[Reply laid upon the Table with leave of House]

This matter vests in the Administrator of the Cape Province and the following information was furnished by him:

1. (1) Yes, written representations regarding the Clarendon Gardens project were received by the Administrator.
   1. (a)
      1. A. Mrs G C Shaw, Chairman: City Wide Ratepayers’ Association
      2. B. D R Bruce
      3. C. R Venter
      4. D. East London CBD Association
      5. E. P A Weber
      6. F. B Randall on behalf of the three Clarendon School Committees
      7. G. Cape Education Department
      8. H. Attorneys Russell, Esterhuizen, Lindsay and Sephton on behalf of the following parties:
         B Randall
         G C Shaw
         G Bassingthwaighte
         B Snell
         D Card
         City Wide Ratepayers’ Association
      9. I. The Border Committee of the South African Institute of Architects
      10. J. Attorneys Bate, Chubb and Dickson on behalf of the local school committees
      11. K. Hospital Board of Frere Hospital
      12. L. Mrs E Kemp, Member of the Presidents Council, on behalf of the City Wide Ratepayers Association
      13. M. Mr C W J Badenhorst, MP
      14. N. Town Council of East London
      15. O. Messrs RMS Syfrets (Transvaal), project co-ordinators on behalf of developers
      16. P. Petition in favour of the project
   2. (b) (i)
      1. A. MRS G C SHAW, CHAIRMAN: CITY WIDE RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION
         1. (1) Requests an investigation into the Council of East London’s handling of the case in view of alleged corruption.
         2. (2) Threatens that the pre-primary school shall be closed as a result of the parents’ lack of support.
         3. (3) Requests that a referendum be held.
         4. (4) Threatens to boycott schools if the application is granted.
         5. (5) In an attempt to stop the development, parents and children will march in front of earth moving machinery.
         6. (6) Allegations that a member of the City Council, who is also a director of the development firm, has a hold on a senior Cabinet Minister.
         7. (7) As a result of pending investigations against the City Council member, the Council should not be doing business with him.
         8. (8) Requests a review of the Executive Committee’s decision.
         9. (9) Requests that a public meeting be held in terms of section 204 of Ordinance 20 of 1974.
         10. (10) Legal advice is obtained from a Senior Advocate regarding the Executive Committee’s decision.
         11. (11) The Executive Committee’s decision to approve the application was known weeks before the investigation of the Commission of Inquiry had been concluded.
         12. (12) The Administrator said that there is nothing that he can do to stop the project and that the objectors must obtain an interdict from the court.
         13. (13) Over 8 000 objections were lodged against the project and a clause in the Ordinance which makes provision for the submission of objections is therefore meaningless.
         14. (14) There has been a farcical inquiry at which positive evidence was given of attempted bribery of three councillors and yet it was ruled that no irregularities could be proved.
         15. (15) The sale price of the land is not to the benefit of the ratepayers.
         16. (16) During 1942 a decision of the Administrator was reversed after receipt of one objection only, which therefore, creates a precedent for the reversal of the Executive Committee’s decision regarding the Clarendon Gardens project.
         17. (17) It is suggested that part of the land in question be expropriated for future development of the schools in the areas.
         18. (18) It is also suggested that an interdict be not opposed so that all proceedings could be stopped by court order.
         19. (19) The development of the land of the South African Transport Services must be insisted upon.
         20. (20) The Administrator is requested to visit East London to explain to ratepayers as to why he cannot stop the development.
      2. B. D R BRUCE:
         1. (1) Made certain general statements that the City Council supported the application, knowing that thousands of objections were received and that the Council ignored the recommendations of its officials.
         2. (2) Requests that a referendum be held.
         3. (3) Requests that land of the SA Transport Services should be used for the development.
         4. (4) Requests that the application be rejected.
      3. C. C R VENTER:
         1. (1) Allegations about irregular conduct by members of the City Council.
         2. (2) Requests the relieve of his office of at least one City Council member.
      4. D. EAST LONDON CBD ASSOCIATION:
         1. (1) Draws attention to the objections directed to the City Council and that the land of the SA Transport Services is available for development.
      5. E. P A WEBER:
         1. (1) Draws attention to reports in the local press.
         2. (2) It would be undesirable to build a business complex next to a White residential area, hospitals and schools considering that the shops would become the shopping vicinity of thousands of Blacks from Mdansane.
      6. F. B RANDALL:
         1. (1) The three Clarendon School Committees request a meeting with the MEC concerned with local government with a view to discussing their objections.
