenerate into a confirmed alcoholic. It is very difficult to say which one of these various factors is the most important. The only thing which any scientist can say is that all these various factors must be emphasized equally strongly. That shows you why it is necessary for us to have legislation in order to cope better with this problem. That is essential because when you think of the results of alcoholism you realize what a destructive effect it has on society. From the purely economic point of view of absenteeism, those people who stay away from work because they are incapable of going to their work and the decline in their ability to work and their greater suspectibility to accidents, we find that all those factors have a tremendous adverse effect on our economy. Similarly in society, when you go into the matter and see the large percentage of children who are cared for in institutions you find that the majority of them are there because their homes have been broken up as a result of the abuse of alcohol. When we talk about protecting the family and building up the family, it is absolutely essential that this problem be given attention to and that we should try to approach it scientifically and combat it effectively.

Apart from that, therefore, there is the health of the individual. We know what adverse effects alcohol can have on the human system and also on his spirit. The alcoholic is the most unhappy person. If we are really concerned with his health and his innermost happiness it is our duty to try to solve that problem. The old-fashioned approach was simply to push the alcoholic aside as a weakling and an outcast and the treatment of those people simply consisted of their being sent to work colonies where they often came into contact with criminals which created a second problem for those persons who already had a problem. The result was that a certain stigma attached to the institutions which had to rehabilitate the alcoholic with the result that the alcoholic regarded himself as an inferior being and he often tried to avoid those institutions; he never went there voluntarily. The methods of treatment were therefore not effective nor the places where they were treated and consequently the results were not effective either.

This legislation represents a very important step forward because the problem is now being placed in its right perspective and a new approach towards the alcoholic is now being placed before the public. Above all, this legislation opens the door once and for all to a very thorough programme of research so that the very root cause of this problem can be investigated, in order to ascertain what should be done to solve the problem. A clear distinction is drawn in Clause 14 between the alcoholic and the maladjusted person and that is why there are two separate institutions where they are to be treated. You have the retreats to which the alcoholic can go for treatment, places which concentrate on his problem and all his symptoms. Whereas the maladjusted person goes to another institution; the two are no longer grouped together. That is why the alcoholic will now for the first time receive the attention of people who know how to approach his problem.

This legislation also makes provision for an interchange of activities between reform schools and retreats so that a person who is at a reform school and who shows the same symptoms can be transferred to such a retreat for treatment. Clause 4 lays the emphasis on the physical, spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the alcoholic; it paves the way for the correct treatment, medically, psychologically and morally. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said she was sorry that a psychiatrist had not been appointed to the board. I shall deal with that in a moment but this legislation lays great emphasis on the important role which the psychiatrist must play in the rehabilitation of the alcoholic. Clause 16 makes provision—and this is very important— for treatment outside the institution. There are people who will benefit more by being treated in society than by being treated in an institution. The court has the power to defer the committal of such a person to an institution for three years if the welfare officer reports to that effect. We are also very grateful to notice that this Act makes ample provision for the after-care of such a person. What strikes me in particular is the fact that this Act, unlike the old Act, is not only concerned with the person while he is an alcoholic but it aims at doing more; it tries to establish an organization like Sandra to do preventive work on a larger scale. In the past, due to the lack of funds, this problem could not be brought sufficiently to the notice of society by way of guidance, etc., but that will be possible in future. That is why I think this legislation is a very important step forward in every respect, particularly when we bear in mind that the board to be appointed will no longer be known as the National Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board but indeed as the National Alcoholism Advisory Board. The emphasis is therefore placed on the kernel of the problem, and the committee also recommended that the composition of the board should be as representative as possible so that the various aspects, the ethic, the social and the medical, can all receive attention on that board, and that the necessary teamwork between the provinces and the Departments should be there.

I just want to return to the importance of the psychiatrist. Clause 6 provides that the five persons to be appointed, after the Department is represented, will be appointed on the strength of their personal interest and personal knowledge of the problem. If there is any psychiatrist who has concentrated his attentions on this field with distinction the Minister will obviously designate that person as one of the five to serve on the board. That is why I think the board will be composed in such a way that it will meet the problem of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North).

I want to conclude by emphasizing that we must be careful that we do not regard alcoholism merely as an illness and that we do not undermine the responsibility of the person by treating him as a patient. Rehabilitation work must be done. He must be taught to realize that he is not of the value that he should be. That is why I think the main task, not only of these institutions, but of the welfare organizations and the churches and everybody in future, will be to stand together to rehabilitate the alcoholic effectively.

We have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) in regard to this problem of alcoholism. He is a man who has a vast knowledge of social problems by virtue of his calling.

There are certain aspects of the Bill which I would like to comment upon, but before doing so I think it is necessary to indicate that this problem of alcoholism, which was really highlighted by the report of the interdepartmental committee, is a very serious one. The committee said that alcoholism was prevalent in the community. Therefore the introduction of the Bill is welcomed by this side of the House. But while acknowledging the fact that alcoholism is an insidious disease which the public still has to be instructed to accept, we have a Bill before us which aims at rehabilitating these people and therefore we want to support it, but at the same time I think it is rather ironical that a Bill has been published in the Government Gazette to amend the Liquor Act, and although it has not yet been tabled in this House it is one which I believe will make strong liquor much more readily available, and it is one which could aggravate the problem of alcoholism. I think the establishment of the National Alcoholism Advisory Board is of such importance that the introduction of a major amendment to the Liquor Act should not be entertained at this stage.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Then I just want to say that this Bill should not be introduced until that board has been established, considering the effects it will have on the problems of alcoholism.

On a point of order, the Liquor Amendment Bill has not yet been tabled.

The Minister seeks to establish a board to attempt to combat this problem of alcoholism and he as a responsible member of the Cabinet should endeavour to see that a measure is not introduced which will aggravate the position.

In regard to the Bill before us, I believe an important aspect is that the principle involved in this Bill is to place the accent rather on the rehabilitative measures than on the punitive measures. It attempts to find ways and means to bring about the successful rehabilitation of alcoholics, but I believe, too, that there are certain aspects of this Bill which require emphasis. One is to see that a person is not committed to such an institution unless all other attempts at rehabilitation have failed. He should be committed to an institution as a last resort, because it is a drastic step in the life of any human being to be committed to an institution. There is provision in the Bill whereby an order may be postponed at the discretion of the magistrate, and I believe that aspect requires particular emphasis, to ensure that persons are only committed as a last resort.

There are various clauses one can comment upon, one being that the stigma of having been committed to a work colony is being removed through the renaming of these work colonies and classifying them as rehabilitation centres for maladjusted persons and retreats for alcoholics and drug addicts. I believe that the renaming of these institutions will to a certain extent remove that stigma. The clause which establishes the National Alcoholism Advisory Board, Clause 6, will replace the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board, and therefore we are going to have a board established which will devote its entire energies to the problem of alcoholism. The question that I would like to ask the hon. Minister is this: Our present position in regard to the Advisory Board on Work Colonies and Retreats is that they submit a comprehensive report which covers all aspects concerning maladjusted persons and alcoholics. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether now that this board is going to deal purely and simply with the problem of alcoholism they will not be able to have laid on the Table of the House the comprehensive report that we have been accustomed to from the board. The report covers all aspects of rehabilitation such as the rehabilitation centres and the retreats, and it does appear from the functions of the new board that it will now merely confine itself to the question of alcoholism, and therefore we will not have the opportunity of having available to us the various facts and findings and recommendations of the board which we have received in the past dealing with the whole question of rehabilitation centres and maladjusted persons. With regard to the point that was raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) the question of the period of office of this particular Advisory Board, the position has now been altered in that previously one of the functions of the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board was to report to the Minister once in every calendar year, and those who are interested in this particular problem have looked forward to receiving these reports because they have been most instructive, particularly the report covering the year 1956 where very important recommendations were made. A large number of these recommendations are to-day embodied in the Bill before the House, and they do not merely cover the problem of alcoholism but the whole question of the rehabilitation of maladjusted persons as well as the rehabilitation of alcoholics. In terms of the Bill before the House this Board will now be required to report at least once every five years, whereas the previous Board was required to report once in every calendar year. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is his intention that reports shall only be tabled once every five years or whether there is any possibility of these important reports being tabled more regularly. Similarly the previous board which is now to be abolished was appointed for a period of three years, and in accordance with the Bill now before the House the new Board is to be appointed for a period of five years. I would also like to know the reasons why this Board should be appointed for a period of five years and not a period of three years. Now, Sir, there are other important recommendations that have been made by the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board. They have throughout their reports high-lighted certain aspects which they believe require attention, and one is the question of the treatment which inmates receive at the various institutions. They call for certain reforms in regard to the treatment. Sir, the National Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board’s sixth annual report for 1956 on page 11 said this in regard to treatment—

Sir, these are important matters in regard to treatment. Although provision is made in the Bill before the House whereby treatment shall be provided at these institutions, there is no indication as to whether it is to be specialized treatment or whether there is to be any alteration in regard to the treatment at present given at these institutions. Sir, while dealing with the question of treatment, another aspect which I think is a very important one is in regard to the classification of these various institutions. Under Clause 8 special provision is made for classifying retreats and rehabilitation centres into different categories and different divisions. A similar provision existed under the Work Colonies Act of 1949 which is now to be repealed and replaced by this particular Bill and I believe that particular attention should be given to establishing institutions for younger persons committed to these institutions, retreats and rehabilitation centres.

Separate institutions?

If possible I believe that separate institutions should be established. The Department of Prisons in its more modern approach to penal reform, has deemed it wise to establish a separate prison for young persons from 18 to 23 years of age, known as Switzerland, and I believe that it is important that a separate classification, if possible, should be devised whereby young persons from the age of 18 to 23 can be maintained in separate institutions so that they do not come into contact with the older, more hardened type of won’t-work or alcoholic, because it is a recognized fact that if these younger persons come into contact with the older, hardened type, it may have a detrimental effect rather than a beneficial effect upon them. I believe that one of the important factors is that younger persons are becoming excessive drinkers and in some instances alcoholics. It is a great tragedy but the present trend is that young people are drinking at a much earlier age. Indeed the latest report of the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board showed the average age of inmates at Sonderwater, for instance. Out of a total of 336 there were no less than 60 of these persons, almost 20 per cent, under 25 years of age. Similarly the inter-departmental committee’s report on the treatment of the alcoholic sets out evidence from Alcoholics Anonymous in Port Elizabeth to the effect that the average age of members has dropped from 50 to 35 years of age. I believe that one of the functions of an advisory board is to devise ways and means of protecting young people from becoming excessive drinkers and falling foul of the law, invariably under the influence of liquor. For instance, there was a report in America some two years ago which showed that out of 12,000 cases of juvenile crime, 31.7 per cent of the cases were directly linked to excessive drinking while 17.4 per cent were indirectly connected with excessive drinking. A total of 49.1 per cent of juvenile crime therefore is attributed to excessive drinking. I believe that one of the functions of that Advisory Board can be to assist the Minister in cases which I have seen for myself where young school boys and school girls, admittedly not dressed in school clothes, partake of liquor in bar lounges where they are served without any questions being asked. I believe that strong action should be taken against those persons who supply strong alcohol to these young people. I have often found, in assisting to run youth clubs and youth organizations that young persons of 16 years of age whom I know are still schoolgoing, have arrived at these functions under the influence of liquor. When I have asked them where they obtained the strong liquor, the reply in nearly all instances has been that they have been drinking at a bar lounge. I believe that this habit of our younger generation to partake of strong liquor is something which has a serious effect on our community and which aggravates our social problems. I am not alone in stating this particular point, because I would like to remind the House that the National Welfare Organizations conference that was held in 1956 also urged the Government to take steps in regard to the question of young persons partaking of strong liquor and also called upon the Government and other welfare organizations and churches to bring to the notice of our young people, our future generation, the dangers of liquor and excessive drinking. For instance, the recommendation of the National Welfare Organizations Board in 1956 was that legislation should be introduced to prohibit advertisements which misled the public by creating the impression that alcohol helps, amongst other things, to make one physically fit and strong. They then went on to suggest—

These are recommendations and suggestions which were made by the National Welfare Organizations Board as far back as 1956. I do hope that this Advisory Board to the Minister will take into account all these various trends and difficulties which arise in regard to our future generation. The use of strong liquor amongst our young people should, I believe, receive the attention of this Board, and an effort should be made particularly amongst the children to show them the danger of partaking of strong liquor.

There are other aspects in regard to this Bill, such as the question of dealing with those persons who are not necessarily alcoholics but are habitual won’t-works. This is another important matter because we know that in a city such as Durban, during almost every holiday season there is an invasion of what are known as young battlers. These young persons make a living by begging a few shillings or a few cents off different persons and often become a public nuisance, particularly at places of entertainment; they can often be seen congregating outside cinemas, particularly when there are midnight shows. Sir, the police are not in a position to do anything in regard to these persons. The police cannot take any action against them unless they can be arrested for vagrancy, and many of them cannot be so arrested because they might have a few rand on them. They cannot therefore be arrested for vagrancy, although there are cases where they are brought before a magistrate and told to leave the city. Now, with the provisions of this Bill I hope that it will be possible to take some action against many of these persons who do not come under the Children’s Act, because up to the age of 18 they can be taken before a Children’s Court, but if they are over the age of 18 there is nothing that can be done to bring about a rehabilitation of these young persons. I believe that with the shortage of manpower in South Africa we must utilize every possible means to rehabilitate those persons who are habitual won’t-works. Provided careful investigation is made, I believe that a great deal of benefit can be derived from these rehabilitation centres, provided that the persons who are committed there are persons who will benefit by the treatment that will be made available. At the same time good use should be made of the provision in this Bill for the postponement of a committal order so that the person concerned can be treated within the community. On the question of social welfare officers provision is made whereby inmates may be released on licence and placed under the care of a social welfare officer or any other designated person. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position to state whether he has sufficient staff to maintain proper supervision in regard to these persons who are released on licence. If not, there is also provision made that they can be released into the care of some person or society, and if that is to be the case I think the hon. the Minister should make some provision whereby that person or that society can obtain some form of financial assistance from the State, because these welfare organizations, of course, are encouraged by the State and receive certain subsidies. But there are often other aspects of welfare work in respect of which no subsidy is paid. For instance, at the Lulama treatment centre in Durban a social welfare worker on the staff of that organization is not receiving any subsidy from the Government. I believe that where these persons are to be committed to the care of a society such as a welfare organization, some provision must be made to give them financial assistance. Sir, the question of placing people under the care of social welfare officers in terms of a postponement order so that they can receive their treatment within the community, is indeed a very important aspect and one which is stressed in the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee of Inquiry into the treatment of alcoholics. As I mentioned earlier it is indeed a drastic step to remove persons from their community. We often find that when they return to society they are shunned by their friends; they find it exceedingly difficult to find employment and often they find that their whole domestic life has been upset and that their family unit has completely disintegrated. Often because of domestic problems which prey on their minds these persons abscond from our present work colonies. I hope that that particular aspect will receive as much attention as possible, and also the other important aspect of after-care hostels. We know that in terms of the Work Colonies Act of 1949 provision was made for after-care hostels, but unfortunately the State has not been able to establish any of these after-care hostels. I understand there are certain approved aftercare hostels that do receive a subsidy from the Government and naturally they must be encouraged. Wherever possible I believe that the services of welfare organizations must be used to the full. But at the same time I feel that where the State sees that it is necessary to do so, they should endeavour to establish these after-care hostels which will be of great assistance to those persons who have been released on licence or discharged from these retreats and rehabilitation centres. Often these persons who are released on licence disappear completely after they have come back into the community where they are required to report to a social welfare officer. They perhaps find that life outside the institution is not what it used to be. They then move on to another town and one loses track of them completely. In no time those same persons are back again at an institution. All the good work that has been done, all the treatment that has been given to them, all the specialized treatment at that institution, has then been wasted. I think a vital link in the whole pattern of rehabilitation is to have sufficient after-care hostels where these persons can receive the necessary guidance and discipline and assistance to get on to their feet in the community again.

