I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The task of an information service such as this is firstly, on the positive side, to disseminate information, and secondly, on the negative side, to counter incorrect reports. I think it is just as well that I state in brief what the policy is of this side of the House in connection with a Governmental information service. Let me say this in reply to what we hear so often: We on this side of the House strongly disapprove of reports which give incorrect facts in connection with South Africa. We regard those as lies which have to be replied to. Secondly, we believe in the principle that there should be a distinction between facts and comment. “ Facts and sacred, comment is free.” We have the right, of course, to reply to comment where necessary. Thirdly, we say that every government should, within the framework of its policy, make it as easy as possible for its information service to carry out its duties to the best of its ability. A Government and its Cabinet Ministers and ordinary members should try not to make statements which can be incorrectly interpreted, as happened so often last year in regard to Sharpeville, etc. Fourthly, I say that a definite distinction should be drawn between criticism on South Africa and criticism of the Government. Those are two different things. We shall reply to and counter criticism on South Africa but I cannot be expected to be a hypocrite and to say that this Government is a good Government in all respects. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we in this House get information about the Information Service. For that reason I am sorry that the latest annual report of the Information Service is not yet available. Last year it was laid on the Table on 11 March, but we are already in April this year and it has not yet been tabled. I trust that the report of the Information Service will be at our disposal next year before the Vote comes up for discussion. If, therefore, there are important matters in connection with which the hon. the Minister can give us information, matters which are raised in the report, we will appreciate it if he will do so. I have in mind more particularly publications such as South African Digest and Panorama, the use of films, the use of television and the cultural aspect.

I should also like to have more information from the Minister in regard to the relationship between the Information Service and the South African Broadcasting Corporation, for example. To what extent was the Information Service responsible for the news supplied to the Press and to the Broadcasting Corporation in connection with the recent Prime Ministers’ Conference? To what extent is the hon. the Minister responsible for the fact that the South African Broadcasting Corporation put those two false reports over the air that we would remain within the Commonwealth and secondly that it was all due to the hon. the Prime Minister?

I notice from the Estimates that there has been a considerable increase in expenditure under this Vote. In 1959 the expenditure amounted to R742,000 and in 1961, the current year, the figure will be R1,242,000. In other words, expenditure has quadrupled during those four years, and this year R300,000 more will be spent than last year. Is the reason that the Minister expects more trouble to arise under the republic and that it will be more difficult to give a satisfactory explanation to the world outside about conditions here? I do not object to increased expenditure provided it is justified. We agree that the staff of the Information Service should receive decent salaries. What I do want to know, however, is whether these very big allowances which they receive at places such as UNO and also New York, are justified. The senior official in New York, for example, gets a personal allowance of R30 per day and R26 per day, on the average, at UNO. Is there justification for that? What is that money generally used for? We should like to have some further information on that.

Under the heading “ Publications ” I should like to say something about Panorama which is issued by the Information Service. This journal was the subject of discussion at the Select Committee on Public Accounts during the past three years, and judging from the evidence given and the report of the Auditor-General, it would appear that there is cause for concern about the manner in which the finances of that journal are controlled, and that they are concerned about the losses on Panorama In 1959-60 the losses on Panorama amounted to £36,000, and in 1958-9 the losses amounted to £39,800. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us what the latests losses are on Panorama. These figures given by the Minister relate to the journal itself but the fact remains that the loss on Panorama is much higher than the approximately £40,000 per year because for the greater part postage is not included in that. That is a very important item of expenditure in the case of every journal. At the Select Committee on Public Accounts I asked the following question—

The reply of the Director of Information was “ yes ”. We do not know, therefore, what the actual losses on that publication are. It may be much more than £40,000 per year. Its effective circulation is in the neighbourhood of 40,000. Fifty-two thousand to 53,000 copies are printed but of the 53,000 copies printed every month only 41,000 are effective. The balance is either returned or given away gratis. It amounts to this that that journal is more or less subsidized to the tune of £1 per year per copy. I should like to know whether that is justified and whether it is not possible to spend that money more effectively in this field. This publication does not seem to be very popular in the rest of the world. There are only between 600 and 800 overseas subscribers, according to the Director of Information. There is an annual surplus of 86,000 copies. The question arises whether too many copies are not being printed and whether the surplus is not too big. Is the staff not too big as well? Does a monthly publication like that warrant a staff of one editor, with three assistant editors and a photographer?

The work that the information officials have to do is very important. In view of the fact that the Government has stated that it does not intend appointing diplomatic representatives in the African states, I should like to know whether it should not, as a start on a small scale, send information officers who will not be required to act so formally, to one or two of those African states who are well disposed towards us. I believe we have one in Nairobi, but I have a few other states in mind. Is it not possible to send information officers there, or even to exchange them, so they can slowly create a better feeling in Africa itself? The Africa Institute was established recently of which Mr. Wenny du Plessis is the chief. I am informed that the institute does not fall directly under the Minister’s Department but that it falls mainly under the Department of Education. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us something about that if his Department has anything to do with the Africa Institute.

Then I also would like to know what the duties are of the section called “ Head State Liaison with the South African Information Service ”. This is a division with an interesting name. I should like to know to what extent that division is also at the disposal of Members of Parliament who may perhaps want information about one or other overseas matter. I do not know to what extent the Information Service can be made to fit into the new policy of the hon. the Minister, a policy of quid pro quo or “ tit for tat ”, or “ horse-trading ” as it has been called. I trust that it will not be used. I am somewhat concerned when I see some of the articles that go out in reply to criticism. Here is the usual Press comment, extracts of which are published in the British Press. I hope this does not get published too widely, because here they comment on comments in the British Press, which seems to me to be more “ tit for tat ” than quid pro quo. [Time limit.]

We listened this afternoon to representations by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and I think it is high time that the House and the public of South Africa should realize what he is doing to the country, to South Africa. He expressed surprise about certain matters and he attacked the hon. the Minister and he was concerned about the expenditure of the Information Service and of the S.A. Foundation. I want to tell him that the S.A. Foundation is not a political body. It is an organization which has nothing to do with politics and has nothing to do with the Government, but the hon. member wants to drag it into politics. I want to ask the hon. member one thing: He wanted certain information from the hon. the Minister, but during the years when he wrote in the Kruithoring he raised various matters and he was well informed and then he wrote from his heart in favour of the National Party. Why does he now come along with these representations? I want to ask him to be honest towards the country and towards the people and towards himself. He fought against me at Edenvale, Mr. Chairman, and there he also came along with matters in which he himself did not believe. He pretends to be a South African and one who fights for the South African nation. Mr. Chairman, one wants to be honest towards oneself and have a clear conscience. But one does not say such things at one stage and then do a complete somersault and say exactly the opposite about the same things. The hon. member violates either his own mind or his own conscience because in the Kruithoring, for example, he praised the hon. the Minister. We have the record.

On a point of order. I would like to know what this has to do with the Vote?

I am talking about the Information Service about which the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke, but the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) is of course too stupid to understand it. I want to point out that the hon. member for Orange Grove is continually asking questions and trying to attack the National Party but he was the great propagandist of the National Party who praised the National Party from all sides.

I was wrong in those days.

If he was so wrong why did he flee and not fight in those days? In any case, the hon. member should know that one cannot satisfy one’s conscience by acting wrongly. One’s conscience will worry one, and the nation knows him. When the United Party was in power he attacked them left and right and made allegations which he cannot defend to-day. He made shocking statements and now he comes along with the same sort of propaganda, only in reverse. One wonders if the nation—the Nationalists, the Progressives and the United Party—can have any confidence in him. Who can have any confidence in him? No one, and I want to predict that he will not be sitting in Parliament after the next election.

I will lay a bet on that.

Very well. But if the hon. member wanted to criticize the Information Service then he should in the first place tell the House why he asked questions about matters of which he said precisely the same as the hon. the Minister said to-day, matters in connection with which he praised the hon. the Minister at that time. What did he mean by it? He of course only wants to sow discord and try and bring the hon. the Minister into discredit in the country, but of course he will not succeed. Instead of making statements he puts questions. Allow me to say that neither the hon. member for Orange Grove nor any hon. member of the Opposition could have done for South Africa what the hon. the Minister has done through the Information Service. With the funds at their disposal and the troubles which South Africa had, and with the difficulties which she had overseas and with the English Press which was continually attacking the Government from all sides they could not have done better than they had done and South Africans ought to raise their hats to such an Information Service. It is hoped that they will achieve even more in the future. The hon. member must be careful. If you dig a hole for someone else you may fall into it yourself. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) may laugh. Only stupid people laugh. The hon. member was a soldier but he knows nothing about these matters. South Africa will continue to build through her Information Service and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister of External Affairs will go further and achieve better results than the hon. member for Orange Grove could ever deliver, because the hon. the Minister has stood solidly since 1924 and followed the right road and has never wavered or hesitated. The hon. member for Orange Grove has already jumped from the embankment three times and each time he sinks deeper into the mud. He should be careful; one days he will not be able to get out of it. The National Party need not be ashamed. The Information Service has experienced hard times but has done good work and I hope and trust that they will do even better work in future.