         2. (2) Requests that the MEC inspect the site in loco.
         3. (3) The complex will have the effect of reducing the number of pupils of the schools concerned.
         4. (4) The preparatory school will be isolated as a result of the development which poses a danger in case of emergencies.
         5. (5) The school will be facing onto the back of the complex and this will lead to health hazards due to the location of refuse areas. The location of service facilities such as air-conditioning plants will create a noise hazard.
         6. (6) The safety of the pupils is a matter of concern as undesirable elements are attracted to shopping complexes. These types of complexes are also the targets for terrorism.
         7. (7) The schools have inadequate grounds.
         8. (8) Problems regarding access will be created.
         9. (9) The complex will create pollution.
         10. (10) The existing storm water system is not able to cope with additional run-off during flood conditions.
         11. (11) The development will have a negative environmental effect on the adjacent area.
         12. (12) Building materials used for shopping complexes such as this are normally detrimental to adjoining areas.
         13. (13) The site is suitable for the extension of the existing school grounds.
         14. (14) Enquires what provision is to be made for the future of the schools and security of the children and teachers.
         15. (15) Final consideration of the matter must be delayed until such time as the questions in (14) above have been clarified.
         16. (16) Requests copies of the recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board and of the report of the Commission of Inquiry.
      7. G. CAPE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT:
         1. (1) The security of especially the preparatory school will be endangered.
         2. (2) The Department is anxious to acquire the site.
         3. (3) An alternative suitable site is available for development.
      8. H. ATTORNEYS RUSSELL, ESTERHUIZEN, LINDSAY AND SEPHTON ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN PARTIES:
         1. (1) The Executive Committee’s decision to grant the application is considered to be invalid for certain reasons submitted and it is requested that the developers be instructed not to proceed with development.
      9. I. THE BORDER COMMITTEE OF THE INSTITUTE OF SA ARCHITECTS:
         1. (1) A final decision on the matter must be delayed until such time as an investigation is done regarding the need for public open spaces in the area.
         2. (2) The proposed rezoning is not in conformity with other existing land uses in the area.
      10. J. ATTORNEYS BATE, CHUBB AND DICKSON ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL COMMITTEES:
          1. (1) Request that the objectors be granted an interview, should the application be approved.
      11. K. HOSPITAL BOARD FOR THE FRERE HOSPITAL:
          1. (1) The development will create traffic problems and parking facilities are already inadequate.
          2. (2) Land is required for extensions to the hospital.
          3. (3) Although it is understood that the Hospital Board may have had a mind to obtain the relevant land for a future medical faculty attached to Rhodes University, the Hospital Department has intimated that it owns sufficient adjoining property next to the railway line for future extensions.
      12. L. MRS E KEMP, MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WIDE RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION:
          1. (1) In addition to the written objections which were addressed to the Administrator, Mrs Elsabè Kemp, a member of the Presidents Council, personally discussed the objections to the project with the Administrator on 8 March 1988. Apparently she acted on behalf of Mrs G Shaw, Chairman of the City Wide Ratepayers’ Association as Mrs Shaw later referred to Mrs Kemp’s visit in a letter to the Administrator. Mrs Kemp indicated that the residents were perturbed about the project. She also clearly stated her own position by mentioning to the Administrator that as a property broker she was involved in a competing project which, as a result of Clarendon Gardens, could not be proceeded with. Mrs Kemp also mentioned that application would possibly be made for an interdict in an attempt to prevent the development of the project. The Administrator informed Mrs Kemp that the Executive Committee had already taken a decision concerning the Clarendon Gardens project and that he was therefore functus officio. No one could, however, be prevented from applying for a court interdict.
      13. M. MR C W J BADENHORST, MP:
          1. (1) Mrs Kemp, on behalf of the rate payers, addressed a letter to me on 30 March 1988 with documentation containing objections attached. In this documentation a number of unsubstantiated allegations were made, for example—
             1. (a) bribery of city council members;
             2. (b) that Messrs De Klerk and Van Gend were the attorneys of the Administrator, which is completely unfounded, and
             3. (c) that these attorneys by means of “interference” communicated with East London’s Council (the Administrator has no knowledge hereof).
                