The question of the approved hostels is provided for in Clause 11. In terms of Clause 12 these organizations can receive financial aid from the Central Government, and I hope that where there are organizations which are willing to establish these approved hostels, no difficulties will be placed in their way in getting the necessary financial assistance from the Government. The question of the committal of a person and his retention in an institution is another matter of vital concern because the Bill contains drastic provisions in regard to the committal of a person to an institution. For instance, it is provided that on the first committal that person shall be committed for a period of three years, and should that person subsequently be committed to an institution, he is committed indefinitely. I think it is a very drastic step to commit a person for an indefinite period. I believe that some form of appeal, should be made available to the inmate so that he can obtain his release. Provision is made that the Minister may release such inmates at some subsequent time, but I do feel that the provision that the second committal shall be for an indefinite period is an extremely drastic one.

“Indefinite period” means the period until he is released. It may be two years or 18 months. You can keep him there for an indefinite period.

That is my objection. I think it should not be as vague as that; he should not just be left there indefinitely. I think there should be a maximum period that he can be detained at that institution.

We do not want to lay down a maximum period because if a person is put in an institution for three years, it does not mean that he stays there for three years. He can be released at any time within the three years.

I wonder if the Minister has any objection as far as the subsequent period is concerned to say that a person may be detained there for a period of three years or less. As it stands now it is merely an indefinite period. The first committal is for a period of three years or less. The second time, however, he may be committed to the institution for life. [Interjection.] As my hon. friend here says, there cannot be anything more “maximum” than “indefinite”. It does appear here that the committal for the first time will be for a period of at least three years or it might be less should he be released on licence, but his subsequent committal is for an indefinite period, and I believe that this provision is too wide and too drastic in its present form. However, there are other members on this side of the House who wish to comment on that particular aspect.

Sir, with these comments I would like to say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we view this Bill as a great step forward in regard to the rehabilitation of alcoholics and other maladjusted persons, and we do hope that this measure will produce better results in regard to rehabilitation. The latest available figures show that just over 40 per cent of those persons committed to work colonies have been successfully rehabilitated. I hope that in terms of this new legislation, this new charter for persons who have become the victims of the disease of alcoholism and for other maladjusted persons, greater success will be achieved than in the past and therefore we wish this Bill well.

It is gratifying to find so much unanimity in the House to-day. But that was to be expected, because I am convinced that this Bill will be approved of by all the people in the country. I am convinced that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are grateful to the Minister for having had the courage of his convictions in introducing this Bill. I am certain that even long after he has gone, this Act will still stand as a monument to his love for his people and the services he rendered to them.

Amongst other things this Bill provides for the appointment of a National Advisory Alcoholism Board. The function of this board will be to advise the. Minister in matters affecting alcoholism or in regard to any other matter which they want to bring to the notice of the Minister, or which the Minister entrusts to them. A further function of the board is to co-ordinate the various services, particularly in regard to treatment. Treatment, as you know, takes place in various spheres There is danger of overlapping, and therefore it is a good thing that this board will be a co-ordinating factor. But there is another function, namely the conducting of research in regard to the causes and the treatment of alcoholism; the initiation and the planning of research. I hope that the board will regard research as its main function. We know so little in regard to alcoholism. What we dish up so facilely as facts is mainly based on guesswork and therefore I believe that research on a much higher level will have to be done. We heard a moment ago from the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. Venter) that there are experts who consider that the causes are to be found only in physiological disturbances. It is impossible to consider at this stage that there can be only one cause of alcoholism and therefore I say that research should be done on a very wide physiological level, seeing that it is maintained that its cause lies in malnutrition or in a glandular disturbance, or that it is perhaps due to factors of heredity. Research will have to be done in both the psychological and in the sociological spheres Others again think that the whole problem can be solved if only the ethical principles of the deviate concerned can be set right again if he can be brought back to his religion again. There are many such contentions, and therefore I hope that this Advisory Board will regard research as its main function, because there must be factors which contribute towards whether a man is likely to become an alcoholic or not. We so easily say that alcoholism breaks up family life. That may be so; I am not denying it, but it will be interesting, if research is done, to determine to what extent a broken-up family causes a man to become an alcoholic. It would be interesting if research could ascertain to what extent these realistic advertisements one sees in regard to liquor influence the young man or woman in becoming an alcoholic in future. We all know how realistically parties or picnics where liquor is consumed are depicted in the cinema, in the Press and in periodicals, as if liquor can be substituted for good food. When one notes that bottles stores advertise even in school magazines, one begins to wonder whether a limitation should not be placed on those very realistic advertisements for liquor.

The basic idea of this Bill is education and rehabilitation. It is the continuation and the extension of the policy already accepted in 1949 in the Work Colonies Act, but we now go further and try to separate the criminal aspect from the alcoholic aspect. We try to remove the stigma. We try to keep the person out of prison, and the emphasis in this Bill is therefore not laid on punishment but on training and rehabilitation so as to become worthy citizens. That is why provision is made for physical education and for mental development and treatment. That is also why provision is made that the person’s doctor, who is responsible for his physical health, will have a say and will be allowed to help him; and that is why there is provision for the psychiatrist to be able to treat his mental condition. That is also why the social worker will play his role in trying to remedy the social problems of the person. It is also gratifying to see that provision is made for such a person to have the necessary contact with his Minister, who can help him to find his bearings again. The whole idea is to get away from the idea of imprisonment. Isolation in a prison leads to despair, but with this assistance which is given to the alcoholic he will be given a new courage and new hope for the future. I want to emphasize what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said, namely that until such time as the contrary is proved we must accept that the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the fact that the alcoholic is a sick person. Until such time as the contrary is proved, we must treat him as such and he must be given all the privileges which any other sick person would enjoy if he went to hospital. If we do it in that way, we can confidently expect the co-operation of everybody concerned, and we can also expect to receive the co-operation and the gratitude of those whom this Bill is intended to help. I just want to refer for a moment to the fact that provision is made for separate institutions for the various population groups in our country. I do not mention that with a view to the political aspect. I just want to emphasize that I regard it as essential that the person should receive treatment amongst his own people. The alcoholic has a better chance of being cured if he is treated in the environment to which he is accustomed, and find himself amongst people who understand him. I want to emphasize the question of after-care to which other hon. members have already referred. It is essential that before a person is sent back into the world, employment should be obtained for him. I wonder whether it is not perhaps part of the duty of the State to make provision for such people in the Public Service, even though only temporarily. It is absolutely essential that there should be no stigma at all attaching to such a person when he is released. There must be no sense of guilt. Everything possible must be done to help this person and to prevent him from backsliding. Everything possible should be done to train him to be a worthy citizen. The method of community treatment proposed in this Bill will largely be an experiment, but I believe it will be a good experiment and I am convinced that it will not only help the man and his family economically, but that it will assist him to regain his self-confidence more quickly and in that way make him a more stable member of society.

I just want to say a word in regard to the financial assistance. From what I hear, the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism is not being well supported by the public as regards funds at all. I am told that they always have to struggle to carry on. It is a pity that it is so. It is gratifying to see that in terms of this Bill the Department will grant greater financial support to these organizations, and that the State is prepared to do more. I just want to mention one aspect which will perhaps be unpopular in certain circles. I want to suggest that it be considered whether it is not possible that the liquor industry should make provision for funds for research either by way of voluntary donations or by way of special taxation. One can argue the point; I do not want to go into it, but I just mention it as a possibility. Should not this industry which is perhaps the indirect cause of the problem of these people make its contribution by providing the necessary funds for research in order to assist these people? In other words, I want to associate myself with the remarks of former speakers in welcoming this Bill.

Far be it for me to answer many of the points made by the hon. member who has just sat down on which he is so qualified to speak save the point which he emphasized and which was originally made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that he was very pleased to see that the alcoholic was now to be treated rather as a sick person than something in the nature of a social misfit. I welcome that part of this Bill particularly which gives to the courts of this country the opportunity, indeed in many instances obliges the court, to treat alcoholics as patients. The experience of many of us who practise in our courts has been that where you have clients who are alcoholics there is nothing the court can do to treat them on a different basis from any other person. I am very pleased to see those provisions in this Bill relating to these people.

The hon. member who has just sat down, like many other hon. members before him, has followed the hon. Minister in referring to this Bill as if it dealt only with alcoholics. The hon. Minister’s speech when he introduced the Bill at the second reading was based on the assumption that this Bill dealt with alcoholics. Indeed, Sir, the inter-departmental commission which sat on this Bill was specifically referred to the question of alcoholism. The terms of reference of this commission were to inquire into, to take evidence, and to report as soon as convenient upon methods of treatment to be applied in the rehabilitation of alcoholics bearing in mind the services rendered in this regard by the Department, the adequacy of these services rendered by the Department and welfare organizations in relation to alcoholics. In talking about the need for an inquiry the commission says that the need for an inquiry has arisen from the increasing interest in comparatively recent times by the State and private initiative in rehabilitation services to alcoholics. There is no doubt that all the attention that was directed to this Bill was directed to a Bill to deal with alcoholics. Everyone who has spoken so far talked to it on that basis. The hon. member for Rosettenville also mentioned some people who, although they may not be alcoholics were somewhat in extremis, i.e. tramps, hoboes, and beggars.

The Bill, as it stands, appears to me to go much further than that. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance as to the sort of person this Bill is intended to cover. I wish to refer particularly to Clause 14. According to Clause 14 the sort of person who may be brought before a magistrate and who may be committed to one of these institutions fall into five categories. In almost all of these it is probable that the person has got to that stage because of drink. In only one of these categories is the person definitely identified as an alcoholic and that is category (b), a person who is addicted to drink or drugs and in consequence thereof squanders his means or injures his health or endangers the peace or in any other manner does harm to his own welfare or the welfare of his family. That is the only category which specifically deals with alcoholics. Sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) do not necessarily deal with alcoholics. They deal with a number of people who, by reason of the circumstances set out in this clause, are social misfits. Tramps, beggars and hoboes are definitely dealt with here. These are people who are in extremis socially. If one looks at the last of these categories namely a person who leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life, I think we are going perhaps a little further than even the category of alcoholics or that extraordinary category of people to whom the hon. member for Rosettenville has referred. As the clause stands I think we might be covering the type or person who is simply leading an idle life. For myself, and I hope the Minister agrees with me, the man who leads an idle life, while committing no social indiscretion (or perhaps committing many social indiscretions) is not a person whose social freedom should be restricted. And I do not believe the Minister has in mind to deal with such a person. I go so far as to say that even if the Bill were passed in this form a person leading a dissolute life but not doing any harm to anybody would not be committed by a magistrate. But it seems to me that under this clause you may well be able to call in that class of social phenomenon which our society has produced called the ducktail. The hon. Minister nods his head.

No, I am not nodding my head; I cannot quite hear what you are saying.

I hope the Minister will tell us whether a ducktail, if I may use the expression to describe the sort of person I have in mind, is in fact to be included under this provision. Because, if so, I think this House ought to have a little more information relating to these people as to whether this is the proper way of dealing with the problem of duck-tails. I do not believe it is and I do not believe that the hon. Minister intended this Bill to cover ducktails because the Minister did not mention them at all in his speech. Indeed the Bill which is a replica almost of the Bill which was framed and adopted by the inter-departmental committee during the recess makes no mention of these people. I wonder whether the provisions for rehabilitation, in so far as they may apply to alcoholics—I accept that they do; I am not qualified to say whether they do; I accept medical opinion that this Bill is necessary for the treatment of alcoholics—can be applied to solve the problem of ducktails. The investigations certainly did not go so far and I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that this Bill is not intended to meet this position. I hope the Minister will, when we come to the Committee Stage, give consideration to any amendments that may be moved in regard to this matter. Whatever the position is, Mr. Speaker, whether or not this Bill is intended to cover the group of people I have mentioned, what I want to point out to the Minister applies in any event; it applies more to those people who are not alcoholics but who are committed in terms of this Bill. Because, whether or not the places to which these people are to go are prisons— I accept they will obviously not be prisons— whether a stigma will attach to those people (the Minister said there would not be; be that as it may), the fact of the matter remains that these people are to be deprived of their liberty for a certain period. This is a very important circumstance in the lives of these people. It is true that they are deprived of their liberty by the court. The court goes into the matter, it hears evidence in the matter, the person who is to become an inmate has representation, if he wishes to, all the facts are placed before the court, that is true.

But he is nevertheless deprived of his liberty for a period which can be three years; it may be less. Throughout this period there is no way in which, on his own accord, the person who is so detained is able, as a right, to have his case reviewed by the same authority who put him in there, i.e. the court. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has dealt with this matter. In terms of Clause 19 if a person is detained for the first time he is detained for a period of three years. It is true that he may be released before that period on the recommendation of somebody like the hon. the Minister. But on the second occasion he may be there indefinitely unless some recommendation is made for his earlier release. The point is, however, that the release he gets is a release in the discretion of and ordered by an executive or administrative authority, not by the court. In saying this I am not doubting at all the bona fides of the doctors and officials concerned with it but there may well be circumstances where someone should be released before his period is over.

In this regard the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) has said—and I think this is accepted by everyone in this House—that if there is one thing we know very little about it is alcoholism. We know very little about the treatment of alcoholism. I accept what my medical friends tell me that in treating an alcoholic you need a minimum period of one year in which he should be detained and kept in an institution. That may well be so. But do we know enough about alcoholism to say that the man should be detained in the discretion of those persons who are in charge of these institutions without having a recourse to a court as of right to have his case reviewed even if that review only takes place after the expiration of one year but before the three years have elapsed. I was shattered to hear the hon. member for Rosettenville say that there are 100,000 alcoholics in South Africa. I do not know how many beggars tramps and hobos there are But if there are a 100,000 alcoholics I shudder to think how overcrowded our institutions are going to become. We have had experience in this country of the overcrowding of our mental institutions. As soon as these institutions become so overcrowded you open the door to administrative mistakes or to the possibility of people administratively overlooking cases which should be reviewed and which the staff does not have the time to review.