I think the last passage of the hon. member’s speech was most revealing when he said “ We in the Nationalist Party carry on and do not worry about criticism ”. I should like to know whether he regards the Information Service as an organ of the Nationalist Party, because if he does, then we know where we stand in this House. But I am not treating the service on that basis. I want to offer a few comments on the information service on the basis of a state service. We are being asked to vote R1,250,000 for this service and it is my contention that from a professional and efficiency point of view South Africa is getting a rotten deal out of this. We are getting very poor value indeed for the R1,250,000 which we are asked to vote, and we are getting poor value because the job is being done ignorantly and crudely and what is more, it is being done inefficiently. That is the burden of what I want to say to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the role of an information service is of twofold kind. It is in the first instance public relations and it is also a question of propaganda and publicity. Those are the two main divisions I want to speak about. In regard to public relations, I think that the public relations side of the Information Department shows a complete lack of understanding as to what is really entailed by public relations. I wonder whether there is any training in public relations. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister himself really understands the techniques of public relations in regard to a modern propaganda service. Our public relations here, particularly in respect of the handling of important people, again and again has been shown to be ham-handed in a particularly crude way. I refer for instance to the treatment meted out to Mr. Luth. That was discussed fairly fully from a different angle on a previous Vote. I want to discuss it briefly from the public relations point of view. I think Mr. Luth has shown us how public relations should be conducted when he said …

Who is he?

A visiting journalist from Hamburg. The hon. Minister went out of his way to insult a man who is of some prominence in Germany and who has it within his power to do a good deal of harm to us in the public relations field. The Minister’s treatment of Mr. Luth has been extremely crude. Mr. Luth pointed out that it was to your main critics that you should be most courteous and most careful and most dignified. What did we do? I only mention this as a typical example, because it was not only done to him, but we meted out similar treatment to Phillips, the Canadian journalist. Look what flowed from that! Look what we had to deal with in the international sphere in regard to Canada, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Phillips’s articles had a very great deal to do with the conditioning of public opinion in Canada.

The treatment meted out to Phillips was ridiculous in the extreme. It did no good to anybody and did an enormous amount of harm to South Africa. And there was the case of Williams, the treatment meted out to him too. It is ridiculous and it does not do us any good. The way to treat these people, when you have people like that visiting our country, is to treat them with the utmost courtesy, and above all to put before them anything they want in the matter of absolute truth and to assist them and facilitate their work in every way possible. To get hold of a man like that and start arguing with him and start quibbling and complaining, must of course provoke the kind of reaction that we got. You annoy them and upset them and that is public relations in the worst sense. That is not the way in which to handle them. If the hon. the Minister had any technical knowledge of public relations, he would go to our strongest critics wherever they are to be found, critics whose opinion matters. I am not talking about people who write for the sensational Press. If the hon. the Minister knew his job, he would know that their opinion does not carry great weight. But there are people whose opinion carries weight, and to whom people listen. They should be approached and if you want them in South Africa, get them here. Bring them in with no strings, bring them in with the utmost courtesy. Let them see what they like and let them write in any way they like. But don’t try and teach them how to write about South Africa. Don’t try and argue with them about what they write. Don’t annoy them in the way the hon. the Minister does. I say that our Department of Information under the Minister’s guidance just does not know the first thing about public relations in handling people. It annoys them and it brings reactions that we don’t deserve.

On the advertising side there is even less intelligence. May I quote an example which I think is a typical example which shows the whole attitude of this Department in regard to advertising and propaganda. Everybody knows that the finest form of propaganda is the propaganda which has the appearance of being completely objective, of being put across without any particular bias. The way—if I may quote an example—the B.B.C. puts across its news. The B.B.C. news throughout the world has a prestige second to none. It is put across completely objectively, unemotionally, and in a way that creates confidence. Now I will give an example. I have got here a copy of this Overseas Press Bulletin that is given to us. What is this intended for? It is intended as a balanced factual survey of overseas news for the information of the people who receive it, and the people who receive it are mostly people who are in a position to judge for themselves. They do not want comments thrust down their throats. And what crude comments too! I’ll just quote one or two passages from one piece that comes to hand, but I can assure you this type of comment riddles this service from end to end. Here is one which dealt with Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit to South Africa. This is how it is presented to us. Mark you, this is purported to be a completely objective, balanced account of all the comments on Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit for our information. What do we get? We get this sort of thing—

I don’t want to be told that it is in the “ familiar idiom ”. We want to know what people’s thoughts are—

This is supposed to be an objective account of Press comment given to prominent people. Then it says—

Mr. Chairman, what appalling stuff to dish up to intelligent people, and this from the State Information Office! I say that that is a revealing instance of the kind of mentality that goes into the Information Service on the propaganda side. Mr. Chairman, there is one golden rule for anybody who knows anything about this subject at all, and that golden rule is that you do not try to sell the unsaleable. It is stupid, Sir, to go out placing advertisements and trying to explain away apartheid. That is stupid! There is a great deal about South Africa, though, that can be put across and can be put across to great advantage if it is handled in the right way. But, Sir, we are not doing that properly. We are wasting money in trying to explain away things that simply can not be explained away overseas. Leave those things alone and sort out things that can be put across in regard to South Africa. There is a tremendous lot that is highly saleable, first-class stuff that can be put across overseas in regard to South Africa. The selection of the State Information I say in this regard has been very poor indeed. [Time limit.]

I just rise with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in regard to the South African Panorama and his unfortunate reference to the Select Committee on Public Accounts which considered the matter in relation to certain remarks by the Auditor-General. It created the impression that the Auditor-General had referred to the unwise or irresponsible management in connection with South African Panorama. The points to which attention was directed were two minor matters. The first was that the production of South African Panorama practically included an estimated amount for salaries because the officials of the Information Office also do other work, and their work in connection with South African, Panorama is only part of their work. Consequently it is not possible clearly to distinguish between that part of their salary which ought to fall under South African Panorama and that part of their salary, office hours, etc., which should be debited to other section. This is purely a matter of bookkeeping. The costs are allocated as precisely as possible, and there is no suggestion of a reflection being cast.

The second aspect which enjoyed attention was the fact that a large number of copies, more than 80,000 a year, remain unsold, and here I just want to give the information that the very satisfactory explanation was then given that the Information Office sends all the copies of South African Panorama which remain unsold in South Africa to their overseas offices, where they are distributed to the public gratis. In my opinion, that is one of the best uses that can be made of South African Panorama. Finally, I just want to say that the gratifying communication could be made to us that the production cost of South African Panorama decreased from 1s. lid. per copy in 1957-8 to 1s. 4d. That is an appreciable decrease. The gross loss is increasing because the circulation is increasing.

Whilst I am on my feet, I just want to pass a few other remarks in regard to South African Panorama. The hon. member for Parktown indirectly supported South African Panorama. He said that apart from points of difference, there are many splendid things in regard to South Africa which we can show the world, and I believe that the Information Office, in publishing South African Panorama, is really producing a splendid product which shows the world these nice things about South Africa. I think that if there is anything to criticize in regard to the Information Office, South African Panorama is the last thing which should be criticized. In regard to the circulation in this country, the position is that certain firms buy numbers of copies of South African Panorama and send them to their friends overseas. It often happens that well-disposed people in South Africa buy number of copies and send them to private addresses overseas at their own cost.

But I am not yet certain whether sufficient copies of this magazine reach the right people overseas. Our Information Service with its limited potential should ascertain very accurately which persons we want to reach. And where in each country we may select a group of persons, in one country perhaps the people who control finances, in another country perhaps those who control politics and in another country again people who have influence over the Press, I believe that the Information Office should ascertain which people they want to reach in which country by means of South African Panorama and that the Information Office should systematically decide to which persons overseas South African Panorama should be sent regularly. That is something which hitherto has not yet been done on a large scale, and it will probably increase the so-called bookkeeping losses on South African Panorama, but unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, we believe it is now the function of the Information Office to spend money on building up the good name of South Africa and to convert a loss into a really acceptable picture of South Africa given to the outside world. I trust that this publication will as the result of more systematic distribution have a long and proud future and hitherto we have been proud of it as a journalistic achievement and an example of a splendid South African publication.

Mr. Chairman, any hope that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) may have had that his observations would be taken seriously, have been shattered by the manner in which he dealt with this subject. One gets the impression that he must have consulted a Thesaurus Dictionary in order to see how many adjectives he could find. In the first few minutes of his statement he made the following observations about the Information Office: “ South Africa is getting a rotten deal; South Africa is getting poor value; the work is being done ignorantly; it is being done crudely; it is being done inefficiently; the public relations shows complete lack of efficiency; it is ham-handed ”. Those are some of the adjectives he used within the first few minutes of his statement. I get the impression that the hon. member has a grudge against the Information Service; one might almost describe it as a personal grudge.

I am always happy to listen to constructive criticism and to suggestions that can be made. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was also critical in certain respects, but at least he did attempt to state the position objectively. He did criticize, but not in the manner in which the hon. member for Park-town did. In the circumstances the hon. member for Parktown must really not take it amiss if I do not take his speech seriously. His whole attitude “was that of a self-appointed expert; he is the only man who knows anything about publicity, about public relations. And so he was laying down the law. But the very fact of his using those expressions and the way in which he approached the subject shows not only a very poor spirit, but a complete lack of understanding. I would go further and say a complete lack of knowledge of what the South African Information Service is actually doing.

Mr. Chairman, I was astonished to hear from the hon. member that he was actually blaming the Information Service, and Mr. Meiring the Director, for what I might term the Luth incident. I do not know whether the hon. member was here yesterday when I made a full statement about what had actually happened. And he now tries to create the impression that this German visitor was treated discourteously.

I said stupidly.

No, the hon. member said “discourteously”.

Yes, both.

Very well, discourteously and stupidly. Yesterday I told this House exactly what had happened. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and I explained how this man, on very short notice —a telephone call or something of that sort from the German Embassy—had turned up at the Information Office and there represented himself as being interested in architecture. He said he wanted to see something of the country and housing conditions. And he was treated with the utmost courtesy. Arrangements were made to show him these things. He was given somebody to show him around. But the very next morning, before they could do anything to assist him, this statement appeared in the Cape Times. Needless to say the State Information Service was shocked.

Why did you not leave it at that? Why did you have to reply?