                In a telephonic conversation on 30 March 1988 Mrs Kemp requested me to refer the matter to the Minister of Education and Culture: House of Assembly with a view to expropriating the land for educational purposes. In reaction hereto I pointed out to Mrs Kemp that the correct procedure would be to make the documentation available to Mr C W J Badenhorst, MP, so that he can make the necessary representations to the Administrator of the Cape. My telephonic discussion with Mrs Kemp was confirmed in writing on 5 April 1988 and on the same date the relevant documentation was also made available to Mr Badenhorst, MP, under cover of a letter. Later Mr Badenhorst, on enquiry, confirmed telephonically that the documentation was made available to Mr P J Schoeman, MEC (Mr Badenhorst personally supports the project).

      14. N. CITY COUNCIL OF EAST LONDON:
          1. (1) The City Council of East London was in favour of the application and applied to the Administrator for the sale and rezoning of the property.
      15. O. MESSRS RMS SYFRETS (TRANSVAAL), PROJECT CO-ORDINATORS, ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPERS:
          1. (1) Submitted a motivation to the Administrator in support of the project on their own initiative after they had become aware of unnecessary negative criticism in the East London press.
      16. P. A PETITION SIGNED BY 265 RESIDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PROJECT:
          1. (1) It is pointed out that some objectors have made the contention that 6 000-8 000 motivated objections to the project were submitted. This contention appears to be highly debatable and is apparently based upon petitions against the project which, according to the City Council contain approximately 5 935 names (on some of the pages of these petitions only names and addresses appear, but no signatures). The fact of the matter is that the City Council only received approximately 150 written submissions opposed to the project of which some were not motivated and appeared in a standard printed form. In many instances separate letters of objection from married couples and other interested parties were written in their personal capacities. Much emphasis by the objectors was also placed on the contention that alternative land, such as that belonging to the South African Transport Services, should be utilised for the development of the project. In this respect it should however be pointed out that it is not the Administration’s function, where an application for a particular site has been received, to consider alternative sites with a view to requesting the owner to submit a similar application. The Administration’s function is rather to consider the application before it with a view to either approving or refusing it.
   3. (b) (ii) The Administrator’s comments on the representations were that all the relevant objections will be investigated and taken into account when the merits of the application are considered. Normally, correspondence debating objections are not entered into with objectors. In view, however, of the nature and extent of the representations received, various meetings were arranged before a decision on the project was taken, for example:
      • — A group of businessmen from East London were received by the MEC, Mr Schoeman on 4 August 1987.
      • — The Chairman of various school committees were received by the MEC on 3 November 1987.
      • — Representatives from the following departments were received by the MEC on 3 December 1987:
        Cape Education Department Hospitals Department
        Provincial Roads Department
        Planning Advisory Board
        The developers and officials of the Provincial Administration;

All the relevant representations were thoroughly discussed during these meetings.

Regarding the allegation of corruption, the complainants were advised to lodge their complaints with the Advocate-General, which was done. The Advocate-General, however, recommended that the Administrator appoint an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations and this was also done. The commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Advocate W J Wagenaar, found that:

• — No proof of bribery of councillors could be furnished.
• — Specific meetings of the East London Town Council could not be considered to have been irregular.
• — The provisions of the Municipal Ordinance 20 of 1974 were not contravened.
• — Nothing untoward or irregular appeared in the Council’s action regarding the sale of the land for the project in question, and
• — The sentence which was passed on the particular Councillor did not disqualify him as Councillor in terms of section 25 of Ordinance 20 of 1974 and he was therefore entitled to vote in the Council.
  It may furthermore be mentioned that senior officials visited the site on more than three occasions and that Mr Schoeman, MEC, also visited the site twice.