I want to emphasize that I think this is a very bold experiment. I support this Bill wholeheartedly because I believe it is a way of dealing with alcoholism.

In saying that I bear in mind these other categories that I have mentioned. As far as they are concerned, while so little is known about alcoholism, even less is known about the difficulties and the reasons for the appearance on our social scene of this phenomena amongst our young people, namely the ducktail problem. I hope the Minister will have sympathy with the amendments that will be moved, amendments that will give to the inmates of these institutions the right, although it may only be after a certain period as far as alcoholics are concerned, to go to court to have their case reviewed and get their release from what will otherwise be an incarceration unnecessarily for a much longer period than they should be there.

As far as this Bill is concerned it is extremely wide in relation to Clause 14. Will the Minister give us an assurance that this Bill is not intended to deal with the problems of duck-tails or with social misfits but that it is intended only to deal with alcoholics. If that is so I hope the Minister would accept an amendment when the appropriate time comes to limit the operations of this Bill to alcoholics and perhaps to the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville, i.e. beggars, tramps and hoboes. These latter categories are extreme cases but as far as the ducktails are concerned I hope the nod of the Minister’s head did not indicate that this Bill was meant to deal with ducktails because I do not think there is any basis upon which this House can pass this Bill to deal with ducktails. I accept it is to deal with alcoholics and I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to just how far it is intended to go and as to his attitude towards the amendments which will be moved giving to the inmates the right to have their cases reviewed before the expiration of the three years.

I have listened very attentively to the speeches dealing with what is probably one of the biggest problems not only in South Africa but throughout the world in general. I am very glad that this House is able to give its attention in a calm atmosphere to a matter which to a very large extent affects the future of our nation. I could not follow the previous speaker very well. He supports the Bill as far as alcoholism is concerned, but he does not want it to be applied to “ducktails”. I should have been pleased if he had added “cocktails” because I think there is a close link between the two. I think there would be fewer ducktails if there were fewer cocktails. I welcome the changed outlook in this House and even in the Department. On behalf of those people who think as I do, I want to convey my thanks to the Minister for the change which he has brought about in his Department. I remember that a senior official of his Department said some time ago that in rearing a baby one must remember that wine has a greater nutrition value than milk. To-day we have the position that the Government and the Minister have come forward with legislation which will be welcomed by every person who has the welfare of our people at heart. As far as this Bill is concerned I think it will be welcomed even by those people who regard others as narrow-minded and as “spoilsports”.

I was surprised to hear from the hon. member who spoke first this afternoon that he regards alcoholism as a disease. I think the hon. member will remember that when he was at university his professor often told him that alcoholism was the cause of this, that or the other illness, but I do not think any professor ever told him that alcoholism as such was a disease. Alcoholism is the new name for something which we do not like to call by its correct name. I am very glad that the medical practitioners have taken part in this debate. When I go to a medical practitioner and ask him what is the cause of my illness, I expect him to call a spade a spade and to tell me what the disease is and what the cause of it is. I expect him to tell me that I am overindulging in this, that or the other respect and that that is the cause of my illness. This afternoon, however, I heard medical practitioners talk about ways of treating the disease after the person has become ill, but I did not hear one of them say what was the cause of it. There would have been less alcoholism but for a certain fruit. If we had no liquor in this country it would not have been necessary to take measures to combat this disease. I personally do not believe that it is a disease. If one calls alcoholism a disease then one can also call smoking a disease; one can call dagga-smoking a disease; one can call overindulgence in food or anything else a disease. If the consumption of liquor is a disease then there is just about nothing on earth which is not a disease. Since we are discussing this Bill this afternoon, I also hope that the time will never come in this House when the proposal will be put forward that we should discuss the causes of what we want to obviate here this afternoon. I hope that we shall never make it easier for persons than it is for them to-day to become the victims of this disease which we are trying to combat to-day. If the medical practitioners on both sides of the House who spoke this afternoon apply in practice what they said here this afternoon, and that is simply to tell people how they can get rid of the disease without telling them what the cause of it is, then I would not want any one of them to be my doctor.

I do not want to deal with the clauses in detail because that can be done in the Committee Stage. I want to pose the general question, however, whether this House is aware of the role which alcoholism plays. I differ from those medical practitioners who say that it is only a certain group of people in the higher strata who suffer from this disease. That may be the case in their own practices. There is a large group of people, however, who never go to medical practitioners and who are the victims of alcoholism. There is no gainsaying the fact that the greatest troubles in this country are caused by the misuse of liquor. I think if you go to the mental asylums and institute investigations there and ask the physicians why people are committed to mental asylums, they will tell you that the misuse of alcohol is the cause in many cases. If you go to our courts of law you will find that in many cases the misuse of liquor is the cause of the breaking up of families or the unhappiness that one finds in many families. In many cases, when troubles of any kind arise, one finds that they were caused by the misuse of liquor. If there had been no abuse of liquor it would not have been necessary to appoint a committee to inquire what can be done in this matter and this Bill would not have been before the House to-day either. That is why my plea to this House to-day is that when opportunities present themselves to discuss the causes of accidents and of the appalling conditions that we see in our streets and that we find in certain homes, the matter should be discussed in this House, as we are doing to-day, on its merits in the interests of our nation. I do not want to go into this at greater length. I just want to express my thanks to the Minister and his Department, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that this legislation which he has introduced here to-day will do more good than any legislation, perhaps with the exception of two or three measures, which has been introduced in this House over the past 25 years since I have been a member.

You should add a little water, my friend!

Some people only use water to have a bath. Fortunately I use water for other purposes as well. But I want to give the Minister the assurance that anything which the Government does to strengthen the morals of this nation or to combat diseases and evils, will have the full support of the nation. I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) rather put his foot into it when he said towards the end of his speech that he wished to exclude sick persons who drive motor-cars. But surely if one is ill one cannot help it. Whether one drives a motor-car or a train or rides a bicycle, if one is ill then one is ill. This only goes to show that alcoholism is not a disease but that it does cause many illnesses which reduce people to such a state that they become a danger not only to their families but also to members of the public in the street.

I want to say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that we possibly do not all lead the blameless life that he appears to lead. Apparently he is going against all modern medical knowledge when he is denying the fact that alcoholism is in fact considered as a sickness. In any country that has any pretentions to modern practice of medicine, alcoholism is treated not as a crime but as an illness, and people are rehabilitated on those grounds. The hon. member talks about discussing this Bill in a calm atmosphere. I think he would possibly have been more relevant if he has said that we would discuss it in a sober atmosphere, and that of course is what I intend to do. I want to point out to the hon. member that there was more alcoholism in the United States in the days of prohibition than there has been since those days. When prohibition was enforced, evil results of drinking were far more noticeable than is, for instance, the case in the United States to-day when prohibition has been withdrawn. The hon. member should realize that it is not easy to impose restrictions on other people, according to his own particular standard of behaviour. Drinking of alcohol is one of the things which, in fact, mankind has been accustomed to for a long time and as long as it is done in moderation, a large number of people do not think that it is as serious a matter as the hon. member for Mossel Bay deems it to be. But when it is not done in moderation it becomes alcoholism and it becomes a danger to society, it becomes an illness and it must be treated as such. Like other members on this side, I want to tell the hon. Minister that I am very glad that this Bill has been introduced, because I believe that it is an important improvement in many respects. I believe for instance the recognition of the basic principle that one must treat alcoholics in a way different from criminals. But there are other things too which have brought about improvements in the existing situation. I see that in the hon. Minister’s speech when introducing the second reading, he mentioned that the ideal is to set up a national plan of action to cope with the problem of alcoholism, and he mentioned inter alia: (a) The expansion of hospital and other facilities for the treatment of alcoholics in the community; (b) the establishment of one centralized complex of State retreats for Whites and one for Coloureds where alcoholics may be compelled to undergo treatment. In passing, Sir, I want to ask the hon. Minister if he means to exclude Bantu alcoholics, or does his use of the word “Coloureds” in this instance include anybody who is not European? I would be interested to know whether he specifically meant or did not mean to exclude Africans from sub-section (b). Then the hon. Minister went on to mention the expansion of private institutions for the treatment of alcoholics, separated from the community, and the expansion of social, supervisory and after-care services by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in co-operation with private welfare organizations. I believe that all that is going to be of the greatest value to this country, and I think all of us are very pleased indeed that the hon. Minister is indeed visualizing an overall plan of action which goes outside the scope of the Bill that we are considering to-day.

Having said that, I want to say one or two things about the clauses of the Bill which I feel could possibly be improved. I firstly come to Clause 4, which has already been mentioned by other speakers, the “purposes for which persons are detained in retreat or rehabilitation centres” for rehabilitation. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is contemplating, and I hope he is, a change in the existing situation, whereby persons who up to now have been confined to work colonies have been put on hard physical labour in fact. I have had letters from people at Sonderwater and other institutions complaining that when they arrived there as alcoholics, having been sentenced to a term of detention of three years, they were simply put on pick-and-shovel work. I sincerely hope that in terms of this new Bill, the hon. Minister is not contemplating a continuation of that system, which I think is absolutely useless. First of all people who are alcoholics are sick, they are physically debilitated, and putting them on pick-and-shovel work is not going to rehabilitate them.

They must be built up physically.

You do not build up sick people by putting them on hard physical work. You first cure the illness from which they are suffering and then you attempt to give them the sort of physical work of which they are capable. But certainly an habitual alcoholic is not capable of hard labour of the pick-and-shovel type, which if the letters to me are to be believed, is the sort of work on which they have been put at Sonderwater as well as at some of the other institutions. The hon. Minister mentioned Sonderwater in his second-reading speech in terms of considerable praise. I must say that I have had a letter written by a man who is obviously well educated, a letter incidentally signed by six people, all of whom are inmates of Sonderwater. I hope the House will excuse me from disclosing these names as I have been specifically asked not to do so, but I would be prepared to show this letter to the hon. Minister for him to act on, provided of course, as I am sure he would do, he would give me his assurance that there will be no victimization of any kind. But I must say that according to this letter, the type of work to which the alcoholics have been subjected is hard physical work, they complain about the food, they complain that the people put in charge of them are people without any experience, without any training, or rather any education in the handling of alcoholics and that they are summarily categorized by these people. If they commit any breach of the rules of the institution, they suffer severe penalties, simply on the categorization by such people who are in charge. There are various other complaints. I think the handling of those people certainly requires a change and I hope that Clause 4 (a), which makes mention of the physical condition to be improved by means of physical training, does not envisage the sort of hard labour that work colony inmates had been subjected to in the past.

There are one or two other things I want to mention. In Clause 14, I think there ought to be some time limit in this definition in respect of the person who can be sent to a rehabilitation centre, or retreat, for a period of up to three years and possibly longer. It surely should be a question of a person who habitually squanders his means of livelihood, or who habitually does not support his family. As far as I can make out from Clause 14 there is no time limit imposed as to the length of time in which a person has been squandering his means of livelihood by betting, gambling or otherwise and who fails to provide for his own support or for that of any dependant. Is it six months, a year, two years? What time limit is there before a person is committed to a retreat or a rehabilitation centre?

Sub-section (4) of this Clause 14 also should be explained in a little more detail in so far as the term “ engaged in remunerated work” does not appear to include persons who are self-employed, persons for instance who are running their own agencies, or door-to-door salesmen. I realize that very often that is rather an unreliable form of earning one’s living, but nevertheless “remunerated work” may, strictly defined, be taken to mean somebody who is getting a wage or a salary. I wonder if the hon. Minister here contemplated self-employed people as well, and again if there is any time limit within which these people may appear to have been habitually unremunerated.

I want to say that I think Clause 15 (1) (c) is a very good clause, and I also think that sub-section (5) is a very good sub-section because up to now I do not think that a person who was on the point of being submitted to treatment at one of the centres, had the opportunity of defending himself, but now that opportunity is being given to him. I wonder if the hon. Minister has contemplated making sub-section (4) of Clause 15 also obligatory, in other words, that the magistrate holding an inquiry “shall” direct that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is being held be examined by a district surgeon or by a psychiatrist. Once we have decided that alcoholism is a sickness and that it should be treated medically, it seems to me that it is desirable to make it obligatory that the magistrate should get the opinion of a trained psychiatrist in this regard. I am glad that it is now obligatory for the magistrate to get a report from a social welfare officer. That is an improvement, but it is the next sub-section that worries me, and I would be prepared to move an amendment in Committee, but it is just possible that the hon. Minister may have some reasonable explanation, in which case I would not like to waste the time of the Committee by moving such an amendment. I believe that Clause 15 is a great improvement in so far as it enables the postponement of commitment. I am a bit worried about this question of the three years as a sort of minimum period, although I realize that a person can be released sooner. But laying down that the initial commitment must be a period of three years, seems to me a bit lengthy in view of modern treatment of alcoholics, and I wonder whether the specific period of three years should be inserted, even though I realize that a person can be released at an earlier stage. Would the hon. Minister give more details in this respect in view of existing medical practice to-day as far as the treatment of alcoholism is concerned?

I want to conclude by saying again that this Bill is a great improvement and I will certainly support the second reading of this Bill.

I regard this Bill as one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced in this House this Session. In my opinion it really has a broader significance than just the combating of alcoholism. In saying that I want to pose the question at once whether the time has not come when alcoholism should be dealt with in a Bill as a separate problem, because I regard the key to this Bill as Clause 14. That clause relates to five classes of persons. The first consists of those whom I would call wasters, people who because of misconduct neglect or fail to support their families. I regard them as the wasters; the second class consists of those who are addicted to liquor and drugs; the third class consists of the beggars and the fourth of the hoboes, people who do not earn an honest living, and the last category consists of what I would call the tsotsis, the “ducktails Five classes of persons are really dealt with here therefore, and we have to do here with legislation dealing with the consequences of modern social life. We are not dealing here with the causes but with the consequences of modern social life. Everyone of these five classes of persons is the product of our modern social life. What we are dealing with here is really a sociological problem in the main. I do not want to go as far as some speakers have done and concentrate entirely on alcoholism, because the immediate cause of alcoholism is probably of a physiological nature. It is probably a disease, a disease of the body, but that disease of the body owes its origin to a psychological cause, probably inhibition, frustration, which in turn is due to the fact that the person is a misfit in society. The sociological, psychological and physiological causes are interrelated therefore but they do not arise simultaneously; the one follows upon the other. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) was perfectly correct therefore in saying that we must not place too much emphasis on the “ducktail” but rather on the cocktail. In discussing the causes, we must seek those causes in modern society. Since I want to view this Bill from a broad angle, I do not propose to confine myself to alcoholism alone. I also want to deal with the other four classes, to whom very little reference is made in this Bill, although practically all of them are going to be treated alike. I want to pose the question therefore whether the board which is going to be appointed should not be a board dealing with alcoholism and maladjustment. Why is it a board dealing only with alcoholics and not with maladjusted persons as well, because, after all, there are other maladjusted groups of persons who should be dealt with in terms of this Bill. And if it is not the intention to deal with these other maladjusted persons, is the obvious course not to introduce a Bill dealing with alcoholism only and to deal with this matter as a separate subject?