He turned up at the office again …

No.

Oh yes, he certainly did. The hon. member has been relying entirely on the onesided statement which was given by Mr. Luth, quite uncalled for. He had been courteously treated and offered all possible assistance, and then he goes, you might say, straight from Mr. Meiring’s office to the Cape Times—or the Cape Times goes to him—and he gives them this statement. I am not blaming the Cape Times, they thought the man was telling the truth. They thought he was genuine; they thought he was honest. And that is what we got. Mr. Meiring, naturally, expostulated with him, pointed out to him that he had received every possible courteousy, and expressed the surprise that he should make those statements to the Cape Times, amongst other things, that it would have been a grave embarrassment to the German Government if the Prime Minister had been able to make his projected visit to Germany, and several other remarks of that sort.

Mr. Meiring assures me that when Mr. Luth first came to his office he never even discussed the Colour issue. There was no question of any ideological matter or anything of that sort being discussed. He said he was interested in housing and that he would like to see Langa and Nyanga. Arrangements were therefore made for him to see these places, and everything possible was done. Yet, to-day the hon. member for Parktown gives the impression— and that seems to be the burden of his complaint—that visitors coming to South Africa and going to the State Information Office are not treated courteously.

Yesterday I replied to a written question put to me by an hon. member from the other side of the House. In my reply I gave a list of all the journalists who had come to South Africa and who had been assisted by the State Information Office over the past year. There was a total of something like 450 visiting journalists. And these people have written back expressing their appreciation of what was done for them. Everything possible is done to help them. Yet the hon. member comes here this afternoon and makes these absolutely unjustified accusations. He even goes so far as to try and defend this man Williams. I gave these facts yesterday.

“ Soapy?”

No, not “ Soapy ”, the Black Williams. The hon. member even went so far as to suggest that he had not been properly treated. Yesterday I gave the circumstances of his visit to South Africa, how he had grossly deceived —and I used that word advisedly—how he had grossly deceived our High Commissioner in Ottawa, representing himself as somebody who was very keenly interested in the Colour problem here. He said he only got one side of the picture in Canada and he would like to see the other side of the picture. He said “ Of course I am against apartheid but, on the other hand, I am not entirely unsympathetic ”. And on the strength of what he said, we recommended to the Department of the Interior that he should be given the necessary permission. Had that permission been refused, that hon. member would have been the very first one to attack us on that ground!

What was the gross deceit?

And from the time he arrived at the airport, where a member of the State Information Office was waiting to meet him, from that time onwards he was aggressive and made trouble. It was quite clear that he had come here with an entirely different motive and for an entirely different reason. Yet the hon. member for Parktown, believe it or not, now attempts to defend a man like that.

On the question of public relations, the hon. member says that our propaganda should be impartial. I have never yet heard of any Information Office of any country in the world that does not present a picture of the country, and try to give information. I think that if the hon. member will take the trouble to go through the information given out by our Information Office…

I have done so.

… the number of brochures which are issued, he will find that, while they do, naturally, present the Government’s policy, it is not done in an aggressive manner. It is done as impartially as possible. In New York alone the number of inquiries received by our office there totals about 6,000 a week, coming from all parts of the country. The inquirers are supplied with brochures. I visit those offices when I go overseas; I take a personal interest in what is being done by the Information Service, and I am satisfied in my own mind that they are giving excellent service.

The hon. member spoke about public relations. Is he also one of those who objects to what is being done by Mr. Steward, our representative in London? In London there is only one newspaper that is friendly and sympathetic towards the Government, viz. the Daily Express. The other newspapers are all hostile, some of them are extremely hostile, particularly the London Times. Mr. Steward discussed this with me and, when I was there last year, he put forward the scheme of hiring space in the newspapers. That is something which is also being done by other countries. It is a usual form of giving information. He hired space in the Observer, and, more particularly, in the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times has a circulation of round about 1,000,000. It is very widely read, being read by far more people than only the 1,000,000 figures in the circulation. On the editorial page of that paper he sets out an impartial and objective statement of South Africa’s policy. When I was in London this year, he showed me the number of letters he had received from all over Britain within the past week. There were also letters from the Continent, expressing appreciation of the information which was being given and the manner in which it was being given—not ham-handed as the hon. member has suggested. That service is costing round about £11,000 a year, but I suggest it is worth every penny of it.

I think the hon. member also mentioned the radio and the cinema. I do not know whether he has seen the films which we show. Four are made every year. Does the hon. member really feel that that is also “ useless ”, “ ham-handed ” and “ inefficient ”? Those films have done an enormous amount of good. Even the hon. member who is so violently prejudiced cannot say that those films are blatant propaganda. They give information on South Africa, and they give it in an objective manner which has had very great success overseas.

Mr. Chairman, we are showing on the television screen overseas strips—I do not know what they call them—which are included in many of the programmes. They show for about half a minute. I have seen them and they, too, are extremely effective in giving people overseas information about South Africa.

I do not think I need worry about that hon. member for Orange Grove any further. He is so violently prejudiced, so sure of himself, and such an expert, that it is no good talking to that type of person.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), referred to South African Panorama. Reference has been made to this supposed loss on South African Panorama. Let me first of all say from all sides, all over the country, the Information Office is complimented on this very excellent production. In fact, it is the best of its kind in South Africa to-day. There again there is no obvious propaganda. We could sell far more copies were it not for the fact that we have decided to limit the number supplied to the Central News Agency for sale, because primarily that publication is intended for distribution overseas. There is no question of a “ loss ”. You might as well say there is a loss on a report of the Department of Agriculture that is issued every year, or on the Government Gazette. It is not a question of a loss. It is a form of giving information, and that is what we are prepared to pay for it. I suggest we are getting value for our money. The so-called unsold copies are not wasted; they are all sent overseas. I have seen them at our offices there. There they are distributed amongst the types of people who would be interested; to libraries, to schools; to colleges and to others who might be interested in South Africa.

Last year, Sir, I had occasion to go and see a doctor in Harley Street and, while I was in his waiting-room, I saw a South African Panorama lying on his table amongst other publications. So you see there is no question of a “ loss ”. You might just as well say there is a loss on the Government Gazette. I do not think there is any hon. member on the Opposition benches—unless he is as violently prejudiced as the hon. member for Parktown— who will not agree that South African Panorama is a most excellent publication. It is doing a good job. A number of business men in South Africa subscribe to a large number of copies, 20 or 30 or 40. We are furnished with the addresses of their business associates and other friends in America or England to whom these copies are sent. Many people send their copies overseas when they have finished with them. That publication has done more to make South Africa known than anything else we have been able to produce, and I suggest that every penny spent on South African Panorama is well spent. There can be no question of a “ loss ”. The extraordinary thing is the way people react. The average type of person does not like to get anything free. If it is a paper that he buys on the street or at the Central News Agency, then it has more value to him than if he received it gratis. We could sell twice the number if we had not limited local sales, because the paper is intended primarily for distribution overseas.

The hon. member compared our propaganda with the B.B.C. He says our propaganda should be impartial. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that hon. member or any other member on the other side could have seen a picture put over on the television by the B.B.C., three or four years ago, also, strangely enough, called Panorama, they would not say that. A more disgracefully, violently prejudiced production it would be difficult to find. A well-known editor of a well-known South African newspaper happened to be in England attending the Imperial Press Conference which was sitting in London at that time. I saw him the following day when I attended their dinner, and he came up to my rooms and we had a drink after dinner. He said: “ Did you see that terrible Panorama feature last night? ” He is the editor of one of the leading newspapers in South Africa, and he expressed himself as disgusted with what had been put over by the B.B.C. That is the type of information described by the hon. member as being impartial.

The hon. member also said something here about Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit. Mr. Chairman, if there has been any instance in which the Press in South Africa has shown itself in a poor light—most of the newspapers—it was on the occasion of Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit to South Africa. A number of the newspapers went out of their way, deliberately, to try and prejudice Mr. Hammarskjoeld even before he arrived here. It was one of the most unpleasant things that had ever happened. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus) need not shake his head …

I am not shaking my head, I am yawning.

I am replying to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He does not believe me. Certain sections of the South African Press excelled themselves in trying to prejudice the visit to South Africa of that gentleman before he arrived, and particularly while he was here.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he was talking on behalf of the Opposition in regard to this matter. He said it was the policy of the United Party that they, together with us, deprecate inaccurate reports being published. I would be glad if the Opposition could express its disapproval of inaccurate reports in somewhat stronger language than they did in the past. He says that we should distinguish between facts and comment. I agree. But unfortunately our experience hitherto has been that absolutely inaccurate reports are published which in fact have been taken out of the air. I have seen many of those already. It is the old story of “ it is said in certain circles ”, “ well-informed circles ”, “ I understand ”, and all that sort of thing. On the basis of such inaccurate reports a leading article appears in the newspaper the next day, based on an absolutely inaccurate and false report. There we then have the so-called comment. The two are related. Much of the inaccurate comment is based on that sort of report.

Then the hon. member says we must also distinguish between criticism of South Africa and criticism of the Government. My experience hitherto at UN and also in London and elsewhere has been that in a large number of cases the criticism is aimed at South Africa. Mr. Chairman, what strikes me particularly is the number of cases where criticism is directed at White South Africa. Anyone who goes overseas and reads the reports there, particularly at UN. will see that the criticism and the speeches are directed more at White South Africa than at the Government, although it is also directed against the Government.