1. (2) Yes.
   1. (a) The following representations as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(i) above:
      A (1) —(20)
      D (1)
      E (1) and (2)
      F (1) —(16)
      G (1) —(3)
      H (1)
      L
      M
   2. (b) A (1) on 3 August 1987 and 3 November 1987
      A (2) — (7) on 21 November 1987
      A (8) on 2 February 1988
      A (9) on 16 October 1987
      A (10) and (11) on 22 January 1988
      A (12) — (20) on 30 March 1988
      D (1) on 28 July 1987
      E (1) and (2) on 12 August 1987
      F (1) and (2) on 22 October 1987
      F (3) — (12) on 4 November 1987
      F (13) on 16 November 1987
      F (14) on 14 December 1987
      F (15) on 15 December 1987
      F (16) on 6 January 1988
      G (1) and (2) on 6 November 1987
      G (3) on 14 December 1987
      H (1) on 19 January 1988
      L on 8 March 1988
      M on 5 April 1988.

Question standing over from Tuesday, 10 May 1988:

1. (1) The purpose for which the official residence Groote Schuur may be used, is laid down in the Rhodes’ Will (Groote Schuur Devolution) Act, 1910. The State President has agreed that the residence may also be used for official functions and to house important guests of the State. Furthermore, visitors are allowed, on a controlled basis, to view the residence.
2. (2) No. The use of this residence is regulated by the Rhodes’ Will (Groote Schuur Devolution) Act, 1910.
3. (3) No.

New Questions:

1. (1) Yes, for a period of twelve months.
   1. (a) The reduction in rates vary depending upon the cost of conveyance, circumstances and merit of applications.
   2. (b) To be more competitive in the open transport market, to gain traffic for S. A. Transport Services and to make a contribution towards the viability of projects which possibly would not have realised otherwise.
2. (2) No. Reduced rates have only been offered on application from freight forwarders who can offer traffic of the same description for conveyance under the same conditions.

1. (1) and (2).

The hon member is referred to my reply to Question No 24 on 10 May 1988.

This matter vests in the Administrator of the Cape Province and he furnished the following information:

1. (1)
   1. (a) Yes.
      1. (i) 250 sites.
      2. (ii) 31 May 1988.
      3. (iii) For the resettlement of squatters from Lawaaikamp.
      4. (iv) The settlement of families on serviced sites.
      5. (v) Municipality of George.
   2. (b) No, the Administration requested the Municipality to provide the services and the Municipality offered to erect the houses.
2. (2) At this stage the moving of Black residents of Borcherds, Urbanville and Cornville to Sandkraal is not being considered.

Mr Speaker, according to the available information there are now no longer 2 000 residents in Lawaaikamp. As far as I know, attempts are indeed being made to achieve the voluntary removal of the residents of Lawaaikamp.

Mr Speaker, the land belongs to the municipality of George, and there is no reason why this Department would be interested in it.

1. (1) Yes. (a) and (b) Fall away.
2. (2) Yes.
3. (3) Yes. Two.

Mr Speaker, I do not think that has anything to do with the original question on the Question Paper. I would suggest that the hon member table a new question.

No, Mr Speaker, I am not aware of the issue the hon member has just mentioned. I suggest he table a question in that regard. However, I should just like to point out to him that the reply to the following question on the Question Paper may have something in common with what the hon member is referring to. That may answer his question.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member has any such report, he can bring it to my attention. However, I have no report of that nature.

Mr Speaker, the hon member is now making an accusation. If he is of the opinion that there is any substance whatsoever in his accusation then he must have such a question placed on the Question Paper.

Yes.

1. (a) On two occasions.
2. (b) (i) Johannesburg and Cape Town.
   1. (ii) In the case of Johannesburg the mass of additional cargo was estimated incorrectly and in the case of Cape Town standby cargo was loaded in error.
3. (c) 5 May 1988.

Mr Speaker, in neither case were the bounds of safety exceeded. [Interjections.]