I think the position of the wasters, the position of the beggars, is just as much a problem to society as that of the alcoholics. I should like to put this matter in the right perspective therefore. We cannot deal with alcoholism as a separate subject. There are also the other maladjusted persons who form part of our society and who need our attention just as much as the alcoholics.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, it prescribes a particular legal procedure as to how the various classes of persons have to be dealt with before they are committed to certain institutions. I want to put a few questions, and I do so not because I do not welcome the Bill. I wholeheartedly support the Bill; I think this is a big step forward, but I do want to ask whether we are not sticking to the letter of the law too much by still following the old procedure of going through the courts in committing these people to institutions? It is the very fact that we use the machinery of the courts that places a stigma on such a person, the stigma of being a criminal. By going through the courts we place a stigma on that person. He is then regarded not as a maladjusted person or a person who is ill but as a criminal, because he is committed to a certain institution by the magistrate. Has the time not come when we should seriously consider the question of introducing a different procedure and getting away from the old procedure that had to be followed under our Criminal and Procedure Act in dealing with these persons? To a large extent we are still following the procedure of having these persons committed to an institution by the magistrate, by the court.

If a person who is an alcoholic wants to be committed of his own free will to a place where he can be treated, he still has to follow the old procedure of going through a magistrate; the magistrate first has to deal with his case even if he wishes to go voluntarily. The stigma then attaches to him that he appeared before the court. If I contract an ordinary illness I go to hospital without having to go via the magistrate. I feel that alcoholism is a disease, and if that is so it should not be necessary for people to be committed by a magistrate. I feel that we already have the necessary social welfare machinery in South Africa to be able to deal with such cases without going through the magistrate. We have the necessary machinery. When I say “we” I mean our modern society. We are really responsible for all five classes of people with whom we are dealing here. It is our responsibility as a modern society, because modern society is responsible for this. In the pre-war period we had few of these cases. Alcoholism is par excellence a phenomenon of modern life. Wasters, gamblers, people who go to races, are the products of modern life. The same applies to hoboes. In our childhood days I never came across a hobo on the road. It is a phenomenon of modern life and I think it is the responsibility of modern society to look after these people. We are responsible for it and we must not attach the stigma to them that they are criminals.

I heartily welcome this Bill because it distinguishes between alcoholics and other maladjusted persons, but I want to draw a further distinction. I should like to see that we also distinguish between the other groups of maladjusted persons. The Minister has the power under Clause 2 to draw that distinction, and I should like this distinction to be carried further so that the waster will not be put into the same category as the hobo; so that the tsotsis will not be grouped together with alcoholics. We should draw that distinction and place each category in its own institution.

There is another point in this Bill which I heartily welcome and that is that provision is being made for a certain amount of aftercare. However, I just want to say that in my opinion the period of after-care is too short. I think it should be slightly longer, and that also applies to those persons who voluntarily ask that they should be committed. I think the period of six months should be extended because we have ample medical evidence that it takes a minimum period of 12 months to rehabilitate an alcoholic. Where a person voluntarily presents himself for treatment the maximum period should not be six months as provided for in the Bill; it should be a longer period so that he can be completely rehabilitated. I want to congratulate the Minister most heartily on this Bill. In bringing this Bill before the House he has rendered a service to the community.

I accept naturally the principle of the establishment of these proposed rehabilitation centres. I accept this Bill wholeheartedly, but with a certain amount of misgiving because of the drafting of one or two of the clauses. In the years after the war, the question of alcoholism, which is one of the curses at which this Bill is aimed, created great difficulties. When a war breaks out, Mr. Speaker, any knights of the road that there are in existence immediately join up for various reasons, mostly their own, and on demobilization, they are thrown back on society with others who through weakness of character or as a result of their war experiences, seek solace in drink and sink to a mode of life which we have seen, bringing hell to their families and friends and to themselves. At one time the organization I had the honour to be with had a file on each and everyone of these knights of the road—those unfortunate chaps who had been drunks or tramps before the war, and the others much younger, who joined this unhappy band, and I am pleased to say, very pleased to say, that over the years, many, very many, of these men found their place in life again. In those days, Mr. Speaker, we had many, many discussions on the question of bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the time to take compulsory powers to put these fellows inside for the benefit of the country and the people of the country. The idea was of course to put them into retreats not in goals. Mr. Speaker, in those days, not so very long ago, many a man was in favour of allowing another man to go to hell in his own way if he wanted to, as long as he was causing no great disturbance in the country. Notwithstanding the arguments, that I have heard again to-day about their way of life bringing sorrow to families, friends and relatives, in those days we decided against pressing for compulsion, and I know and every hon. member here must know, of men who redeemed themselves, men who were in the gutter and who suddenly found their manhood again and mastered this dreadful disease. I would be surprised if there is a single member of this House who does not know of such cases. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned those who left the army and who became alcoholics and brought sorrow and shame to those around them. They were civilians, joined the forces and became civilians again and as civilians, citizens, most of them found their place again and can now hold their heads high without having been compulsorily confined for three years. Mr. Speaker, many years have passed since I dealt with such matters, and it seems to me that the world has gone backwards. Where I could find it in me to stand by my comrades in those days, comrades who stood by me, I find it more difficult now to stand by men and women who are stricken by what my doctor friends now call a disease. When I say “I find it more difficult to stand by them”, I mean that I find it more difficult to take up the standpoint that there must be no compulsion which this Bill now brings in regard to their going into retreats. Present-day life may be more difficult and the future may look more dangerous, but there seems to be to-day an easing of the social conventions and a disregard of the teachings of our fathers which can only bring unhappiness and misery in the future and which definitely demands the intervention of the State. It is with a heavy heart, therefore, that I have come around to agree that there must be compulsory powers of committal in certain cases, but in some respects this Bill goes too far. It could be that a man passes his life in a rosy glow without ever being objectionable or breaking the law, and he is perhaps just lucky enough not to have to work for a living and he is still a fellow one is always pleased to meet. But as this Bill is drafted, such a man could be committed for three years. It is no use someone saying it cannot happen. If there is such a provision in the law, it may be implemented at some time, and this man will be put inside for three years with no right to appeal to the courts but only to the Minister, who in terms of the Bill would have to refer to the management committee of this institution. In this respect the Bill is much too drastic. I refer again to men whom most of us know, men who have redeemed themselves and have reformed themselves, and who have restored happiness to their wives and children. But under this Bill those chaps could have been put away for three years. There are certain amendments being proposed to deal with the two kinds of case I have mentioned, the gentle alcoholic who will never do any harm, and the man with the capacity to pull himself up, and there is also an amendment coming to deal with the question of an appeal to the Court in certain circumstances. Those amendments will be moved in the Committee Stage and I hope they will be accepted in the spirit in which we are putting them forward. Compulsory committal is a drastic measure, and whether it will be humanely administered or not is beside the point, the clause must itself be fair.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) mentioned the question of the ducktails. As he said, the report of the Committee really dealt only with the question of alcoholism, but it is obvious that this Bill will apply to ducktails also. Well, I have misgivings, just as my colleague has, about this question. I think most of us regard ducktails as objectionable young people who do not work and sponge on their families, and the old saying that the devil finds work for idle hands to do comes into play, and the world has changed, and much for the worse. Family discipline, I am told, has gone to a large extent, and I am told that the youth to-day runs wild. I do not agree. The so-called ducktails wearing side whiskers and tight trousers are often seen, but those of my generation will remember that we often wore tight trousers, so tight that you could not put them on over your boots, and then came the Oxford bags, and now tight trousers have come back and they probably look strange to us. But I do not believe that the youth of to-day is any worse than we were. In fact, I believe it is better. They are more aware of the possible dangers that may happen. This Bill will give drastic powers to officials. Any member of the public, like a next-door neighbour, can make a sworn statement that a youth is leading an idle and dissolute life and he may be committed for three years. It may be necessary, but it seems a very drastic power. My only hope is that the Minister will accept the amendments we will move. I have had lots of fights with my own social welfare friends on this particular matter, and with my doctor friends. My only fear is that the amendments which we propose, if accepted by the Minister, will not be sufficient to cover the possible difficulties that I fear may arise and which I have mentioned. I support the Bill in principle, although to me compulsion is abhorrent, but under to-day’s conditions I am afraid it is necessary to accept that there must be compulsion. I hope the Minister will accept that our amendments are intended to protect the innocent and not to weaken what he intends doing in any way. These arguments will be expanded in the Committee Stage, but I hope I have said enough so far to make the Minister realize that there are many pitfalls lying in the way of implementing this Bill, even if he accepts our amendments. The Minister has a reputation of being a tolerant man, and we need tolerance in the world, although perhaps we need tough laws as well. The hon. member for Rosettenville said this was an experiment in regard to alcoholism. Sir, many experiments have taken place throughout the world. I was once in Sweden. At that time Sweden had liquor laws which looked as if they must curb, if not prevent, much of the misery resulting from liquor. Before a man in Sweden in those days could buy spirits, he had to prove that he had paid all his household accounts, and even these provisions failed miserably. I can only hope that everyone in this House will use his influence and put himself completely behind the Minister in an endeavour to make this Bill a success.

A great deal has been said in regard to alcoholism and the fact that it is a disease, and it seems to be established in the minds of most people and scientists that that is the case, but as far as South Africa is concerned there do not seem to be any reliable statistics that prove this, and to evaluate the menace that it is. Reports say that alcoholism is now the world’s fourth killer disease and it has been computed that in this country R60,000,000 is wasted annually, I suppose by the excessive consumption of alcohol and by the resulting loss in man hours. It is interesting to note that there are people who exhibit similar symptoms to those of alcoholism without the causal factor of alcohol and they are regarded as being in need of treatment. In many cases the modern treatment is to treat them with the so-called tranquillizers. Some laymen believe that alcohol is the finest tranquillizer, but its excessive use leads to very serious results. It is gratifying to see that in this Bill not only alcoholism is dealt with, but also the question of the excessive use of drugs. Here I am not referring to habit-forming drugs, but to the drugs which are available under normal circumstances to the public, and which have been subject to abuse and which in many cases have led to a great deal of unhappiness. In the report of the inter-departmental committee reference is made to the various organizations which will now fall within the purview of this Bill, and emphasis is laid on the continued existence and expansion of the services provided by voluntary organizations. These voluntary organizations in many cases are staffed by public-spirited people, who give up a great deal of their time and effort to fight alcoholism, and it is fitting to pay tribute to these people for the wonderful work they are doing and the assistance they render to the State organizations. But I believe that in many respects their efforts are hampered by the constant fear of insufficient finance. It has been reported to me that many of these organizations have to exist on very slender subsidies, either from the municipalities, the provinces or the State, and in one particular case in Durban, the institution known as Lulama, lack of funds causes considerable anxiety to the people who work so hard on its behalf. If one takes into account the cost of treating an alcoholic, which varies from R36 to R46 a month, one realizes that funds are necessary. In the case of Lulama the financial position is a very serious one. In 1962 they collected in fees from the patients a sum of just over R5,000, but the actual cost of the treatment given to the patients, some of whom undertook to pay and eventually did not, was R7,000 odd, and during that time the Provincial grant received by this organization was R4,500, so they were immediately faced with a shortfall of some R1,900, and they still had to continue their operations. Many of the helpers are giving their services free, and the doctors act voluntarily.

Arising out of the report of this inter-departmental committee, it is interesting to note the high proportion of staff to patients in many of these institutions. I trust the Minister will take cognizance of the recommendation in the report in regard to the educational qualifications of certain members of the staff. At the moment some members of the staff are required to have only Std. VI, but the committee recommended a minimum standard of education of Std. VIII. Another aspect on which I should like to ask the Minister for his opinion is in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The inter-departmental committee in considering this aspect was quite definite and said in paragraph 527 that persons who are not fit to work due to alcoholism receive no unemployment benefits, and the committee recommends that there should be provision made for the payment of benefits to alcoholics undergoing treatment. This is important, because later on the committee again refers to the matter. It referred to the lack of statistics regarding the loss of man hours and emphasized that the number of alcoholics who can be rehabilitated and resume their normal productive functions would increase considerably if facilities were available and if alcoholics were brought into contact with treatment at an earlier stage by means of educating the public. Surely that applies to a great extent to people who come under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are two suggestions I should like to make in regard to the composition of the Council. The first is that there should be definite provision in the Bill to make sure that there is a representative from each province, and the second is that of the remaining five members to be appointed, at least three should be medical practitioners engaged in and with practical experience of the treatment of alcoholism. I put forward these suggestions because they come from people who are actively engaged in the treatment of alcoholics. They feel that both these suggestions should receive the Minister’s consideration.

I was interested to see the other day in the editorial of a well-known newspaper a small paragraph about alcoholism—

That is an aspect the Minister should consider seriously, in regard to the powers of the board appointed in terms of Clause 6. I do not know whether there is a clause in the Bill to make such provision, but I would like the Minister to refer to the board the aspect of the advertisement of alcoholic beverages. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to it briefly, and also the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. I am referring primarily to Press advertisements and advertisements over the commercial radio. I was quite shocked the other day. I was talking to a young man of 20 about the advertising of alcoholic drinks over the commercial radio. He was not a prude, but he took strong exception to the fact that alcoholic beverages were advertised during teen-age and young people’s programmes on the commercial radio. I think it is an undesirable state of affairs. Many of the Press advertisements give glamour to alcohol which creates a wrong impression in the minds of young people. Many of these advertisements are a credit to the brains that conceived them. They deal with every type of liquor and they cater for every age. from the very young to the mature. While I would be the last person to suggest that there should be any control over that form of advertising, we are now introducing legislation to deal with an urgent problem. We should approach the whole matter in an objective way and begin at the beginning. Vast sums of money are spent on advertising and encouraging people to take alcohol, and the appeal is mainly to the youth. I feel that while that appeal is made it would be as well always to issue a warning and I want the Minister to consider agreeing that every advertisement should carry a warning at the bottom, just a little reminder, to the effect that 6 per cent of the people who take strong liquor become alcoholics—one in 16. Let the people realize that while they are young. I realize that people who are brought up in a happy home can probably accept these advertisements at face value, because they receive guidance from their parents, but what about the young people who come from broken homes? Surely these advertisements have a greater impact on them. Is it not only fair that when they experience the impact of the advertisement, they should also be told of the danger arising from excesses? I should be glad if the Minister would give consideration to that aspect, and I should like to refer him to the report of the Cronje Commission of 1957 on this very subject.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

Then I would just like to tell the Minister that the matter was dealt with by the Cronje Report, which said that possibly some legislation should be introduced on the question of advertising alcohol.