The hon. member asked when the report of the Department would be published. I regret that the report is a little late this year. It has been printed and I received a preliminary copy yesterday. I think it will be placed in hon. members’ boxes within a day or two. He also wanted information about the Digest. The Digest is supplied to quite a number of people. An attempt is made, as far as possible, to state both sides of the case and to give factual information. The Digest is sent to all members of the Cabinet, and the members of the House of Assembly and the Senate, the Provincial Councils, the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, to all overseas representatives, to representatives of the South African Information Office and the Department of External Affairs overseas. For the rest, it goes almost exclusively to persons and organizations who specially ask to be placed on the mailing list. That includes most of the Government Departments, various journalists, libraries, associations such as the Rotarians, members of the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries, etc., here and in many countries of the world. At the end of last month the mailing list of people who receive the Digest stood at 23,618. It is still increasing.

I have already given the information in regard to Panorama. I do not want to take up the time of the House by giving all the figures regarding publication and so forth. In regard to the radio, I have stated what we are doing overseas, and what we are also doing through the medium of films.

Then the hon. member asks to what extent the Information Office provides the S.A.B.C. with information. The Information Office supplies information not only to the S.A.B.C. but to newspapers as well. There are, e.g., Government statements, statements by Ministers which go through the Information Office. From there it first goes to the South African Press Association; it also goes to overseas representatives. The Information Office is the channel. It is really in that regard that there is the new expansion to which the hon. member referred. That is the State liaison section. The idea is to ensure, even more than in the past, that all Government information should go through the channel of the Information Office. The same applies to statements which are made, to ensure that these statements will not only be given to the Press agency, but particularly also to our foreign representatives. There will also be officials who have been specially trained in connection with this work. When a Minister or the Head of a Department issues a statement, it is usually too long and too detailed. It is not ready to be published. Then the Press themselves abbreviate it, with the result that sometimes it gives quite a wrong impression. The idea is that this liaison section between the State Information Office and the Departments of the Ministers will assist in drafting these statements. The Minister drafts a long and detailed statement and the Information Office prepares for publication. Unless that is done, it sometimes happens that the most important point in a statement is omitted, and that prominence is given to an unimportant point. That will be part of the functions of this liaison section, to prepare such statements for the Press.

Will the Press no longer have access to Ministers?

When there are requests for interviews with Ministers they can go through the Information Office. The hon. member surely knows that at the time when he was still a Minister, if he were to have granted an interview to every person who wished to see him, his whole day would have been taken up with interviews. The idea is that the Information Office will also arrange that sort of thing, and where it is desirable that an individual or an organization or a visitor should have an interview with a Minister, it will be arranged through them.

I do not know what the hon. member really means by his “ tit for tat ” argument. I do not know whether he was just following up the story we had from certain hon. members on his side of the House yesterday. I am thinking particularly of what we heard last night from the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), to which I did not have the time to reply. The Opposition evidently sets out from the standpoint that we must just take everything as it comes. Our enemies can simply attack us and say what they like, but we are not supposed to hit back. According to them, we must be ever so friendly towards our enemies. He particularly objected to the fact that last year I exposed the hypocrisy of the Swedish attacks on South Africa.

I do not know precisely what the hon. member for Orange Grove means by the “ tit for tat” policy. When attacks are made on South Africa and the Minister concerned replies to those attacks, he can point out that those people should be the last ones to talk; that this, that or the other thing takes place in their own countries. It is our duty to tell them first to put their own house in order. The Information Office itself will not do so. It does so in the form of an extract from the speech of a Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Opposition also wants this debate to end as soon as possible. I would be quite prepared to give still further information if it is necessary because I am particularly interested in this work. I have been asked about the increase in expenditure, but it is obvious that a service like this is continually expanding, and particularly in recent times what happened in Africa and elsewhere gave rise to a tremendously increased demand. After the events in the Congo, our office in New York was, inundated with inquiries from all over the country in regard to South Africa. Many of them evidently thought that the Congo was close to us, but then they realized the seriousness of the position in Africa, and as the result we were inundated with thousands of inquiries and we had to appoint a special staff to handle these inquiries. It is, therefore, obvious that in that respect our expenditure increased. Then, for example, we issued a series of five little books, “ The Progress of the Bantu People in South Africa ”. To the best of my recollection, 40,000 to 50,000 of these booklets were published, excellent little books without any bias, and the demand for them was so great that the issue had to be increased to 90,000 because the one tells another about it, and that again resulted in increased expenditure. The staff was increased and expenditure increased. To tell the truth, my own feeling is that if our Information Office is really to perform its function it needs twice as much money as we are now spending. We could do much more if we had the necessary funds.

It has been represented to us that we should make arrangements for the appointment of a public relations officer. It has also been suggested by our friends overseas. I went into the matter very carefully, last year and the year before, when I was in New York. I made contact with well-known public relations firms. The position is that the product that these P.R.O. firms sell are tourism, prospects, investments, etc. But South Africa’s problem is a human problem and you cannot possibly entrust the selling of a human problem to a firm that knows nothing whatever about South Africa. Rhodesia tried it and appointed a public relations firm in London. I understand that they soon found themselves in trouble because this firm was giving information about Rhodesia which was inaccurate, and landed them in difficulties. That type of work has to be done by people of your own country who are acquainted with local problems. The advertisements that we are placing in prominent newspapers in London, particularly in the Sunday Times, are doing the sort of work which would be done by a P.R.O. firm.

I have now dealt with most of the points. Again I can give the Committee the assurance that I personally take a very keen interest in the work of the South African Information Office. I can tell the hon. member for Park-town (Mr. Cope) that he is very wide of the mark when he says we are getting very poor value for our money. I do not say they never make mistakes; we all make mistakes at times. But I do know that the men we have overseas, including our officials in South Africa, are devoted to the work and are doing everything possible to put South Africa’s case across. The information we have to give to people overseas is to show that we have a problem here which other countries have not got. We have to put it to the public in a way which will make them understand it, and that is what these men are trying to do to the very best of their ability.

Will you reply to me before you sit down?

Oh, yes. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) yesterday took exception to an article appearing on the front page of the Digest and particularly the second paragraph. The paragraph undoubtedly gave the impression that it was quoting the Prime Minister, because the past tense was used instead of the present tense. It first quoted the Prime Minister in quotation marks and then it went on in the past tense. It said that the Bill provided for certain things. The fact that they used the word “ provided ” certainly gives the impression that that was part of the statement made by the Prime Minister. That is not so. The word should have been “ provides ”. The other point to which the hon. member took exception was the word “ safeguarded ”. The man who wrote the article has explained to me that he makes a distinction between “ safeguarded ” and “ entrenched ”, and it was not intended to convey the impression of any entrenchment. I do not object to the hon. member bringing the matter to my notice. In fact, one of my colleagues not long ago also drew my attention to something affecting his Department which he said was not correct, and I immediately took it up. Mistakes will naturally be made, and if anything of that kind occurs I am perfectly happy to take it up with those responsible.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the Committee unnecessarily; nevertheless there are one or two matters arising out of the hon. the Minister’s comments which cannot go by default. I think the House and the public will be disturbed by the statement in the Minister’s speech that he will extend the process whereby the State Information Office will become virtually the sole channel of communication between the Government and the people of South Africa, and between Cabinet Ministers and the Press. The Minister says it is useful to have this kind of buffer. Naturally it is useful for a Minister to have this kind of buffer, but is it correct that he should have it? We believe that there should be far more direct access to the Cabinet and Heads of Departments than there has been in the past. I think it is a very bad system indeed where his Department—and after all he is the Minister responsible to the State Information Office—is the Department which controls the access which other Ministers have to the Press, and which the Press has to other Ministers. I hope that he over-stated the case and that it is not his intention to extend the system which has crept into our relationship with the Press in the past whereby the Information Office to a greater and greater extent is cushioning the Minister from the questions and explanations the public would like to have directly from him.

With regard to the comments made by the Minister, I would like to make it clear that we do not condemn the Minister for spending money to sell South Africa overseas, provided that is done in the best sense of the word. We appreciate that as the result of events in Africa there is a tremendous surge of interest in the African continent and I think we should derive the maximum benefit from it. To the extent that this is an opportune time for us to inform the public where they were wrongly informed in the past, I think the Minister and his Department should be commended for doing so. In general, I think that while there are complaints about certain of the techniques used by the Department, within the availability of the resources, I believe that the State Information Office is acquitting itself well of a very difficult task. I think it is as well that the Minister realizes what the problems are confronting the Information. It is not primarily a question of money.

What are the difficulties with which the Government has to contend in selling its policies to the rest of the world? The first one is that we are trying to sell South African values as they are developed under the present Government to a world which has a completely different set of values. We are trying to sell things which to us seem common place because we have become used to them over 13 years, but which are completely repugnant to other people. I want to illustrate this by giving an example of what happened last year. Towards the end of the last year there was a tremendous move among Nationalist newspapers and churchmen for a softening of the attitude towards the Coloureds and there was a move afoot that they should be represented directly in Parliament. I was overseas at that time and the result of this change which was taking place among ordinary South Africans was reflected in a mellowing of attitude towards South Africa amongst a large variety of people overseas. But suddenly, when this seemed to be going well, the Prime Minister clamped down and said under no circumstances, neither now nor in the future, could these people who are citizens of South Africa have direct representation in Parliament. It is trying to sell a policy based on this sense of values to other people with a completely different sense of values which is the essential stumbling-block in the way of the Information Office. The Minister must realize that in spite of everything that is said, the Information Office is put into the difficult position of an organization which is trying to represent a Government with a split personality. What is told the people overseas, while it might reflect statements made from time to time by various Ministers, it does not reflect the actions and the attitude of the Nationalist Party as a whole. Any intelligent outside observer has only to compare the statements issued by the Information Office in the Digest and compare it with the speeches recorded in Hansard to realize that this is a Government with a split personality. Nothing does the Information Office more damage than to represent the Government as being benign and tolerant, and then suddenly to see reports published of what was said by hon. members at the hustings. Until and unless the Government and the Nationalist Party as a whole can make up its mind what its personality is and until it can with equanimity exchange propaganda used at the Bethal-Middelburg and other by-elections with the information put out by the Information Office for overseas consumption, for so long will it be quite impossible for the Information Office to sell South Africa overseas.