1. (1) Yes.
   1. (a) 18 April 1988.
   2. (b) The Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company.
2. (2) Yes.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member wants the particulars of a specific case, he must place a question on the Question Paper in that regard. [Interjections.]

1. (1) No.
2. (2) No. (a), (b) and (c) Fall away.
3. (3) and (4) Fall away.
4. (5) No.

Yes.

1. (a) 38.
2. (b) To 32 one month or longer.
   

   To 5 twenty four hours. In all 5 cases the transfers were expected and the officials were informed verbally beforehand or they were aware thereof. The officials were resident in white areas and short notice of change of working place was not applicable to place of residence.

   One official was transferred three weeks after he had so requested.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member wants a reply to that, I would like to consider it by way of a quesiton on the Question Paper.

1. (1) Yes, the Department of Development Aid is involved in the installation of infrastructure and the erection of certain official buildings.
2. (2) Yes.
   1. (a) (i) R55 194 000.
      1. (ii) R30 194 000.
   2. (b) The amount as mentioned under (2)(a)(ii) has been paid towards the following projects:
      

      Infrastructure (including bulk services) for the supply of water, sewerage, electricity, storm water drainage, streets and roads for a central business district comprising 16,6 hectares, as well as 1 053 residential erven.

      The following building projects: post office, court, stadium, one secondary and two primary schools, showground facilities and 130 houses. (Houses are also being erected by other bodies using their own funds and 492 such houses have also been completed.)

      Consultants are at present being appointed for the planning of the following projects:

      Legislative assembly building and government offices, ministers’ houses, police headquarters and police station, traffic test centre, health facilities, flats, houses and additional infrastructure for these projects as well as for an additional 350 residential erven.

   3. (c) The amount mentioned under (2)(a)(ii) was spent during the period 1st April 1986 to 31st March 1988.

1. (1) Yes.
   1. (a) During February 1989.
   2. (b) R4,5 million.
2. (2) Yes.
   1. (a) May 1988.
   2. (b) (i) The delay was caused due to the extension of one of the previous construction phases. In the domestic terminal the mezzanine floor was extended and windows were installed in the restaurant.
      1. (ii) As a result of this passengers are being handled in a separate temporary international terminal.
3. (3) Yes.
   1. (a) That the international terminal be completed by November 1988.
   2. (b) The Durban Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.
   3. (c) On 25 and 29 April 1988.
4. (4) Yes. The contractor has been earnestly requested to complete the work by November 1988 if at all possible.

1. (1) Yes; (a) and (b): Section 37 of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Professions Act, 1974 (No. 56 of 1974) makes provision for the regulation of various activities regarding the practice of clinical psychology.
2. (2) No, not up to this stage, but the activities of the Organisation are continuously assessed.
3. (3) No.

1. (1) to (3) The offices of the organization concerned were searched in Johannesburg on 22 September 1987 and in Cape Town on 16 November 1987 as a result of an investigation in terms of section 37 of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Services Professions Act, 1974 (Act 56 of 1974). The case docket has been referred to the Attorney-General for his decision. This decision is being awaited, therefore, the required information is not furnished.
2. (4) No.

[Reply laid upon the Table with leave of House]:

1. (1) (a) Yes.
   1. (b) Yes.
      1. (i) 166 on 11 February
         252 on 15 February
         239 on 16 February
         238 on 17 February
      2. (ii) In the case of 115 of the 166 on 11 February in order to pay an unauthorized visit to the Circuit Office. In the case of the remainder the reason is not known. On 16 February, 160 of the 239 teachers paid an unauthorized visit to the Circuit Office.
         

         In the case of the remainder of the teachers who were absent on 16 February and in the case of all the absent teachers on 15 and 17 February it is assumed that the stay away action resulted from an appeal to lodge a three-day boycott of classes.

2. (2) (a) Yes, during the morning of 11 February.
   1. (b) Yes, during the morning of 16 February.
      1. (i) To make representations regarding the admission of pupils at schools.
      2. (ii) Deputy Directors, Cape Town Circuit.
      3. (iii) On 11 February the teachers were addressed by the Deputy Director and he reminded them of the correct procedures when lodging complaints. They were also told that the Deputy Director was prepared to meet the principals of the schools concerned at 16h00 on that day. They were invited to nominate two teacher representatives of each school to accompany the principals.
         