In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will stress, when the Advisory Board is constituted, the need to consider every educational aspect in regard to the treatment of alcoholics. This is a matter which was put forward by a voluntary social worker, that there is a very great need for the provision of funds to establish bureaux to collate all the statistical data so that we can take a completely objective view of the problem. I commend that suggestion to the Minister.

The great difference between alcoholism and other addictions is the fact that it is the only addictive drug which is freely available. All the other drugs which lead to addiction are difficult to obtain. They are tied up with regulations, much worse than the old licensing regulations for alcohol, and are only supplied to certain shops and to people with certain qualifications. Alcohol is the only one which is freely available and is the only one which is built on a large industry which employs and enriches a large number of people. If alcohol is to be accepted as a drug which leads to addiction, it should therefore be a drug which is difficult to obtain, but so far from that, the State reaps revenue from it. It encourages the sale and manufacture of this drug, and even further, it permits extensive advertising, as was mentioned by my colleague. What do we find? Firstly, the State makes money out of alcohol, and now it must spend money in order to cure the people who have become addicts. It is a question of profit and loss. Presumably the profit is greater on the industrial side than the loss on the social side which results from it. However, I do not want to talk about alcohol too much. I want to say that I agree entirely with the Bill, as we all do on this side, in that it separates the addict from the ‘won’t work ’ and the work-shy, and it separates the criminal, even the criminal alcoholic, from the sociological sinner, and to that extent it is a good thing. It is a fallacy to think that this country is ahead of anyone else in this respect. We are not by any means the only country where this is taking place. In the U.S.A. in 1954 they spent $2,600,000 on the rehabilitation of alcoholics, and in the ten years previous to that they spent $9,000,000. It therefore shows that this is a world-wide problem, and we must ask ourselves why we have been able to protect the drug addict but not the alcoholic addict. In past years drug addiction, which was not carefully controlled, was looked upon as rather a romantic thing, and we have literature from people like De Quincey and Baudelaire and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, all of whom wrote about the pleasures of drug addiction. In the past we had songs glorifying Bacchus. We had the “Lost Week-end”, lauding the pleasures of alcohol addiction. Alcohol, taken in excess, leads to complete physical and mental breakdown and it is extremely difficult to cure. I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm of the Minister and his Department, but they are faced with a problem which has never yet been solved. Medical science knows no cure for alcoholism. The difficulty is that when the man seems cured he is sent back into society, where he is surrounded by social drinking. This does not exist in the case of any other drug addiction. If a man is a morphine addict, he does not move around in a society where everybody else takes morphine. Drug addiction is not looked upon with approval by society; it is something which one is rather ashamed of. Society frowns upon it, but society does not frown on the alcoholic to the same extent, and the best the Minister can do is to bring the man back to the point where he can go out again into the world. The Minister cannot hope to cure the man entirely. The only thing he can hope to do is to get him not to do any drinking.

When the House adjourned for supper I was on the point of discussing the Committee which the hon. the Minister had set up and I wanted to draw attention to the fact that those hon. gentlemen who sat on that Committee arrived at the conclusion that alcoholism was an illness. But amongst the members who constituted that committee was only two doctors—who after all are the only people who are authorities on illnesses—one of whom I understand has been on administrative work for the last 30 years. Consequently, I feel that the authority, for stating that alcoholism is an illness, is somewhat tenuous.

I think we ought not to lose our sense of proportion because everything in the garden of alcoholism is not remedied by the setting up of retreats and the introduction of various other methods of treatment. A great deal more research must be carried out and some explanation must be found for the question why people become alcoholics, what the different types of alcoholics are, and whether all the types can be put together in the same retreat, etc. Let us, for instance, take the decadent group, i.e. the group showing some evidence of hereditary alcoholism. It might be said that there is not a great deal of evidence for this, but I have come across such cases myself. I know of a family who stemmed from a drunken grandfather. There were four children in this family and one of them was a drunkard whose children too are drunks. So far as we know, it was not a question here of shortage of money or of unhappiness. It simply runs as a strain in the family.

Then there is the impassioned drunk—tense, emotional straining for escape. This type takes to drink because they pity themselves, and having taken drink, they forget to pity themselves. Then there are the spineless drunks— the vagrant, the criminal with a low intellect, the man who cannot think. He drinks because any other form of amusement, even watching a circus or going to a cinema, requires some measure of thought and concentration. But he does not want to think; all he wants to do is to put the bottle to his lips and drinks and while he drinks, he forgets. Finally, there is the self-aggrandising type, i.e. the man who drinks because he feels he is a failure. Being drunk, he forgets that he is a failure and imagines himself to be a great man.

Apparently all these different types of alcoholics have not yet been studied. Then there is also the question of alcoholism in relation to race. This is an aspect of the utmost importance to this country. I have not been able to find any evidence to the effect that the Government or the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Justice for that matter, has made any real effort to find out whether there is a pattern in the drinking habits of the various races of this country and, if so, what that pattern is. Racial habits are important things. Let us, for example, take the history of the Red Indians. Anybody can tell you—you can also read it in any history book—that when the Red Indian was given drink, it was the end of him. That is, however, not altogether true. At first the Red Indian followed a definite pattern of drinking. At that time bottles were not available to him with the result that he bought barrels. And so long as he bought barrels, there was no evidence that he drank too much. That is so because the barrels were bought by the tribe and then placed under the control of the chief who set the pattern of drinking. Once traders brought bottles in, however, this pattern changed. Then you find the Red Indian buying bottles of drink and drinking it by himself. That spelt the end of the Red Indian.

Against this the pattern of drinking on the part of the Negro of America is quite different. After being freed from slavery, they took life gaily and took to drink. But they did so happily. They did not go into corners to drink. His attitude was that of a happy chap drinking to have a good time. Most interesting is the position of the Jew. The Jews are amongst the most abstemious people in the world. For that there is a reason and that is that the Jewish youth is brought up to regard drinking as a form of ritual. For the orthodox Jew there are 198 occasions during the year when religious functions are associated with drinking. Amongst the orthodox Jew in America you will find one drunkard out of every 100,000 while amongst the reformed Jew, i.e. the Jew who has broken away from his religion and from his religious observances, you will find seven drunkards out of every 100,000. In other words, as the religious life is relaxed, so drinking increases.

Let us look at the foreign-born Americans. In New York the Irish constitute 25.6 per cent of the drunks, while the Jews constitute .5 per cent.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that we should study the habits of the people for whom we are responsible. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the Government has taken any trouble to look into this aspect of the matter. All that is being done is to assume that the White man’s pattern of drinking, i.e. the pub, the hotel, off-sales, is good enough to encourage others to drink. The Black woman is already complaining. She says that it is not the habit of her people to drink in pubs, or to go to beerhalls. They normally drink at home where the woman makes the drink, guests are invited and when the drinks are finished, they all go home. We Europeans have a great responsibility. The Minister particularly has a great responsibility to see that research is carried out into the drinking patterns of a race. There is no doubt that every race in this country had known alcohol even before the White man appeared. Let us accept that. But what pattern emerged from that? Did the White man when he came here or as he trekked north, find alcoholics? Of course he did not. Why do we not try to find out why he did not find any? It is we who have created alcoholics by our pattern of drinking. We have forced the other races into our pattern of drinking, thereby creating alcoholics amongst them.

This is a very good Bill and will, I hope, bring with it some measure of success. Right throughout the afternoon we have been listening to an eulogy of the alcoholic. We have tried to make a hero out of him because we are going to spend R400,000 to look after him. We want to treat him kindly, we want to help him. But let us also think of the people who have to pay the R400,000. What of the families of alcoholics? Who is going to look after them? Will the Department of Social Welfare do more than to provide them with bread without butter? These are things too which need consideration. This Bill is full of good intentions. We are going to give a man leave, we are going to give him free accommodation, we are going to find work for him, there will be supervision over him, etc. But all this needs personnel; and where is the hon. the Minister going to find them? They certainly do not exist in his Department at the present time because he has not enough workers now to carry out all the work his Department has to perform. How is he going to create further personnel? I want to suggest one means of help and that is to enlist the aid of the sociology departments of the universities. In the medical field students are used to help run the hospitals. Every medical student has to put in three years of hard work in hospitals looking after the sick. If sociologists are going to be trained at universities, then one way for them to obtain practical knowledge is to spend some time in these retreats and rehabilitation colonies. The hon. the Minister should enlist the assistance of the Department of Education in this respect.

I also suggest that he speak to his colleagues in the Cabinet and ask them to consult him when they pass laws concerning alcoholics. He should see to it that if we have to accept alcohol in this country, and I think we must, it should interfere as little as possible with the lives of people. There is a half truth in what the Malan-Commission said about drinking at home. It said that drinking to excess in the home was unthinkable. But many of us whose work brings us in contact with the public, know that a lot of drinking is indulged in at home. As a matter of fact, one out of every six alcoholics is a woman and women do their drinking at home. Nearly all of them are started off on the downward path by their husbands, because they are faced with the problem that if they do not drink with their husbands when these came home, they will leave home to go and drink with their friends. Consequently, they start having a drink together, at the start merely for companionship. Who can blame them for that? But then slowly they start drifting further down until you find the secret drinker—the alcoholic.

This is a Bill which tries hard to help the country. This effort, however, is being severely handicapped by our own habits. It is ourselves who have created this problem of alcoholism. Of course, the only way in which it can be solved, is by abolishing liquor. That, of course, is impossible. We have heard it being argued that prohibition was a failure. I should say that prohibition was never given a real chance. If it was properly applied, it might have succeeded but to apply it to one area while in the adjacent areas drink was manufactured freely and from there imported into the area where there was prohibition, meant that prohibition was never really given a chance.

The hon. member is wandering too far off from the Bill.

I shall not keep you much longer, Mr. Speaker. The only other thing I want to say is that I was shocked as I listened to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) when she was discussing what was happening at these work colonies. She spoke of punishment, of bad administration and of bad food. I have no means of finding out whether that is true or not, but if it is true, then provision should be made in this Bill for these rehabilitation centres to be investigated by independent persons from time to time, the more so since it is going to be difficult for the public to get access to them.

I have listened with interest and appreciation to the debate on this subject. Having heard the pleas of members on both sides of the House, I want to say that I am prepared to accept this Bill. I therefore hope that hon. members in the circumstances will support me still further.

Unfortunately I will not have time—nor can it be expected of me—to go into details in my reply to the second reading debate. The Committee Stage will offer more opportunity for that. In my introductory speech I said that I was looking forward with great expectations to the debate on this measure. My expectations were realized. The measure was approached by hon. members on both sides in an objective manner. I want to express my appreciation for that. The hon. member for Durban (Central) said he foresaw difficulty in the administration of this Bill, because we do not have the necessary staff. But he also said that this is a social problem which will never be solved unless we completely prohibit the use of alcohol. There are so many things one can say on this subject. What is beyond all doubt, however, is that the abuse of liquor, amongst other things, as a phenomenon in our national life has the result of handicapping the nation. It creates social problems. On the other hand, society must carry on. We must carry on from sunrise to sunset, and the same to-morrow. We can only carry on if we build on a sound national structure, which in turn can only be based on a sound family structure. One finds a sound family structure only in those families where social evils have not yet led to the erosion we so often find to-day.

I want to ask the hon. member to tell the country that this legislation is the legislation of all of us. In that way every one of us must help to form public opinion. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) was the first speaker on that side. He said that he welcomed the Bill and that not only should it be accepted, but it should be implemented. In fact, every speaker after him adopted the attitude that the Bill should be accepted and implemented not only by the Department of Social Welfare but by all of us. Society should give its support to this measure which is based on sound social principles. The hon. member for Rosettenville said: “We are going to have our difficulties.” He is quite right. I know it, and my Department knows it too. Not only do we know that we are bound to experience difficulties, but we also know that we are dealing with difficult people. We are dealing here with social maladjusted persons, whatever the reason for their maladjustment may be. Not only are they difficult people, but you are also having to deal with individuals who differ from each other. In this respect much research still has to be done. Hon. members also pointed to the necessity for it. This research forms part of the objects of this Bill. Our object is to give society the benefit of the results of this research, and also the employers who are in daily contact with their employees. It is only a small group of people in society who form the consensus of opinion of that society. From there that opinion spreads outward in everincreasing circles. It is propagated further because the people have respect for the persons who evolved those ideas.

Hon. members quite correctly pointed out that not only do we need staff to implement this legislation, but also people with the right spirit. But as far as I am concerned, I am convinced that we will find people with the right spirit. In fact, we already have them. With this legislation we are adopting a new course in regard to the treatment of socially maladjusted persons. If we now put our shoulder to the wheel and tackle the matter with goodwill, I am sure that we will achieve better results than we have hitherto.

So many hon. members emphasize the importance of family life. That is gratifying. We must restore family life. A person is removed from his family circle and placed in an institution, but he has to make a comeback and he must receive after-care. We must ensure that the family will be prepared to take him back, and society must be prepared to welcome back as a citizen of the country that man to whose rehabilitation so much time and care have been devoted. I want to emphasize that. He must be accepted in society again so that he can play his role once more. The object of this rehabilitation is to assist a maladjusted person to find himself again, to discover himself anew and to see himself in the light of having a particular vocation to fulfil both in society and in his family circle.

This legislation removes the prison stigma from these people. From now on these institutions will no longer be work colonies but places of refuge and rehabilitation centres. We are convinced that these institutions should not be in the nature of work colonies. No stigma must adhere to them. Therefore we decided in future to call the institution at Sonderwater Magaliesoord.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) asked me about places of refuge for women. I just want to say that land adjoining Magaliesoord has already been purchased for this purpose. In fact, we have already started to dig the foundations. An amount of R200,000 already appears on the Estimates of the P.W.D. for this work. The Government is prepared to make its contribution towards implementing this legislation, and to such an extent that its success will be ensured. Hon. members emphasize the fact that these institutions will be the institutions of all of us. Their success or failure will therefore be in our hands.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) referred to complaints which had been brought to her notice. In this regard I want to tell her that these places will be inspected regularly. For example, I intend visiting these institutions regularly every year. Proper supervision will be exercised and I can tell her that I am not aware of any of the adverse conditions to which she referred. Nothing has come to my notice in that regard. She has not revealed the name of the person who gave her the information, although I certainly would not prosecute that person. But I will make the hon. member an offer. I will arrange for her to visit the institute at Magaliesoord without anybody knowing about it in advance. But then she should not take the Press with her to have herself photographed. She is very fond of doing that. But I will arrange for her to go there so that she can see for herself what goes on there. And this invitation applies not only to her but to every hon. member who wants to visit these institutions during the recess. We can arrange for all of them to go there together.