Naturally there are things which can be done to improve the activities and the position of the Information Office. I think the most obvious one is also the most difficult, and that is that the Government should change its policies. But even within that I think the Minister was correct when he said that our problem is essentially a human problem. I believe that if our affairs with the outside world were conducted on a more human basis and if there was closer contact made between individuals in this country and overseas, much good would be done. I would advocate a greater exchange of persons in the Union with persons overseas. In the past the tendency seems to have been to select Pressmen and if possible Pressmen whom the Minister hoped would be more sympathetic towards South Africa than many of their colleagues. I think one should widen the scope and go beyond the Press. It would be extremely valuable to send legislators and invite legislators from the various Western countries to visit us to see the situation here. Even if they do not approve of the policies of this Government, I think they will be impressed by the warmth and friendliness of the average South African and that will stand us in good stead. Secondly, if this Government wants to sell its belief that it is doing its best for the non-White it will have to realize that it will have to sell it through the mouths of non-Whites. Until this Government can find non-Whites who are prepared to be ambassadors for South Africa—not in the full diplomatic sense but in the sense of being allowed to go overseas and to put the point of view which the Minister contends is correct, that the non-Whites by and large support the Government and that they like apartheid and that under this system they are getting the best of the sun—for so long will it be impossible to sell South Africa. I would urge the Minister, if he really believes that his policy is working and the non-Whites are in favour of it, then for heaven’s sake find some non-Whites who will be prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Government and sell this policy to the outside world. Fortunately or unfortunately, whatever we say is considered to be the biased voice of White people.

Finally, I want to raise a matter which was not only a waste of money but which did a lot of damage to the Information Office and to the Government. That was the use made by the Government of the services of a certain journalist, an ex-socialist member of the House of Commons, Mr. Gary Allighan, in order to sell Government policy overseas. In reply to a question put to the Minister earlier this year, he indicated that the Government had spent £3,000 to buy 3,243 copies of the book “Curtain Up on South Africa”, written by Mr. Allighan. Well, it is bad enough that they bought the book and distributed it, with the compliments of the State Information Office, a book which was not factual or the product of the Information Office, but it was worse still to send this book to British members of Parliament. I think the Minister realizes that this socialist ex-member of the House of Commons left the House of Commons under a cloud. He is non persona grata with his own colleagues. Of all people whom this Government should seek to use a propagandist for South Africa they pick a man who left the House of Commons under a cloud. I do not want to go into this further, but if ever there was a blunder which shows the height of stupidity to which one can go in these matters, it was the use made of the services of this journalist. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I try to conform to the wishes of the Committee and to make the debate as short as possible, but I have to reply and to clear up this misapprehension. It is by no no means intended that the public should not have access to Ministers. Rather the intention is to facilitate the opportunities for people who want to see the Minister, because the Minister cannot see everybody. It was from that point of view that I mentioned it. The other work which I mentioned is the more important part of their duties.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the House, but there is one thing the Minister said which I cannot allow to go on record without refutation. May I say that the Minister’s reply to me was what I expected from him and I think it is a very good example of the Minister’s technique in public relations. The Minister’s method when something is said which he does not like is to attack violently and if possible personally, and then to leave a smear, and that is what he did this afternoon. The smear he has left is that I have some personal grudge against someone in the State Information Office. I just want it to go on record that that is completely untrue. I am on excellent terms, I hope, with the State Information Office, and there is no grudge in relation to that Department, and I give the State Information Office that assurance through the Minister.

He will not accept it.

I see. The Minister thinks that through the methods he adopted this afternoon he can win friends, and that is my objection to his Department. The methods he employs are not calculated to win friends. The Minister sets the tone by his technique, by the way he treats people, and that is followed by his office. In regard to his treatment of journalists, what other country with a State Information Office suffers the experiences that the Minister suffers? What other state in the Commonwealth is having the trouble with visiting journalists and prominent people, the violent altercations, the attacks that come on them from the Minister in Parliament and elsewhere quite recklessly? We are suffering from that. Not a single other country suffers from that state of affairs and it shows that there is something wrong in the handling by the Minister and his Department of these overseas journalists and other important people. He gets into these violent controversies and that is the technique I complain of. What is this Mr. Luth going to do now? He is now a mortal enemy of South Africa. It was utterly unnecessary to get into a public controversy with a man like that. It was utterly unnecessary and stupid to handle Mr. Phillips in the way he was handled. In regard to Mr. Williams, I do not want to defend him because I object to some of the things he said, but what I do object to is his handling, which was stupid. The Minister’s technique and the way he handles these people is foolish. I must say that I am concerned about this new development in regard to the Information Service intervening between the Press and the Minister. Has the Minister consulted newspapermen? Has he had consultations with the Press gallery and the editors of newspapers to see whether this is a good idea or not? I suspect he has not done so, and that is bad public relations. Why does he not do these things? I conclude by saying that we will get much better value for money if the Minister would hand over public relations to professionals who know how to do the job.

I wonder whether the Minister will reply to the point I raised about the spending of £3,000 on the book by Mr. Allighan, which book was distributed free of charge to British members of Parliament and American congressmen at the expense of the taxpayers here? Was this done with the Minister’s approval, and was he consulted in regard to the matter, and was he consulted in regard to the writing of the book, “ Dr. Verwoerd, the End ”?

I do not think I was consulted with regard to that particular book, but it is not the first time the Information Office have issued books, in the same way that they issue brochures, so if a book appears which in their opinion represents South Africa in a fair light they make use of it, and that has been done before. In this particular case I was not consulted, and I do not see why I should have been. After all, I have confidence in the Director of the State Information Office. But as the hon. member is so concerned about Mr. Allighan, has he seen a recent article in which Mr. Allighan makes a devastating attack on misrepresentation in the Press?

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Votes Nos. 2I to 23.

On Vote No. 21.—“Justice”, R8,637,000,

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I want to deviate from the practice to make a short statement in regard to a matter which affects all three of my Departments. I have informed the leader of that group, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), that I will do so. The statement I want to make reads as follows. It deals with youth rehabilitation—

A few weeks ago I stated in the Other Place that the Government was considering establishing farms as youth rehabilitation centres where young people who had received prison sentences could receive training and treatment with a view to their uplifting and rehabilitation.

I am now in a position to provide details of the scheme which inter alia is intended to remove these young people from the enclosed cell atmosphere of the prison and to take them to rehabilitation centres where nature is free and the world is open.

Juvenile delinquency is not limited to any particular countries, it is to-day a serious problem throughout the world.

Everywhere it takes characteristic forms such as gangsterism, vandalism, motor theft, robbery with violence, vagrancy, etc., which lead to serious anti-social behaviour.

The corrective methods which different countries apply are themselves very different.

The first practical steps are to-day taken by the Government in connection with the young people in South Africa who are sentenced in the courts to prison sentences.

The well known Leeuwkop prison farm near Johannesburg has recently been turned into a rehabilitation centre for young Europeans with a view to their training and rehabilitation. On I April a beginning was made to concentrate young people there.

A similar rehabilitation centre for young Coloured people will soon be established on a farm at Palmiet River beyond Gordons Bay. For Bantu youths the Stofberg Prison Farm has been turned into a youth rehabilitation centre.

A daily average of 375 of these unfortunate White youths between the ages of 15 and 23 years are incarcerated in prisons throughout our country.

There they often come in contact with hardened professional criminals by whose influence they themselves develop into real criminals. In these prisons there are also no proper facilities for classification, training and rehabilitation. These prisons can thus become for these young people the breeding places of further crime instead of places where they will be rehabilitated.

The living quarters at the Leeuwkop Rehabilitation Centre for the young European offenders are to-day completed, they are of the most modern design not only by South African standards but probably by world standards.

These quarters with bath facilities, kitchen, dining room, study facilities and library, etc., form, because of the atmosphere which is created and the high hygienic standards which are achieved, a unit of which the Department of Prisons can justifiably be proud. The determined purposeful attempts which will be undertaken in a rural atmosphere will serve as a stimulus to self-improvement and healthy character forming.

The rehabilitation centre will be equipped with training facilities in several fields of agriculture such as gardening, animal husbandry and dairying (including principally milk and pig farming), dry land farming and horticulture and landscape gardening.

Intensive theoretical and practical training will also be provided in all branches of the building trade and in other crafts such as cabinet making and joinery, fitting and turning, welding and electrotechnical services.

This training will be given in modern workshops under the direct supervision of the Department’s technicians who have been specially selected to approach and handle young people in the correct manner, while all other staff members who come in contact with the youths will also be specially selected for their duties.

As soon as the youths fulfil the necessary standard of requirements such as knowledge and capability for the particular trade in which they are given training, they will be subjected to trade tests by the Department of Labour. If they achieve a pass mark in the tests they will be issued with diplomas identical to those which are issued in ordinary life—diplomas on which there will be no indication that the apprenticeship was completed in a rehabilitation centre. A youth will thus be able to leave a rehabilitation centre as a qualified artisan.

On the principle that a healthy spirit also tions will serve to facilitate the adaptation and been made for various kinds of sport. This and desirable forms of leisure hour occupations will serve to facilitate the adaption and assimilation of these youths into public life and will ensure that they will have a proper status in the communities to which they return on release.

As a means of encouragement to make the maximum progress in studies and training the Government has decided that a reasonable financial reward in the different categories will be paid. This will serve to encourage thrift among the youths and to emphasize the value of financial independence.