         The teachers were instructed to return to their schools immediately in order to teach the pupils who were left on their own. This they did not do.

         Nobody attended the meeting which was arranged for that afternoon. However, on 12 February the Circuit Office received a letter from the teachers demanding an interview with the Deputy Director and his colleagues.

         An interview was not granted to the teachers because

         1. (a) the meeting was unauthorized
         2. (b) they ignored the previous invitation
         3. (c) they were absent from the school during school hours without leave
         4. (d) the Deputy Minister had already consented to give a group of teachers a hearing at 15h00 that same afternoon.

         Two letters were handed to the teachers in which they were notified that their behaviour was irregular and in which they were reminded of the correct channels of communication.

(1), (2) and (3) An Internal Board of Inquiry, of which the findings will be available shortly, has been convened to investigate the matter. Ethical considerations prevent the divulging of information on the medical condition and treatment of a patient.

[Reply laid upon the Table with leave of House.]:

1. (1) Yes.
   1. (a) Inter schools athletics meeting.
   2. (b) (i) All the primary schools (34) in the Cape Peninsula were divided into 5 groups. Each group of schools earlier competed against one another and each group selected a combined team to represent each group. These teams competed against one another at the Green Point Stadium on 28 March 1988.
      1. (ii) 7 secondary schools took part in an athletics meeting on 29 March 1988.
   3. (c) Western Cape Secondary Schools Athletics Association.
2. (2) Yes.
   1. (a) Three, namely I.D. Mkize, Sizamile, Fezeka secondary schools.
   2. (b) Apparently due to a threatening pamphlet issued by radical groups and which was distributed at some secondary schools on 28 March 1988.
3. (3) Yes.
   1. (a) Falls away.
   2. (b) Falls away.
      1. (i) A meeting was held with principals who in turn,
         1. (aa) met with the teachers responsible for sport in all the schools, during which meetings final arrangements were made and such arrangements were conveyed to all teachers via the principals and teachers responsible for sport as normal procedure requires.
         2. (bb) See (cc).
         3. (cc) Principals, teachers responsible for sport and staff members informed the children of all the arrangements. The children in turn informed their parents. This is the normal procedure.
      2. (iii) 18 March 1988.
      3. (iv) All the secondary schools in the Cape Peninsula.
      4. (v) The initial consultation led to a most successful inter high schools athletics meeting that was staged by the Western Cape Secondary Schools Athletics Association at Green Point Stadium on 29 March 1988. As a result of this meeting a representative team was able to participate in the national athletics schools championships on 6 and 7 May 1988 at Sentrarand (near Johannesburg). Pupils from the Cape Peninsula won the following medals:
         

         Primary schools: 1 Bronze

         Secondary schools: 1 gold, 3 Silver, 2 Bronze.

1. (1) No.
   1. (a)-(d) Fall away.
      1. (i) Costs of provision of dictionaries to pupils (English, Afrikaans and Mother tongue).
      2. (ii) Initial allocation is one copy per school, supplemented according to (a) demand and (b) funds available.
      3. (iii) Dictionaries are kept in media centres, to which pupils have unlimited access.
      4. (iv) If the number of secondary pupils for 1987 (378 073) is multiplied by the current unit cost (R9,00), the estimated cost will be R3 402 657,00.
2. (2) Yes.
   

   Initial alloction of 3 copies per language per school.

Mr Speaker, I do not for one moment think that the situation as it is at the moment is satisfactory. It is for that reason that the policy is being reconsidered and that we are giving this matter attention at the moment.

This matter vests in the Administrator of Transvaal and he furnished the following information:

1. (1) (a) and (b).
   

   A Black male staff nurse is in the employ of the Johannesburg Hospital in the neuro-surgical section, ward 565. Normally there are 12 White patients of both sexes in the section. During the night of 29 February 1988 the Black male staff nurse and a Black sister were on duty in the section. At times during the night when the Black sister was busy outside the female ward the Black male staff nurse had to nurse the patients. It could not be confirmed that he nursed the patient of whom particulars have been furnished by the hon member specifically, during the night in question.