Together with other hon. members, I want to express my thanks to all who combat this evil in private. There are many families in this country who are continually struggling with the particular social evil in regard to which we are introducing this legislation. I want to express my appreciation for what is done in the lonely family circle and in the community by church institutions, welfare organizations and everybody who is interested in the matter. We have had some constructive criticism in regard to the composition of the Board. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that we should have a psychiatrist on the Board. I just want to tell her that the Department of Social Welfare will be represented on that Advisory Board. As the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has already said, some of the five members to be appointed may be outstanding psychiatrists, and not only that, but people who take a sociological and psychiatric interest in these particular people. Somebody said that this legislation was essentially experimental. That is what I said right from the beginning. We shall have to make adaptations as we go along. If there are things which hamper us, it will be the duty of Parliament to amend and to improve the Act. Somebody asked why the Board is being appointed for five years and not for three years. It is impossible to appoint it for three years. When one starts a new undertaking, it is very difficult if the Board is appointed for such a short period. A start will hardly have been made when the three years will have elapsed. That is why we made it five years.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) referred to the five-yearly report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and said that he would like to have an annual report. But the local boards of the separate institutions issue annual reports which will give hon. members all the details of what progress is made and how the whole matter is progressing.

Hon. members referred in their speeches to the second period. When someone is committed for a second period, that second period will be indeterminate. The man who is committed the first time runs the risk of being committed for three years. Most of them, however, only stay there for one year. They are committed for three years, but to the extent that they make progress physically and mentally they are re-classified into groups and they are released after a year. I have already said that they are released on trial. Then they can see whether they are able to find employment. If a man is sent back a second time for three years, we can keen him there for three years. But I have considered this matter and have discussed it with my officials. I just want to tell hon. members that I have considered very seriously this matter as to whether we should not accept an amendment to the effect that the question of the second three-year period be omitted.

Hon. members put a few other questions which I should like to reply to briefly. I would not have cared to have been in this House if there had been a debate since 3 p.m. until now as to whether alcoholism was a disease or not. Scientists, medical men, social workers and the clergy can argue about it for months. I would not like to be there while they discuss whether it is a disease or not. It is the result of a social evil. It has its ethical aspect, its health aspect, its sociological aspect and probably also the aspect of heredity, as one hon. member said. This Committee has gone into the matter very thoroughly and has found that alcoholism is a condition for which a multiplicity of causes exist, namely medical, psychological, ethical and social. Each of them plays a role and therefore the case of each individual person is so difficult to study. One must know what the cause is in the case of each individual before one can know how to treat him and to enable him to rehabilitate himself with the assistance he receives, and again to re-enter society.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) referred to Clause 15 (4) (d). I have given attention to it. She says that we should substitute the word “should” for the word “may”. I may just say that if a report is received from a welfare officer, ten to one it will be to the effect that this person is not an alcoholic, or that one is not addicted to drugs, or that the other one does not fall into one of the other categories. In such a case there is no necessity for a report. That is the problem. I hope she will reconsider the matter, and I will also devote attention to what she has said.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) posed a very difficult question as a lawyer. Like other hon. members, he discussed the causes for this evil and philosophized about it, which was fitting in this debate, and to which I listened with interest. He wanted to know why we called the Board the Alcoholism Board and not the Alcoholism and Maladjusted Persons Board. Alcoholics constitute the greatest group. Alcoholics and those persons addicted to drugs are the people who need special attention, and therefore we separate them completely from criminal types. We also separate them from other maladjusted persons. That Board cannot be anything else because it consists of people who mainly specialize in the treatment of the alcoholic. We have not yet reached the end of the road in so far as this Bill is concerned. The hon. member was quite correct. Next year we will have to deal with the following report, which deals with other social problems. As we progress, we can make the necessary changes. At this stage I think it is necessary, in so far as this Board is concerned, for us to confine ourselves specifically to the implementation of the functions which the Bill entrusts to it, viz. the rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug addicts.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have just about covered the whole field. Once again I wish to express my appreciation for the speeches we have had from men of experience, from medical men and from those who have dealt with these maladjusted persons in the institutions of the country, like the hon. member for Kimberley (South), men with first-hand knowledge of the problems connected with this matter. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that members on all sides of the House gave their blessing to a measure which is intended to serve the best interest of South Africa and the future of our people.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That this House, in terms of sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Defence Act, 1955 (Act No. 44 of 1557), approves of the First Schedule to that Act being amended—

1. (a) by the substitution for the definition of “superior officer” in sub-section (1) of section 1 of the following definition:
   1. “‘superior officer”, in relation to a person subject to this Code, means any officer, warrant officer or noncommissioned officer subject to this Code who holds a higher rank than such person, or who holds the same or an equivalent rank but is in a position of authority over such person: Provided that no person subject to this Code who is not a White person as defined in section 1 of the Population Registration Act, 0554 (Act No. 34 of 0554), shall be deemed to be the superior officer of a White person subject to this Code: Provided further that a White person subject to this Code who, irrespective of his rank, is appointed in authority over any person subject to this Code who is not a White person as so defined, shall be deemed to be the superior officer of such last-mentioned person;”;
2. (b) by the substitution in section 50—
   1. (i) for sub-paragraphs (iv) to (viii), inclusive, of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the following subparagraphs:
      1. “(iv) discharge from the South African Defence Force;
      2. (v) detention for a period not exceeding two years;
      3. (vi) reduction to any lower rank, to non-commissioned rank or to the ranks;
      4. (vii) reduction in seniority in rank;
      5. (viii) a fine not exceeding 54 pounds; or
      6. (ix) reprimand; or”;
   2. (ii) for sub-paragraphs (iv) to (viii), inclusive, of paragraph (c) of that sub-section of the following subparagraphs: “(iv) discharge from the South African Defence Force;
      1. (v) detention for a period not exceeding two years;
      2. (vi) field punishment for a period not exceeding three months;
      3. (vii) reduction in seniority in rank;
      4. (viii) a fine not exceeding 25 pounds; or
      5. (ix) reprimand.”; and
   3. (c) by the substitution in section 128 for paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of the following paragraphs:
      1. “(a) if he is married or is a widower or divorced person who has a child, stepchild or legally adopted child who lives with and is maintained by him, one-third of his pay; or
      2. (b) if he is unmarried, two-thirds of his pay.”.

In this regard I just want to explain that in terms of the provisions of Section 044 (2) of the Defence Act, 0557 (Act No. 44 of 1957), the State President, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament obtained by resolution, may by proclamation in the Government Gazette insert any new provision in the First Schedule of the aforementioned Act, or may amend or repeal any provision thereof.

It will be noted that the motion proposes to amend Sections 1, 50 and 128, but in regard to Section 1 (1) I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the statement I made on 19 February 1963 in this House in connection with the Government’s decision to establish a Coloured Corps as part of the Permanent Force. From the nature of the matter members of the aforementioned Corps will be given military ranks and, for obvious reasons, it is therefore necessary to replace Section 0 (0) (xix) by a new sub-paragraph, as it appears in the motion, as the result of which it will, for example, not be possible for a non-White sergeant to arrest a White soldier or to exercise authority over a White soldier.

In terms of Section 91 (2) of the First Schedule of the Act, the penalties set out in subsection (1) of the aforementioned Section have been arranged in a decreasing order of seriousness. A sentence of discharge out of the S.A. Defence Force has more serious consequences than a sentence of detention, demotion in rank of field punishment will have. Therefore it is now proposed that in the case of privates the sentence of dismissal from the S.A. Permanent Force, which at present appears as No. vi in the existing list, i.e., paras, (b) and (c) of Section 91 (1) of the First Schedule, are moved up to fourth place. The other penalties will therefore come down one step on the list and will eventually, as they appear in the motion, also appear in the First Schedule as Items v, vi, viii and ix; Item vii, however, i.e. “with reduction in seniority in rank”, is a new penalty which is being introduced in the case of privates. It sometimes happens that a private soldier commits an offence of a less serious nature which justifies punishment of some sort. In the case of officers, there is already provision in para, (a) of Section 91 (1) for a reduction in seniority in rank, and it is considered desirable in the interest of discipline that provision should be made for a similar penalty in respect of privates.

In regard to para, (c) of the motion which refers to Section 128 (2), I must explain that in terms of para, (a) of that Section, as it reads at present, a member of the S.A. Defence Force who is serving a sentence of detention for non-serious contraventions forfeits only portion of his basic remuneration and that his cost-of-living allowances remain unaffected. As hon. members know. Sir, the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic remuneration took place in 1958 already, with the result that a member now in fact forfeits a larger portion of his total income than the Legislature originally envisaged. It is therefore the intention to scrap paras, (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of the aforementioned Section and to replace them with the paragraphs indicated in para, (c) of the motion. It is calculated that the forfeiture of one-third instead of one-half of the basic remuneration of a married man will restore the position to what it was before consolidation. Furthermore, it is also the considered opinion that a widower or divorced member who maintains a child, step-child or legally adopted child should be treated on the same basis as a married member, and the necessary provision to give effect to that is contained in para. (a). In so far as unmarried members are concerned, it is proposed that one-third of his remuneration, instead of four-fifths, will remain unaffected in order to enable him to cover essential items of expenditure like pension contributions, insurance premiums, etc.

The hon. the Minister has given us an outline of the ground covered by this motion. The State President will now have authority to promulgate regulations. As a matter of historical interest one’s mind goes back to the battle we had years ago to persuade the then Minister of Defence to have that provision included in the Defence Act, a provision of which the Minister himself is now deriving the benefit.

The motion itself deals, as the hon. the Minister has stated, with certain amendments under Section 104 regarding the First Schedule of the Defence Act. It also entails amendments to what in military parlance is known as the “Code” which covers in general the discipline, the offences and the legal procedure under which the men of the services function once they adopt the uniform. I want to ask certain questions in regard to the amendment proposed under paragraph 2 (a). I may say right at the outset that in regard to the remaining paragraphs (b) and (c) one accepts that in general they are proposals which have been found necessary as the result of experience, particularly in view of the expanded defence force which we are building up. As far as we are concerned they are matters of adjustment called for by professional defence people and generally we do not propose to raise any queries on them.

Coming back to paragraph 2 (a) I should like to have some clarity so that there will be no room for misunderstanding in regard to the application of these provisions under the stress of emergency or war-time conditions as opposed to peace-time conditions. I would say without any question that if ever there is a necessity for regulations governing the armed forces to be crystal clear so that the officer in charge who has to carry them into effect need not waste time thinking over what he should do, it is during a time of emergency or under war-time conditions. The regulations covered by (a) not only apply to the peace-time operations of the Defence Force, when generally one can see them carried into effect without difficulty. They also apply to war-time conditions when there may be causes not foreseen, causes that may develop suddenly in a time of crisis which may make it somewhat difficult for the individual responsible to give effect to the proposals. Under the definition of “superior officer” laid down in this particular section—and that includes the various grades of commissioned and noncommissioned officers of the land, sea and air forces, right down to the serving personnel— the Population Registration Act is under certain circumstances being applied by this amendment to the Defence Forces. I am merely stating that as a background to the questions I want to put because we accept that seeing that that is the law of the land this is a necessary provision. I am not questioning the application of it. One must accept that the race classification of the Population Registration Act is now being applied to the Defence Force. The provision aims to make it clear that no non-White serving officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier, depending on circumstances, shall be deemed to be a superior officer of a White person serving under the Code. I want to be realistic in dealing with this: I do not want to put any obstacles in the Minister’s way. This proposal in broad outline follows the general practice which exists in most Western defence organizations where the main body of the personnel is White. But in the main the armed forces— and I speak of the armed forces in general not only our own—have their own method of meeting that position when it arises. In general they manage it very successfully without having to resort to hard and fast legislation. It seems a pity that under the conditions under which we live it has been found necessary to provide for it by legislation as in the case such as now brought forward by this motion. It ties a very hard and fast obligation on serving officers who, as I have stated before, may find themselves in circumstances where it is very difficult to carry it out. At the same time one must accept it that a position can well develop where it is desirable to have the position crystal clear to the people concerned so that there can be no slipup. It is also necessary to realize that just as in the case of the wrong application of an indefinite regulation, the too severe application of this definite one may do just as much damage. I must in fairness say that during World War II, this side of the House, as the then Government, found it necessary to introduce a somewhat similar regulation as is now proposed by this particular section. It was felt that under war-time conditions more clarity was needed by the officers in the field and that was done by way of regulation. With our own experience to guide us, even though we regret that it is necessary to reduce it to legislation, we do not intend to oppose the hon. the Minister’s proposal.

We want to get clarity regarding certain aspects of the two provisos at the end of (a) in the motion. I will take the last one first which reads—

Under many conditions which may be taken for granted, the amended definition of a superior officer in this motion might be regarded as indicating such an appointment as the section refers to. The section very definitely reads “irrespective of his rank, is appointed in authority”. What is the qualification there? On the whole the position may well rest on the clarity of such an appointment. I want to ask the Minister, when he replies, to clarify that position. Who is to make such an appointment if it has to be made, especially an appointment which may have to be made under stress of battle or stress of other similar circumstances by somebody who has very little time to think about it. Or does the hon. the Minister assume that such an appointment will develop automatically as a result of population registration classification as mentioned earlier on in this section? I think that is one point on which we must have some clarity. I do not think this is as simple as it looks. There have been great changes in the composition of world armies even during the last eight or ten years. The Republic is one of the few, even among the smaller nations which does not include non-White combatant troops in its defence organization. The greatest contribution which could accrue to our security would undoubtedly be an agreement with one of our neighbours to the north of us or better still an agreement with an overseas power which still has responsibilities which it wishes to maintain in Southern Africa. In practically any of such circumstances we may at once be faced with a difficulty which may arise from the operation of this regulation under any system of combined operation which would naturally follow from such an agreement. It may well even be a major obstacle to the promotion of such a desirable agreement. As the hon. the Minister is probably aware promotions to high and responsible ranks are permitted in the majority of the major Western defence organizations to include non-Whites who can qualify on merit or experience and with the over-all conditions applying to the particular post concerned. Our nearest neighbours make extensive use of non-Whites in their defence organizations. The personnel and officers in command of our own defence organization could, and usually do, deal very successfully with these problems as and when they arise, but by legislatively defining these regulations we may be restricting the authority of the senior officers on the spot in having to deal with any sudden emergency which may develop especially in cases where the forces available on the spot are inadequate to deal with their task. I can quite well understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty in this particular case. Far be it for us on this side to wish to add to those difficulties. We are not playing politics in this matter; it is a matter of defence which is vital to the country. But we feel it is necessary to outline some of the problems which, from experience, we know may well develop. Problems which may well have to be faced at a time which allows very little time for thought. I should like to have the Minister’s views on the points raised, particularly how he proposes to cope with these particular features which I have pointed out. There may well be differences between ourselves and any potential allies that we may be fighting in company with at such a time. But these are important factors affecting all of us. They are important to the Republic as a whole. Once we start legislating to cover features like these we do Open a door which we may find it somewhat difficult to close at a time when it seems more important that we should be able to close it quickly.