By means of this the youths will also be able to taste the pleasure of being self-supporting as a result of honest hard work and self-respect while it will also cultivate diligence and they will be able to experience a true pleasure in work because all work which they will carry out and which will be a part of their training will be constructive and creative.

With a view to the important role which personal tidiness plays in the training of youths and the necessity for promoting it in their work and communal life as also the special disadvantageous influence which poor and unsuitable clothing exerts on the self-confidence of some persons, suitable work clothing has been designed which does not publicize the fact that the youths are in custody and which does not make them seem or feel to be prisoners.

Each one will also be provided with a suit of clothes and necessary accessories such as a hat and shoes similar to those which would be worn if they were free. These they can wear when their parents, relatives and friends come to visit them and also on release.

With the training which the youths will receive while they are in custody and the assistance which will be extended to them on release in the form of tools, working and other clothing and a sum of money as also the fact that suitable employment and lodgings will be obtained for them outside their treatment will not be regarded as finally rounded off. The cases are timeously reported to the Department of Pensions and Social Welfare before release which is prepared to make the necessary arrangements for further liaison with the youths in their occupations and community lives.

When the Rev. J. R. L_ckhoff, Minister of the N.G. Oos Church, Pretoria, takes up his duty shortly as Director of Spiritual and Social Care in the Department of Prisons the spiritual care of the youths in the rehabilitation centres will also enjoy proper attention so that the Christian reform which it is hoped that they will undergo while they are in custody will be a force which will remain with them when temptations again threaten them.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for letting me have a copy of the statement which he has just made to the House. This party will always support measures of a constructive nature and, in principle, there appears to be much that is good in the statement which the hon. the Minister has laid before us. In this modern world anything that can be done to help those misfits of society who very often, through circumstances beyond their control, have started off badly in life, is something which all of us can but welcome. I do not propose. Sir, to deal in detail with this matter further. There are other members on this side, particularly the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), who has taken a particular interest in these less fortunate people, and who is closely in touch with the position, who will deal with it fully later on. I am sure he will make a very constructive contribution. I would like to say that this is a tremendously important Vote, and it will be necessary to put the searchlight quite fearlessly on some of the happenings during the past year. In fact, I suggest that it is the bounden duty of an Opposition to examine very carefully the Justice Vote, especially in a country such as South Africa, and particularly in a year in which we have had the difficulties that we have had over the past year. I would like to express great satisfaction that the treason trial, which has been before this country over a period of five years—something without any parallel in our history—has at last come to an end. I would like to say in relation to the remarks which I will address to this Committee, that it was not this side of the House which introduced this matter into the political field. Long before any arrests were made, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was making statements in and outside of this House in regard to the trial which was to take place. Sir, I think it is a sorry thing that we should have to examine in this Committee a trial which has had tremendous effects on the persons who have been found not guilty, and has brought about great suffering and has taken so long a period of time. I believe that in the Mother of Parliaments, Great Britain, if a trial had been handled in this way, a trial which lasted an inordinate period and which ended, in spite of the early prognostications· as to what was likely to happen, in the discharge of all the accused, would have brought about the resignation of the Minister concerned, if not of the responsible Government. I would like to say at once that I do not associate myself or the members of this party with the acts of the accused in this case. I believe that most of us in this House will take strong exception to certain of the acts of the accused. We do not approve of them, and I think that probably goes for most of us in this House. I want to make that clear. At the same time we must, as human beings, sympathize with persons who have had a shadow hanging over them for so long, persons who, in effect, had a period of very nearly five long years taken out of their lives by this trial. At last that burden has been lifted. Sir, I would like to refer to certain persons who made it possible—and I think it is a good thing for this country that they did—for these accused to have an adequate defence in the charge levelled against them. Amongst those who made efforts in this regard is one from whom I have not hesitated to dissociate myself as far as his views are concerned, and one whom I have not hesitated to criticize as far as some of his statements are concerned. I refer to Bishop Reeves, but I believe that all South Africans will believe that he and others who ensured that a proper defence was available to the accused in this case, rendered a very real service to South Africa. Sir, I think all of us, including the Minister, must realize just how deep a debt of gratitude we owe to those persons. Then, Sir, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not pay a tribute to the defence team, who, I believe, put up a magnificent performance, something of which we, in South Africa who are proud of our judicial system, can be very proud indeed. I personally very deeply regret that the leader of that team, Advocate Maisels·, will be lost to us in South Africa, as he is emigrating to the North. That is a very real loss to South Africa. I think it is important that we should remember over what period of time this trial extended. I have mentioned that before the first day on which any official action was taken it was widely known from ministerial statements that some action was to come, although the nature of the allegations, was not known. The beginning was back in December 1956, and that is a very long time in the history and in the life of people. In dawn swoops on that day 156 people were arrested in various parts of the country. A preparatory examination was started the following month, and, after a year, 91 of those persons were committed for trial, the charges against the remainder having been withdrawn. On I August 1958 the trial opened in Pretoria in a special court, and, after preliminary objections, one of the judges very properly recused himself. After some three months of argument on the indictment which, after all, is the base of the case, and which the Crown had had ample time to prepare, the indictment was withdrawn by the late Mr. Oswald Pirow, who was then leading the prosecution team. Thirty-nine of the accused appeared in court on a shorter indictment in 1959. That indictment was challenged. The special court, on 20 April, quashed the indictment against 61 of the accused. It was some months· later, on 4 August, that the remaining 30 pleaded, and then there followed the unfortunate death of a great South African, Mr. Oswald Pirow. In March 1960 the Crown case ended and the defence case opened, and eventually on 23 March, some five years after the matter had first been raised, and four and a half years after the original arrests had been made, all the persons charged were discharged by the court. Sir, I ask this House to realize, irrespective of the wrong that may have been done by these persons·, the human suffering that must of necessity have resulted from the fact that the accused had this matter hanging over their heads for that long period of time. Sir, I hope we will never again have an example of this sort. It does South Africa no good. Of course, in the end the rule of law prevailed. The accused have been discharged and our system of justice has been vindicated. All of us can be proud of the fact that that is so. We know that this is perhaps not the end of the sorry picture. The long delays and the suffering must be something which is a matter of deep regret to all South Africans. I want to leave it there for the moment.

I would now like to turn to another very important matter affecting the Department of the Minister that happened last year. I refer to the events at Sharpeville and Langa. Sir, it is obviously the duty of the State to Preserve order. It is obvious that nobody in this House is prepared to stand for mob rule in this country. Let me say that quite frankly. We have had an investigation into the unhappy events that took place at Sharpeville and Langa by two honourable judges. I belive that the hon. the Minister acted quite rightly in responding right at the outset to the request made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a judicial inquiry. There are others on this side who will deal in greater detail with the commissions reports, but what I wish to come to immediately is the fact that we as South Africans, when we think of matters of this kind, must ask ourselves whether we are doing everything that we can possibly do to eliminate the unhappy state of affairs which exists in South Africa to-day. Sharpeville and Langa and, if I may say so, the treason trial are symptoms of the fact that things are not right in the body politic in South Africa. Sir, I know that action has been taken to prevent this sort of thing in the future, as far as possible, but when one looks at the report of the Department of Justice and other reports and sees the enormous number of arrests which take place for petty offences—and of course a very big proportion of those refer to the Black people of South Africa—then we must be very deeply concerned.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says that it was always like that.

I did not say that.

Sir, the hon. member will always interject, and he must forgive me if sometimes I do not catch all his interjections. I understood him to interject that it had always been like that. The hon. member denies that he said it and I must accept his word. Sir, what I wish to say is that we South Africans must give very deep thought to these matters. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) a few days ago quoted a figure of over 800,000 arrests.

835,000.

Sir, that is something that must cause us South Africans deep concern, and I hope the Minister realizes, as we on these benches do, that the continuation of that situation can only serve to worsen race relations in South Africa. It is the duty of all of us, not only of the Government but this side of the House as well, to do whatever we can to bring about a better state of affairs in South Africa. If we can do that, then we will be able to avoid a recurrence of these unhappy events to which I have referred. I have a very strong feeling that we have not done everything that we can in years gone by in regard to these matters.

Sir, I would like to refer here to an appointment which I welcome, the appointment of the new Commissioner of Police. I believe that in the short period that he has been in office, he has shown that he has a very clear realization of the very great responsibility that rests upon him in that office, and I have great hopes and indeed I believe that he will make a very real contribution. I would like to say on behalf of this side of the House that we wish him well in respect of the very onerous burden which rests upon his shoulders. For my part, I want to say that I like what I have heard about the way in which he has carried out his very onerous duties up to the present time, and I look to him to make a very great contribution.

Finally I would like to come back to another aspect of the matter on which I started—the treason trial. I want to say that we must realize just what an expensive undertaking this has been. Sir, the hon. the Minister, in reply, to a question of mine, told me that the cost to the State of the trial was no less than R297,169 in direct expenditure, R116,906 in indirect expenditure, a total expenditure of R414,075 and then, of course, there was an enormous expenditure also on the part of the defence. This is a very serious matter and I only want to say this to the hon. the Minister that I hope that never again in South African legal history will there be a trial in which there is so much unnecessary expenditure as was the case in this trial.