2. (2) No, not without her permission.
3. (3) No.

Mr Speaker, I cannot reply to that. If the hon member wishes to ask that question, he must have it placed on the Question Paper. Let me just add now that the hon member for Brits also asked me this particular question previously. On that occasion I told him that I would investigate the matter personally, and I undertake to do the same in this case.

1. (1) Yes.
   1. (a) Between 03h30 and 08h00.
   2. (b) Stellenbosch Commando.
   3. (c) It is not policy to divulge personnel strengths.
   4. (d) SA Police.
   5. (e) Tasks in support of the SA Police.
   6. (f) Personal weapons.
2. (2) No.

(for the Minister of Justice):

1. (a) and (b) In terms of section 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977) attorneys-general have the authority to prosecute any person in the name of the Republic in criminal proceedings and they may perform all functions relating to the exercise of such authority. It is obvious that attorneys-general during the course of their activities interact with members of not only the South African Police, but also all other institutions who may have an interest in law enforcement (for instance traffic departments, nature conservation authorities etc.), and that guidelines are issued and/or suggestions are made regarding the investigation of certain offences. This ensures that the best results are obtained in the circumstances. It is impractical to obtain particulars of these guidelines and/or suggestions since the final decision whether prosecutions should be instituted in certain cases or not, rests in the final instance on attorneysgeneral.

Own Affairs:

1. (1) No,
   1. (a), (b) and (c) fall away;
2. (2) falls away;
3. (3) no.

1. (a) 1 491.
2. (b) 281 947 —(March 1988).

1. (1) No,
   1. (a), (b) and (c) fall away;
2. (2) no.

1. (1) No,
   1. (a) and (b) fall away;
2. (2) (a) and (b) fall away.

1. (1) As has already been stated, the possible introduction of compulsory school fees is currently under consideration. Until a final decision has been reached the status quo will be maintained. Parents may accordingly be requested to make a voluntary contribution. In the circumstances currently prevailing I have no intention of making these contributions compulsory;
   1. (a) and (b) fall away;
2. (2) no;
3. (3) no.

Mr Speaker, seeing that the ordinary school fund as it exists today, consists of voluntary contributions, it will also still apply at any school if so desired, after the possible introduction of a compulsory school levy. I would think, however, that it would not be necessary to do this. However, we do not wish to be prescriptive if a particular management council of a school requests additional contributions from parents, provided such contributions are voluntary. This is exactly the same principle on which the ordinary school fund is dealt with at the moment. There is a difference in the amounts of school funds, as limited by the different controlling councils of schools.

1. (1) Yes,
   1. (a) and (b) the functions delegated to provincial directors of eduction cover the whole spectrum and would be difficult to provide as requested,
   2. (c) 1 March 1988;
2. (2) no functions previously performed by all the directors of education have been transferred to the Superintendent General. The powers of decision-making did however differ to a certain extent among the various directors of education and have been co-ordinated by means of delegation. To illustrate, incumbents of, for example post level 7 posts like the rector of a teacher training college, who were previously appointed in the Transvaal by the Director of Education, are now appointed by the Superintendent General on the recommendation of the Director of Education;
3. (3) no.

The hon member is referred to section 4 of the Identification Act, 1986 (Act 72 of 1986), which inter alia requires that all persons who are lawfully permanently resident in the Republic, be included in the population register. It is therefore peremptory that the personal particulars of orphans of foreign descent, who are lawfully permanently resident in the RSA, be included in the population register. In terms of section 8 of the aforementioned Act, such persons must apply for identity documents when they reach the age of 16 years.

I have explained in my reply to oral question No 8 of 8 March 1988 that the personal particulars of persons applying for identity documents are carefully scrutinized for authenticity and verified against the Department’s records in order to prevent the issuing of identity documents to aliens not entitled thereto.

Yes, (a) and (b) fall away.

Own Affairs:

The information is not readily available. Costs differ from one school to another and are influenced by various factors such as the size of the school, tender prices, location etc.,

1. (1) and (2) fall away.