I think we can express our appreciation this evening of the speech and the attitude of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). The hon. member raised a few very interesting points about which I should like to say a word or two. He particularly raised the question as to what is going to happen when the last portion of 2 (a) has to be put into operation, and that is where a person occupying a lower rank is appointed in charge of a corps of a different colour in which there is a person who occupies a higher rank. I think this clause is perfectly clear. I want to refer the hon. member to the Afrikaans text—

I think it is stated perfectly clearly here. That is the position when a person has been placed "“

“in authority”. Who can appoint a person in authority? It must be a superior officer. No person on his own authority, for example, can go and take over the command of a corps, even though it is a non-White corps, in which there is an officer or a non-commissioned officer who occupies a higher rank than he does. As far as my experience goes—and I think the hon. member has had the same experience— it happens quite frequently where officers are taking a course that a person occupying a lower rank has to act as instructor. It does happen. But even though that instructor occupies a lower rank than the officers taking the course, those officers are subject to the authority of that specific instructor, irrespective of the rank he occupies.

The other difficulty which the hon. member raised is one which I think he can leave to circumstances, and that is what is going to happen in the event of joint action together with a neighbouring state, for example. It may be difficult, as he has correctly said, to decide in those circumstances who should be in command. But where joint action is taken and it becomes necessary for somebody to take command I do not believe that a person who has not been appointed by an officer occupying a higher rank than the officer occupying the highest rank in that corps will assume command. I think that is perfectly clear too. But in cases of joint action, to which the hon. member also referred here, with other states or with neighbouring states where this does not apply, I think it is unthinkable that legislation passed by us would affect our neighbouring states. It would simply not apply there. It is unthinkable, for example, that a sergeant or sergeant-major would feel himself called upon to assume command over the corps of a neighbouring state in which there is a lieutenant or a captain, for example, irrespective of his race or colour. No, I think this clause has been framed clearly and I think we can accept it as it stands. There should be no difficulty about it. The main thing is that a position is being cleared up here which might have given rise to difficulties if this Bill did not make the necessary provision for it.

In the past I have not taken part in defence debates in this House, but there is such an important principle involved in the motion moved by the hon. Minister of Defence that I feel that I must say something on this matter. I particularly must say something because of what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has just said. Sir, it is too easy an escape hatch these days for the Opposition constantly to say that it cannot play party politics with matters which are contentious. Too easy when they want to support those measures, although they express regret that legislation has to be introduced—nevertheless, because it is a difficult matter, and because they “do not want to make things more difficult for the hon. Minister”, they support such contentious issues as the one we are dealing with now. As far as I am concerned, it deals with a vital principle, and I cannot support what the hon. Minister is proposing. It deals with a principle which is in direct contradiction to the principles for which I stand and for which the party that I represent stands. It epitomizes racial discrimination, and the motion of the Minister goes directly contrary to the whole basic principle that merit shall be the yard-stick. Therefore I intend to oppose the motion of the hon. Minister. This motion that the hon. Minister has introduced is on a par with all the other racial obsessions that we have in South, Africa, it is on a par, for example, with the idea that no non-White doctor, however well qualified …

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the motion.

Sir, if I may say so, with due respect, I am making a comparison. May I just put my case? This motion of the hon. Minister is that no non-White officer shall give an instruction to a member of the White race in the army, and I am’ simply using the comparison that it is the same as laying down in hospital regulations that no non-White doctor can give instructions to a White nurse, that for instance we cannot have any mixed sports…

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Very well, Sir, I won’t go into detail, but I am sure that just those two examples make perfectly clear what my objections are to the motion, and that is, that it epitomizes racial discrimination and it is in direct contradiction with the basic principles which I believe in and that is that merit and merit alone should be the determining factor as to whether people are able to hold responsibility in South Africa. Sir, if it is dangerous to do this in South Africa, I want to say at once that if we do not have non-Whites oh our side in any time of difficulties in South Africa, no regulations, no legislation, nothing of the sort will in any way put South Africa out of danger. There is only one way to put South Africa out of danger and that is to make a friend and not an enemy of non-Whites in South Africa, and that goes for non-Whites in the army, just as it goes for non-Whites in any other walk of life. For these very clear reasons I shall oppose this measure.

One can understand the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). These liberals have lost all touch with the realities of the situation. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with a factual position for which we have to make provision and the Minister is trying by means of this proposal of his, having regard to the pattern that we have in South Africa to-day and the facts that we have to accept, to make provision for that situation. In other words, we differ from the hon. member. I think we are only trying to be realistic under the present circumstances and we are now giving the Coloureds in this country an opportunity which they have not had in the past, an opportunity which they would very much like to have and for which the Coloured Council asked. I want to say that we are faced here with a situation which this side of the House did not really want to accept previously, but we must prepare ourselves for the defence of this country, and to that end we have to take this step. I know that after the war the Cape Corps was abolished and the so-called Cape Corps Auxilliary Service was instituted. The Cape Corps Auxiliary Service rendered valuable services within the limited duties placed upon them, but we must recognize the fact that they were never really very successful as part of the Defence Force because they did not form an integral part of the Defence Force; they were practically just a sort of appendage of the Defence Force. In establishing a corps now which is really going to be an integral part of the Defence Force in a non-combatant capacity, well trained in the handling of arms to be able to defend themselves, I think we are taking an important step here, in the first place, in the interests of the Coloured, and in the second place, in the interests of the defence of South Africa, because in this way we are releasing Whites who can now be used for more important services. Unfortunately, I came in too late to hear the whole speech of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). We realize that there are going to be difficulties. I believe, however, that the last war demonstrated that ways and means can be found whereby Coloured divisions can operate alongside White divisions in the Defence Force, or whereby they can even sometimes work together very intimately in a division, and all that is being done here is to make legal provision for that position.

The Government has at long last appreciated the part the Coloured people can play in the defence of this country, and everybody welcomes the statement by the hon. the Minister that he is going to revive the Cape Corps. The hon. Minister will know, and the House knows, that we, as Representatives of the Coloured people in this House, have for years made a plea for the establishment of a Cape Corps, and we are happy to know that our pleas have been answered and that the Cape Corps will now be re-established. It is a great pity that this proviso should have been introduced in this proposal. It is really unnecessary, and the hon. Minister knows that it is unnecessary. Those of us who know the Coloured people know that it is unnecessary. Therefore it is a great pity, because the Coloured people who want to serve their country, and who have served it in the past with great distinction, and brave men they were too, will not read this proviso with a good heart. I do not want to deal at great length with it. The Coloured people are used to this type of legislation. I can only express my regret that it was found necessary to introduce it. I want to go further. The hon. Minister should realize that the Cape Corps now to be revived will stay for ever, I believe, as part of our defence forces in this country. They will not be a temporary army, they will not be a temporary unit. The Government would never have revived the Cape Corps unless…

Order! The hon. member is going too far now; he must come back to the motion before the House.

Instead of having this proviso, surely the hon. Minister should consider appointing Coloured officers for the Cape Corps.

You have not read the motion.

I have.

Then you do not understand it.

The amendment, in my opinion, is only necessary, because the officers in the Cape Corps will be White people.

No, only commissioned officers at this stage.

The officers in the Cape Corps will be White people. There is nothing in the proviso which says that the commissioned officers in the Cape Corps will be Coloured men, and my appeal to the hon. Minister is that, instead of this proviso, he should consider Coloured men as officers in the army.

If you are right, this motion is not necessary at all.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member: If this clause provided that only White officers are to be appointed in the Coloured corps, why then would the proviso be necessary?

Because it is not the intention of the Government to have the captain, the colonel and the lieutenant to be Coloured people. Everybody knows that. Let the Minister tell us to-night that the colonel, the captain, the major, the lieutenant in this corps will be Coloured people.

The hon. member must come back to the motion.

My point is that I am not in favour of the proviso because there are other means of dealing with the Cape Corps than by attaching this stigma to the Coloured people, under this proviso. I merely want to point out to the hon. Minister that he could ■ooercome this proviso referring to White people giving orders to Coloured officers when the White man is of a lower rank than the Coloured officers by excluding all White people from the Cape Corps. For instance, we are hoping that there will be a Coloured medical corps with Coloured doctors, and a Coloured doctor surely would be entitled to be a commissioned officer on the same basis as a White doctor, and he surely would be either a lieutenant or a captain by virtue of his medical profession. Now, if you have linked with the Cape Corps a medical corps as part and parcel of that corps, with Coloured doctors as captains, surely the hon. Minister must appreciate that in that case he cannot, by this proviso, allow a sergeant or a corporal who is European to give orders to the captain who is a medical officer in the Cape Coloured Corps.

Only if he is appointed there for certain duties.

I know. The hon. Minister will say that that sergeant or corporal must be appointed for special duties. But all I am trying to point out to the hon. Minister is that my opposition to this proviso is that it need not be made part of our legislation if the hon. Minister would so expand the Cape Corps as to be a complete army of itself with its own officers, its own medical corps, its own instructors in every phase. For that reason I am obliged to vote against this motion, because I believe it is unnecessary, and you are going to harm the Coloured people in their desire to join up. Mr. Speaker, you may feel that I am going too far if I continue, and therefore I will sit down.

To begin with I should like to express my thanks to the Opposition who are being practical enough to realize that we in South Africa have a certain way of life and that we adhere to that way of life when we wish to do certain things. This Government in particular has strong views on certain matters. As far as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is concerned, I cannot even argue with her over this matter. Her philosophy differs so entirely from ours that we cannot even discuss this matter. What I want to do here is to do a good deed to South Africa by establishing a Cape Corps, but at the same time I want to pay my respects to the Coloured people of our country by establishing a Coloured Corps which will form an integral part of the Army. But in doing so I do not want to cause discord and friction from the beginning. Having regard to the pattern of our national life we would immediately cause friction if we acceded to the request of the hon. member for Houghton and of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). It is my duty to build up goodwill and co-operation right from the start. Let the future look after itself; our immediate task is to build up co-operation and goodwill. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has already replied in an able manner to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I want to say to the hon. member for Simonstown that if it should happen at some future date that we have to fight together with our neighbouring states, we are certainly not, when our lives depend on it, going to allow a regulation such as this to stand in our way. If it becomes necessary to do so, the regulation will be changed, or they will change their regulation if it becomes necessary. It depends whose regulation is best suited to the circumstances. During the last war, as the hon. member for Simonstown has pointed out, they had practically the same thing in practice.

I can understand the hon. member for Houghton. She is always out to get in a dig against the Government and against the Opposition; hence her opposition. But what I cannot understand is the attitude of the hon. member for Boland, who has pleaded in the past that we should establish a Cape Corps. We are doing so now, not because he pleaded for it but because we think it is the right thing to do. I do not care who proposed it. Even if the hon. member for Houghton puts forward a good proposal we will give effect to it. What the hon. member for Boland is doing now is to try to score a little political advantage.

Oh no.

Oh yes. The hon. member knows what our way of life in South Africa is. If a White member of the Defence Force walks in the street and does something, does the hon. member want a non-White non-commissioned officer to be able to punish him? What does that lead to? That is precisely what we want to obviate here, because that sort of thing would cause the greatest trouble and friction right from the start. We would only cause friction and we would never be able to get the necessary co-operation. Let us build up co-operation from the bottom instead of always trying to start at the top. I do not think it is necessary to say more than that.

Motion put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

This Clause 2 consolidates powers and responsibilities previously spread over other clauses in the Bill, Clauses 5 and 13; it also applies a number of provisions in regard to a combined Defence Force as well as various other functions. I want to confine my remarks for a moment to Clause 2 (2) (d), which says that any member of the South African Defence Force or any portion thereof may at all times be employed “on such police duties as may be prescribed.” Now police duties hitherto have been the prerogative of the Permanent Force. Under the provisions of this particular Bill from now on the Citizen Force will also fall due to carry out these police duties if and when ordered to do so under this particular clause. The paragraph I am referring to has no restriction at all in regard to which portions of the Defence Force may be called out for police duties. The hon. Minister in his second-reading speech stated that it was only intended to use men who had been specially trained for military police duties. Now we have not the slightest objection to that limitation that the hon. Minister mentioned in his second-reading speech. The use of Citizen Force men as military police. Our objection is really that the Bill before us does not provide for such a limitation. The Bill before us contains no effective limitation in regard to who can be employed. One accepts without any question the hon. Minister’s undertaking and assurance that he in his capacity as Minister of Defence would not employ people other than the trained people that he referred to. But, Sir, the hon. Minister, like the rest of us, will not always be the Minister of Defence. We are by no means permanent in this establishment. He may be succeeded, he may be drafted to another job, as we might be, and his successor in office may well feel that he is not bound by the undertaking given by his predecessor. In other words that he is bound to carry out the terms of legislation which is on the Statute Book. That is why we are asking that there should be some limitation imposed. If we are going to have legislation to state that any member of the Defence Force or any portion or members thereof may at all times be employed on police duties, and we want an exemption from it, then the only logical way is to have that exemption included in the legislation which we are now adopting, in other words, a proviso to sub-section (2). The Opposition feel so strongly in regard to this particular reservation that, in regard to the very wide scope that this particular subsection (2) now imposes on the Defence Force as a whole, we believe it is necessary to have a limiting proviso enshrined in the Bill. We believe that this can be done by means of our amendment without weakening the security control the Minister is endeavouring to bring about. There is not the slightest idea on our side of attempting to limit the Minister to a restriction which will make it impossible for him to carry out the security measures that he requires. We accept the grounds for this security given by the hon. Minister in his second-reading speech, particularly in respect of the country districts. There may be occasions when this additional support is necessary for a limited number of police in that area.

This clause has nothing to do with that.