Then I would like to come to one final aspect of the matter. I am aware of the fact that there is an indemnity Bill in respect of Langa and Sharpeville which is to come before this House, and when that Bill comes before us we will be able to examine it in detail. I am aware that the provisions of that Bill follow certain precedents and that there is an inquiry proceeding in respect of certain cases and it has been stated that the State might consider making certain ex gratia grants. I would express the hope that the Minister will make a full statement in regard to this matter. It must be appreciated that in respect of a number of those who suffered loss, they were certainly acting foolishly but on the other hand I believe there is clear evidence that some of those persons were acting under compulsion. I believe that a responsibility rests on this State to be on the liberal side in regard to claims which may be submitted, instead of seeking to avoid claims in every possible case. While probably it is necessary to have a Bill of indemnity—and it may be necessary to suggest certain amendments to it—I do hope that the hon. the Minister will tell this House quite frankly, so that we can debate the matter under this Vote, what his policy is in this regard. I would express the hope that the Minister will be prepared to tell this House that he will be prepared to act on the generous side in respect of these persons who have been found not guilty by the court, more particularly to ensure that innocent persons who were dependent upon them will not suffer as a result. Sir, I put these considerations before the Committee. I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence, and assure this Committee that we will not find a recurrence of anything of this sort in future. While the rule of law must obviously apply, we are entitled to expect that persons are not kept in doubt over long periods of time. I commend these matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Many of them will be dealt with in greater detail by other members on this side.

Do you want to make that a precedent for all cases?

No. I suggest that that is a matter for the State to consider in the circumstances of the particular case, but I do say that in a case where there has been the amount of muddling that there has been in this case and such inordinate delay, there are special circumstances which require the consideration of this House.

I would like to make certain representations to the hon. the Minister in regard to an urgent letter I received a few days ago from a farmers’ association on the borders of Basutoland. As you know, Mr. Chairman, my constituency runs from Zastron right up to Cedarville and Swartberg. For all these years I have had much to do with the incidents along the border of Basutoland. It seems as if matters have now got out of hand to some extent. I have now received this urgent letter from this farmers’ association. It is written in English. The Chairman and the Secretary are English-speaking. The letter comes from Ongeluksnek, near Matatiele. I just want to read this one sentence—

They regard is as being so urgent that he continues to say—

In the past certain arrangements were arrived at in terms of which, if stock theft takes place on the border, the animals are pursued to the border, and then the police on this side must contact the officer of the police station on the other side. They then come to an agreement and see whether they can trace the stolen animals. In the past they found a few hundred sheep even in Maseru. In those days the animals were handed back in a very friendly way, but the position has now changed completely, and the people along the border are very concerned. They say that many of the animals are being stolen every day. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot negotiate with the High Commissioner so that the old arrangement can be put into operation again. It is very difficult to pursue the thieves in this mountainous area. The police stations are high up in the mountains. At Barkly East the whole border consists of mountains. It is almost impossible to get there. The thieves cut the fences and cross the border and when once they are over the border they hide the stolen animals. I know of certain cases where the headmen on the other side ask the members of his tribe to collect all the animals, and if strange animals are found they are handed back. But of course if no such animals are found, nothing happens. But these people know the area well; they know practically every stone and they will not allow the stolen animals to mix with their own animals. I considered this matter of so much importance that I am glad to have the opportunity to raise it under this Vote. I have already written a letter to the Minister. These people are anxious to send a deputation here, but I hope that peaceful negotiations will be able to take place with a view to handing over animals on both sides of the border. There must be something wrong. It seems to me that the old arrangement no longer works as smoothly as it did formerly. That is all I wanted to say.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) in regard to the treason trial. That was a trial, Sir, that has brought upon South Africa odious criticism of the whole wide world, a trial that has lasted over four years and has cost the state and the defence immense sums of money. In the latter case money was subscribed by contributors both in South Africa and overseas. The only bright spot in that case was the scrupulous fairness of the Judges who presided over the court. For the rest the proceedings throughout were a judicial farce that illustrates as nothing else the incompetence of the Minister’s legal advisers and the police officers who were in charge of the investigation. Sir, anyone who is acquainted with the handling of cases of this kind should have known from the outset that the prosecution had little hope of bringing home the charge, which I say should never have been proceeded with. I say further that the methods employed by the police in bringing the accused to trial have cast a most unfortunate impression upon the public in South Africa and on public opinion overseas. Here you have a case in which 156 persons were summarily arrested, most of them in the early dawn over four years ago and dragged off to Johannesburg on a capital charge of high treason. After a preparatory examination 91 of them were committed for trial, and the law was amended three times in order to render evidence admissible that was otherwise not permitted by the ordinary law.

When the case came for trial before the special court, the indictments against the 91 were quashed and after innumerable delays and adjournments, the case proceeded on a new indictment against 28 men and women, and last month, as has been stated by the hon. member for Springs, it resulted in an acquittal before the defence had completed their address. Sir, it was the longest trial in the judicial history of South Africa and has brought untold misery and financial losses upon the accused and their families, for which the Government has refused to provide any compensation whatsoever. Sir, if this trial had taken place in England, the court would have granted an order for the defence costs to be paid by the Crown, but under our law there is no such provision and the accused have no remedy. I say it is high time that our law should be amended so as to compel the state to reimburse the accused in a case in which there has been so much incompetence and abuse of authority.

Then, Sir, I wish to refer to a report in the Eastern Province Herald, dated 14 February 1961.

On a point of order, may the hon. member advocate a change in the law now?

Sir, I wish to refer to …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, is your ruling that one can plead for an amendment of the law?

May I point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for East London (City) has merely referred to the matter, and that is quite permissible in Committee.

Sir, as I said, I want to refer to a case reported in the Eastern Province Herald of 14 February of this year. It refers to a clash between the police and the Pondos at Ngqusa Hill on 6 June 1960 during which II Pondos were killed by police action. The report reads as follows—

Sir, on 3 March 1961 I put a question to the hon. the Minister in which I asked him whether the inquest proceedings had been considered by the Attorney-General and whether any further action was contemplated. The answer was that the Attorney-General had declined to prosecute. In answer to a further question which I put on 10 March, in which I asked him to state the reasons for the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute the police sergeant concerned, the Minister said that it was not usual to request the Attorney-General to furnish reasons for their decisions. There the matter rests. I have endeavoured to obtain further information from members of the Press and other sources. I had this reply from one source—

That is typical of what is happening behind the iron curtain in the Transkei.

You are talking nonsense!

I think the Minister’s attitude in refusing to give us that information is most irregular and reflects very badly on him and his Department. In terms of Section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955, the final control of prosecutions is vested in the Minister, and I say that the public is entitled to know why the findings of an experienced magistrate has not been carried out. The nonchalant attitude of the Minister leaves a nasty impression upon the minds of the public, particularly in a case in which a number of Natives have been killed. I wonder what the Natives in that area are going to say and what they are going to think of it and what respect they can have for their magistrate in such circumstances. I think the matter is one in which we and the public generally are entitled to a full statement from the hon. Minister as to the reasons why he has taken no further action in the matter, and what his reasons are for refusing to tell us why nothing further was done.

I want to say at the outset that I too wish to congratulate the hon. Minister most heartily on the statement which he made in the House this afternoon in connection with the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. It was a brilliant statement and I think the Minister is thinking along the right lines and that he is tackling the problem from the right angle. I think that the task which the hon. the Minister has set himself will yield fruit and that where we are living in unsettled times, and where we often think that in some cases our youth do not perhaps act with the sense of responsibility that we should like to see, the function which the Minister has undertaken to fulfil, and the task which he has set himself and his Department will have a very beneficial effect in that the youth who do transgress—unfortunately you have black sheep everywhere, amongst the young people as well as amongst the older people—will now be guided in the right direction to become useful citizens of the country. If we do not employ methods such as these, it is inevitably from the nature of things, that those youngsters who commit crimes to-day for which they are sent to these institutions come into contact with hardened criminals and because they are young that leaves a mark on them for all time. This attempt on the part of the Minister and his Department eliminates that danger and I expect their efforts to have good results. I for my part wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) opened this debate. He made certain statements with which I do not agree. I do wish to say, however, that he opened this debate on a high level, something which I greatly appreciate. Although I do not agree with everything that the hon. member has said, I wish, nevertheless, to express my appreciation for that. If that is the spirit in which we argue with one another across the floor of the House, I think we will achieve something.

The hon. member for Springs has complained about the fact that this treason trial has lasted such a long time. I too am sorry that it has lasted such a long time. I want to say, however, that it is not really fair to blame the Government for that. In the first case, it was a very big case in which there were many accused, a case in which very many witnesses had to be called, and a case which from the nature of things, had to last a long time. Over and above that I think the accused and their representatives were very largely to blame for the fact that it lasted such a long time, for the very simple reason that they were continually raising various objections on every conceivable technical point. That had a great deal to do with the duration of the case. Furthermore, the Government cannot be blamed for the fact that this case was started, because in a difficult period such as the one which we are now experiencing, it is the duty of any government to keep an eye on the whole country, and on what is happening in the country so that it can take action timeously.

As I have already said we are living in very difficult times, there is one riot after the other throughout the whole world and there is unrest throughout the whole world. For that reason no State can be over-cautious. The Government must therefore be prepared to intervene and to take action when and wherever there are signs of disturbances. It is inevitable that when action is taken and people are arrested, people are arrested who are subsequently found innocent. That is the ordinary course of events. But when the Crown has to prosecute it is the duty of the police to trace people and to try to obtain evidence for the Crown, and when action is taken against anybody it is, in the long run, the Attorney-General who has to decide whether, on the evidence before him, action should be instituted. The Attorney-General was the person who on the evidence placed before him decided that there should be a prosecution. That is why I do not think the Government can be blamed for the fact that this case was ever instituted or for the fact that it took such a long time.