The particular paragraph (d) in Clause 2 in regard to “police duties as may be prescribed” read in conjunction with Clause 15 which says that if the resident magistrate in the area concerned, considers the position so serious, he can make use of the Defence Force to assist the police, shows that there definitely is a link-up between those two clauses. But in any case, whether it has to do with that particular clause or not, we feel that the employment of the young trainee, virtually a schoolboy who has more or less only left school and has had very little military training, very little experience and very little discipline as far aS military police duties are concerned, establishes a very strong case for the exclusion of such young trainees from the duties laid down by this sub-paragraph (d). We feel that there should be some limitation there, and that is why I move as an amendment—

If it so happens that the hon. Minister feels that that limitation will so deplete the number of men that he has available to call up, then we feel that that could very easily be met by bringing into this particular sub-section (2) in the very first proviso an amendment to add after the words “Defence Force” “or officers and men who have been placed on the reserve within five years prior to 1 January of the year in which their services on police duties are required in terms of paragraph (d) of this subsection”. That will then give the Minister a supply of trained men who have been through their training in the Defence Force, who are scattered all over South Africa, who have ample knowledge of the districts in which they live, and who are probably known to the Police Force as men of responsibility who could be called upon in emergency. We are not wedded to the exact wording of the amendment, but something along those lines should satisfy the Minister and his department. It should be quite easy to keep the Police Force in any area acquainted with what reservists are available in that area by means of keeping an up-to-date list of reservists in the police office, amended once a year. It does seem that it Would be a better solution than having to depend on the trainees. I would commend that to the hon. Minister if he feels that our amendment is likely to be too drastic and would weaken his Defence Force to such an extent that he would not have sufficient men to go found. But we do feel that this House owes a duty to these young chaps who are called up under our extended training scheme, to safeguard them in their first six months of training against being called out for specialized duties of a police constable. We stress the point that they are “specialized duties”, police duties which aim at the preservation of law and order with the minimum of force that it is possible to apply, as opposed to the military training which moves in the opposite direction. We feel that the least that the House can do is to exercise that safeguard. We have got these lads coming up in increasing numbers from all over the country. They can by no means be termed as soldiers until they have had an amount of training, and even six months is inadequate, but six months we are prepared to accept. I would ask the hon. Minister in all seriousness to approach it, and realize that we are also approaching it in a constructive light, in what we believe is the best service that we can give to the lads themselves, to the Defence Force as a whole and to the Republic.

I think we might still have agreed with the amendment perhaps but I do not think it should be moved at this stage. Where police duties have to be performed we know that the services of young men, although they have not had six months’ training, can be used, in view of our limited manpower, for other services such as office work, for example, and for guard duty and various other services which are not covered by their military training. In these circumstances where emergencies may arise I do not think that the Minister should accept this amendment. Although the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) means well in proposing it I feel that the hon. the Minister ought not to accept it. But I want to refer to another matter in connection with the same clause and I should like to ask the Minister for an explanation. Clause 2 (3) provides—

What I should like to know from the Minister is this. We know that there are people in the Defence Force who receive special pay and certain allowances. They are persons who have been in the Defence Force for years, and if they are transferred in war-time or during a disturbance to another portion of the Defence Force and they do other work there, they do not receive those allowances. Take the case, for example, of an artisan who receives a certain remuneration and certain allowances and who is called upon to do clerical work. He now loses that remuneration and his allowances and his whole budget is upset. I should like to hear from the Minister whether that is the case and how it is proposed to deal with those cases.

Mr. Chairman, the changes this clause brings about in the principal Act are fundamental and have other repercussions in regard to the organization of our Defence Force which I would like to discuss later. But at this stage I wish to confine my remarks to lending support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simonstown. This clause refers to the duties of the Defence Force. In terms of Section 5, Chapter II of the Defence Act, the Defence Force consists of three distinct arms, the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos. The duties prescribed in this clause in paragraphs (a) to (d) are precisely those which have stood for many years in respect of the functions of the Permanent Force. In respect of the A.C.F., the functions prescribed in (a), (b) and (c) have been applicable for many years, but (d) has never applied, i.e. the police duties as may be prescribed. The A.C.F. was excluded from that. That is quite clear from Section 13 of the Defence Act. In terms of Clause 28, the chapter dealing with the commandos, they never had any one of these duties. Their responsibility for service is described in Chapter 10 of the Defence Act, and deals with the liability for service in times of war, but there was never any general liability laid down for the commandos. Now for the first time these three arms are all given the same liability and duty in respect of the defence of the Republic, suppressing internal disorder, and service in the preservation of life, health and property, and the maintenance of essential services, and police duties. Now for the first time they all have the same duties. In regard to the Permanent Force, I do not think there can be any doubt as to their capability to exercise police duties. They have always been looked upon traditionally as a supplementary force, to support the police. In respect of the A.C.F., we are now prescribing police duties for men who in some instances will be trained to a large extent, but also under the new system they will be men who have had no training whatever. And when we come to the Commandos, we give police duties to a large body which is practically wholly untrained, in the sense of the training that the Permanent Force and the A.C.F. receive. I think it is wholly unreasonable for the Minister to use the argument that he will take only a section of them. We are dealing with the clause as it is worded. The Minister may give assurances, but he may not be there forever, and other Ministers are not bound by the assurances given by this Minister. We are legislating for the statute book, and therefore it is necessary to have adequate safeguards. We accept all the arguments of the Minister, but the Minister should also appreciate our point of view as we are attempting, in the amendment moved by my hon. friend, to insert the necessary safeguard, so if the men are used for police duties at any time we will have the assurance that they are trained men. As far as I can see, that is what the amendment means. It only asks that men are used with a minimum of six months’ training, but in terms of this clause the Minister may call out for police duties untrained men in the Commandos and I do not think anyone opposite will argue that a Commando member is as well trained a man as the member of the A.C.F. or the Permanent Force. I would plead with the Minister to consider this amendment favourably.

The hon. member for Turffontein correctly says that we pass laws for the Statute Book, but look what the hon. member now wants to place on the Statute Book. He now wishes to place on the Statute Book a provision that no person may be used for specific services unless he has had six months’ training. What would that mean? It would mean that these people who are already in training camps and whose services could have been used with advantage to protect the lives of people, their health or property, cannot be used until such time as they have had six months’ training.

Not for the other services; only for police duties.

As the amendment reads it asks that the following words should be inserted after (d). But I want to say this even in connection with police duties. The hon. member says that these people must have six months’ training. During all these years the members of the Active Citizen Force received only three months’ training and he regarded them as trained people.

But they did not perform police duty.

He wants to use the Reserve Force. How many of them had more than three months’ training except those who went on active service? The hon. member now wants to exclude specifically these people who may already be in a training camp and whose services could be used advantageously at very short notice. I think it would be foolish for any commanding officer, when he knows that people are untrained and that he can call in other men, to make use of the services of untrained people. After all, that is why we have commanding officers. But it is unthinkable to lay down by law that those people cannot be called in. The hon. member will realize that the support which he is giving to the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown holds no water, and I am sure that the Minister will not accept it.

The Minister made us understand clearly in his reply to the second reading, and again to-night, that Clause 2(d) is intended to use men for military police duty but I think it is there where the confusion comes in because this Clause does not say that. If we read the Clause as it stands here it says—

How have the military police of the Permanent Force been used all these years?

But there was no legislation for that, in spite of the fact that they were used. As the Clause stands at the moment—and this is our objection—any member of the Defence Force can be used at any time for any police duties which may be prescribed. That means that, if necessary, any member can be used for police duty—not the military police.

Police duties, as prescribed.

But it is not prescribed in this legislation. I personally, and we on this side, feel that there may be times when it will be necessary to call up any member of the Defence Force to assist the civil police. Our objection is that when such men are called up to assist the police they must not have had only a few months’ training. What we ask in the amendment is that they should be people who have had at least six months’ training..

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). We have no objection to Clauses 2(a), (b) and (c).

Can the hon member tell us how many men there are in South Africa to-day who have already had six months’ training, except those on active service.

There must be ten thousand who finished last year and then there are many who have had active Citizen Force training over the years. Supposing, however, we do not have enough, that we do not have many, we shall in any case have the ten thousand of last year and we shall have the ten thousand of this year and next year there will be six thousand. We only wish to make sure that untrained men are not used for civil police duties. We do not want to prevent men from being used for police duties but when they are used we should like them to be men who have had more than six months’ training. The police to-day regard their training to be of such a nature that whereas in the past they trained men for five months, the training is 12 months to-day. I do not think we are asking too much of the Minister. We do not want to be difficult but we only want to make sure that men are used who have a certain amount of experience.

It is remarkable but once a person has misunderstood anything he continues to misunderstand it. Let us start with the last speaker. The hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) has made the point that we want to use men for police duties who have not been trained, but let me repeat this: The police duties are prescribed and according to the definition clause of the Act “prescribed” means in respect of matters relating to salaries and (b) in respect of any other matter prescribed by regulation. Those duties are prescribed by regulation and here we have the regulations. I gave them at the second reading. The hon. member for Turffontein now says that all the hon. member for Simonstown wants is that only those people who have had at least six months’ training should perform police duties. But the hon. member for Simonstown asks for that only in respect of the Citizen Force member and not in respect of Permanent Force men. If we were to be so unwise as to use people who have not had any training, surely we can use Permanent Force men who join to-day to-morrow and there will be nothing to prevent us from doing so. But we are not doing that. Where is it provided in any Act that a person first has to be trained as a pilot before he is allowed to fly an aeroplane? No one is so foolish as to let him fly an aeroplane until he has been trained. Where is it provided in any Act that a gunner must first be trained as a gunner before you allow him to operate a gun? That is simply not done and for the same reason it is not provided in any Act that a person must first have been trained as a military policeman before he does that work; that is simply not done. Even if we get another Minister he will, as sure as Heaven, not put a man in an aeroplane who has not been trained, and he will not use a person as gunner if he has not been trained and he will not use him as a military police unless he has been trained. That is the position. Why do they persist with this argument then? This clause has nothing to do with defence force men assisting the police in times of emergency for 24 hours. The clause states clearly that they will perform those duties as prescribed by regulation. The regulations have always prescribed certain police duties and those police duties are only in the military field and for military people. [Interjections]. It is not even to guard a bridge. The position is simply this that where we want to use the Citizen Force we have men who are in the camps for nine months. We are also training them to perform military police work, but even a member of a commando, in terms of Section 38, can be allocated in which case he is not there for only a few days. If he is allocated to the Citizen Force he is there for a long period and if he has to be used for police duties he will be trained for it. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Simonstown. There has really been a misunderstanding. It is clearly stated here that those people who have to do police duties in terms of this section must only do those duties as prescribed.

I suppose the hon. member for Simonstown never thought of it that his amendment does not state that a member of the Permanent Force must have six months’ training. I can use him for police duties the very next day after joining if I want to be so irresponsible. [Interjections.] The hon. member definitely stated that he did not want untrained men to do police duties, and he said that is all the hon. member for Simonstown wanted. But the Permanent Force men have not all been trained. If we want to be so irresponsible, we can use a volunteer to the Permanent Force to-morrow for police duties, if he signed on to-day, but we do not do that, and we never have done it before. Why should we now do it with A.C.F. men?

There are two facets of police duties. There are the police duties within the force itself and police duties which may be performed with regard to the public generally.

But this clause has nothing to do with that. It says, “as prescribed”, and I have already said what can be prescribed. It refers to the duties that have to be exercised on property belonging to the Defence Force.

But you can change that regulation to-morrow.

Please do not argue that way. We can change anything to-morrow. But we cannot change it from day to day. It also refers to contraventions committed by somebody subject to military law, and contraventions committed in respect of weapons, ammunition, aircraft, ships, etc. They are all contraventions as prescribed, and this clause only deals with police duties in that regard. The other duties referred to in Clause 15 are something totally different. We can discuss that when we come to Clause 15, but this has nothing to do with it. I cannot accept the amendment.

First of all, with regard to the Permanent Force, the exclusion of the Permanent Force was deliberate in the amendment. It has always been regarded as the duty of the Permanent Force to back up the police if necessary, and it operates under completely different conditions to the A.C.F. Any new Permanent Force trainees are part of a unit being trained under their own officers. They are not scattered about the country as the A.C.F. trainees could be. The two things are quite separate. We have accepted the provision made in the original Act in regard to the Permanent Force and we have only raised this issue in regard to the A.C.F. When we come to the prescribed duties, it is true that (d) says “on such police duties as may be prescribed”, but when we go on to Clause 2 (4) it says—

There is no limitation there.

It is while he does his duties as prescribed. That is the limitation.

He may have his duties prescribed by the regulations, but the regulations may be changed without reference to this Parliament. What we are legislating for at the moment is something to go on the Statute Book as permanent legislation, and our objection is that we will place on the Statute Book something with no limiting qualification of any sort except any qualifications contained in regulations, which may be changed from time to time, and we say this is wrong. It is not the correct procedure for these boys who have virtually come straight from school and within the first six months of their training to be liable for duties such as laid down in sub-section (4). This House knows full well the widespread powers now vested in the Police Force. Even an experienced policeman has his work cut out to keep pace with the knowledge of what he is entitled to do, and this Bill grants those powers without any reservation to such Defence persons as may be drafted for police duties. There is no qualification, whatever the regulations may say. We are most anxious to help in this regard, but I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to insert in this legislation the safeguard we are asking for, particularly in regard to the trainees of the A.C.F. It is as simple as that. The Minister, like the rest of us, may not always be there, and someone else may take his place. If it is changed by Parliament, that is well and good. Parliament can change any law, but that is the body which should be able to make the change, and that is why we want this precaution enshrined in the legislation.

The hon. member for Simonstown does not want to accept the Minister’s explanation. I think it is a question of legal opinion as to what is stated in the clause. The duties for which these people will be used will be as prescribed. The hon. member says that only people with six months’ training must be used for those duties but if we say that we shall be eliminating 95 per cent of the trained reserves and of the Citizen Force. The only people we have to-day who have had more than six months’ training are those people who served in the last war and for the rest, those people who started their nine months’ training last year. In previous years nobody received more than five months’ training in the Citizen Force or in the Commandos. In other words, you are eliminating all those people.. The suggestion contained in the amendment is impractical and cannot be accepted.

I think we should get clarity from the Minister in regard to his interpretation of what constitutes police duties. I gained the impression that the Minister has in mind that by making it compulsory on all three arms of the Defence Force that they should do police duties, he will draw up regulations prescribing how certain members of those forces will be used on police duties for military purposes. The regulations quoted by the Minister are entirely confined to military police duties.

That is all I want to do.

That is the whole issue, because there is nothing to prevent the others being used. When the A.C.F. went into the field in the last war, there was no necessity for a war measure to say that members of the A.C.F. could not act as military police.

That was not so.

Let me prove to the Minister by his own Act that he completely misunderstands the matter. The Minister will agree that Section 13, which lays down the duties of the Permanent Force, says “on such police duties as may be prescribed”. Section 90 says how they will be used and says “subject to the provisions of this Act the whole or any portion or member of the Permanent Force may at any time be employed on service on such police duties as may be prescribed”. The whole force, in other words, would then have to be spent looking after itself, which is utterly ridiculous, if you interpret the law as it stands. In other words, the employment of military personnel on police duties is directed entirely to the conception that they will be used to supplement the ordinary police. Surely that is the interpretation and it has always been so. When the Minister reads out these regulations, he can change them at any time. He merely has to Table them in this House. And these regulations refer only to the Permanent Force and deal with the protection of military property, and they have nothing to do with the A.C.F. performing police duties because they can establish their own military police without having an Act of Parliament, and if the Minister consults his advisers he will find that that is so.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.