The hon. member for Springs said that we should do everything in our power to establish racial peace in South Africa. He said that in the case of many of the arrests, that do take place, it is a case where non-Whites are arrested for having contravened the Liquor Act, for example, or the Pass Laws—in other words, not serious offences. I wholeheartily agree with the hon. member for Springs that we should do everything in our power to combat crime but the position is, however, that in spite of the fact that we are doing everything in our power to do so and to eliminate racial friction, we cannot eliminate crime or racial friction completely. In dealing with a case like this, Sir, two courses are open to us: In the first place, eliminate the racial friction that arises from arrests that are made because of the contravention of certain laws, by repealing those laws, for example. In this specific instance I am not prepared to agree that the Act concerned should be repealed, for the very simple reason that I believe that it is a very necessary Act. There is a second course open to us, namely that where there are specific points in any legislation that cause friction, we should study those points and attend to them. I want to say that the hon. the Minister has already given attention that I have in mind, for example, the new Liquor Laws which the hon. the Minister envisages. As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, therefore, he is already adopting the second course which I have indicated and attending to the legislation.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and I am sorry to say that the hon. member did not reveal the spirit which the hon. member for Springs did. The spirit in which he took part in the debate is definitely not a spirit which is conducive to the peaceful solution of our problems. In any case, after the hon. member for East London (City) had said all sorts of unsavoury things in connection with the procedure followed and the duration of the treason trial, he said that 156 people were arrested in the early hours of dawn, dragged before the court and that the case was conducted in a manner which had not only brought the Government but the whole of South Africa into disfavour in the eyes of the world. I want to say to the hon. member that world conditions being as they are, I do not think we should be so sensitive when it comes to issues which must of necessity arise. We had a treason trial in South Africa in which the rule of law was strictly applied in difficult circumstances. Things are happening every day in other parts of the world which are much more distasteful than this case, but nowhere is there an outcry against them; nobody worries about them. When we have a case in South Africa as a result of circumstances, a case which has to be instituted otherwise it could be said that the Government is not wide awake in times of difficulty—whether the verdict is “ guilty ” or not is another matter—we should not make such a hullabaloo about it. It is true that 156 persons were arrested, but they were all given the opportunity of stating their case. They were all given the opportunity of appearing before court, the law took its usual course and those people were found not guilty and discharged. These 156 people who were charged with high treason were much better off than many people that I know of who were arrested before this Government came into power, people who were arrested and thrown into gaols and camps under the pretence that there was a war on. There was a war on at the time, but issues are involved to-day which are as important as a war, and in spite of the fact that this is the position, those 156 persons who were arrested enjoyed all the rights which our administration of justice offers, but those people to whom I refer were not accorded those rights.

Why do you refer to that?

The hon. member wants to know why I do not stand by what I said at the outset? But I specifically said that if we conducted this debate in the spirit in which the hon. member for Springs opened it, we would be able to meet each other across the floor of the House. The hon. member stated his case as strongly as anybody could have stated it, but he did so in a decent and calm and just manner, and that was why I could argue with the hon. member for Springs the way I did. My objection is that if we adopt the attitude which the hon. member for East London (City) has adopted, we cannot discuss this matter calmly. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member has said. I repeat that I think that the treason trial was an illustration of the incompetence of the Minister’s Department.

I now want to touch upon another matter. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article by Colonel I. P. Terblanche, who recently retired from the Police as Deputy Commissioner for the Western Cape, an article published in the Huisgenoot of 14 April 1961, under the heading “Die Wonderwerk van 30/3/’61 ”, in which Colonel Terblanche gives an account of the march of the 20,000 Bantu who marched on Cape Town on 30 March 1960. He refers particularly to what happened on that occasion between himself and the Natives, and his dealings with Phillip Kgosana, the young university student who led that demonstration. Terblanche was very anxious over the position that had developed at Caledon Square where an immense concourse of Bantu had collected together, and eventually he sent head-constable Sauerman to induce Kgosana to come and see him. Kgosana agreed and came to see Colonel Terblanche, and on being asked what was the cause of the demonstration, he said they had come to see the Minister of Justice about certain of their leaders who had been put in gaol. Terblanche told him that that was not the way to come and see the Minister, not with 20,000 people, and he gave Kgosana the loudspeaker and asked him to tell the people to return home and to send a deputation of not more than three to Caledon Square to interview him, and he would convey their request to the Minister of Justice. Kgosana agreed and he conveyed Terblanche’s message to the people and persuaded the crowd to disperse and to return to their homes. Terblanche himself describes the incident as a “ wonderwerk Later on Kgosana and the three delegates kept their appointment at Caledon Square, but by that time Terblanche says he had received instructions from higher authority to arrest them, which he thereupon did. I say, Sir, that the action of the police in inviting Kgosana and these three delegates to an interview to lay their case in person before the Minister and then arresting them was a grave breach of faith and brings the name of our Police Force and of the White man generally into further disrepute among the Natives. How can we expect these people to believe in us? It has created a very bad impression upon the minds of the public in South Africa. I feel quite sure that if the newly appointed Commissioner of Police had been there, he would never have approved of such action.

Now I ask the hon. the Minister whether he himself was consulted in regard to the matter and whether he was the higher authority who gave the instruction. If not, who was responsible? This man Kgosana has now escaped overseas and he will recount this incident among other things throughout the world. I don’t wish to associate myself with the actions of Kgosana. I am merely dealing with this question of the arrest by the police of men who came to see him by appointment.

The next thing I want to deal with is the question of the arrests that have been referred to by the hon. member for Springs. Some time ago instructions were issued by the then Commissioner of Police to lighten the application of the pass laws and the liquor laws, and it was hoped that something would be done to remedy what has constituted among the Natives the worse grievance, particularly among the urban Natives. But if hon. members will refer to the annual Police Report for 1959, they will see that no less than 835,709 Natives were prosecuted for petty offences during that year, many of whom should never have been brought before the courts. I have taken the figures which I am going to quote now from the Police reports: The figures for 1957 in respect of similar offences were 686,943; for 1958 they were 690,819, and for 1959 the figures were 835,709. I also give the following details for 1959:

I am sorry, Sir, that was for 1957. For 1959 the figures were 57,368; 142,959 (registration and production of documents), and under the Native Urban Areas Act 66,700; location and reserve regulations 112,853; Native tax 148,526. Other offences, 44,191. Goodness knows what in addition to being brought before the courts, these people suffered in fines and loss of wages, and what it has cost the country in the loss of their labour. Just look at those figures! The alarming fact is that the number of these prosecutions is steadily increasing, in spite of the instructions that were given. So it goes on. I say that these irritating laws and the constant interference by the police and other administrative officers, often quite unnecessary, are largely responsible for the dissatisfaction and frustration among our urban Natives, particularly our urban Natives. These irritations provide an open field for the subversive organizations that have organized the demonstrations at places like Sharpeville and Langa. I ask the Minister what steps he contemplates taking with regard to police action in order to reduce the number of these prosecutions and arrests. We all know, Sir, that the police are not responsible. The Minister is not responsible for the passing of these laws, except as a a member of the Cabinet, but much can be done by discreet administration. That is where the remedy really lies. The second point that I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is that these laws should be completely overhauled. But that is not a matter which I can discuss with the hon. the Minister of Justice. However, I do want the hon. the Minister to go into this question of the enormous number of prosecutions where these unfortunate people are hauled up for petty offences from day to day [Time limit.]

I have already made a statement about that in the Other Place, but I will repeat it.

I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) started the discussion on this Vote this afternoon. I appreciate it, because in the difficult situation in which South Africa is we should look at matters like adults. If one were to carry on about a Vote like this it would do far more harm than good. There was one sentence I did not quite understand, however. After the verdict of the treason trial he said: “ Justice has been vindicated.” Assuming that the Judges found that the people were, in fact, guilty, what would the hon. member have said then?

Exactly the same.

I am very glad to hear that because another interpretation could also be given to the hon. member’s words. The truth is that anyone who followed the case objectively and who studied the evidence had to come to the conclusion that the Attorney-General was fully justified in his advice to the hon. the Minister, namely, that those people should be prosecuted. That is so. The hon. the Minister did not act on his own. The function of the Attorney-General is, after all, to advise the hon. the Minister in cases of this nature. His finding and his advice was that there was in fact a case. What would the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have been if the State did not take action in this case? The hon. Opposition should be careful when making allegations of this nature. It was not the fault of the hon. the Minister that the case was delayed for so long and that such enormous costs were incurred. When, ex gratia allowances for some of those people are asked for, then I want to point out that numerous Whites have in the past appeared before the courts, and did any of them receive an ex gratia allowance? How many university students were there not whose university careers were completely ruined? How many others were there not whose careers were ruined—all Whites? Did any hon. member opposite rise and plead for an ex gratia allowance for them? No, Mr. Chairman, they did not do it.

While I am on my feet there are a few other matters which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I walk through the Supreme Court building every day. I think the hon. the Minister has walked through there quite often, and I want to ask him whether he has noticed the type of Afrikaans which appears above the doors there. I do not want to quote any examples, but I think it is time that it should be put right, not only in the Supreme Court building in Cape Town, but in all the Supreme Courts in South Africa. The Dutch one reads there is pathetic—not to mention the Afrikaans. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do justice to the language there.

Then I want to raise another matter which is of the utmost importance to me, and I am sure that any right-minded person will give it serious consideration. That is the matter of home defence. Last week there was a fairly big meeting of non-Whites in Cape Town. Last year there were serious troubles in Cape Town and one found thousands of non-Whites in the streets. It would be an absolute impossibility if the police were to take action there. The Whites were mixed with the Natives and the Coloureds. Should it become necessary for the police to use firearms then they would of necessity also have to shoot down hundreds of Whites. Now the question arises: What can the police do about it, or what can the hon. the Minister do about it? I want to say immediately that the time has come for the public in this country to be educated so that when the police have to perform their duty the White and non-White spectators will not be there to obstruct them in their task. Have you ever observed the position when an ordinary road accident takes, place? So often a second accident occurs there because of the actions of the public. They stand around—loiter about—and they get in everybody’s way until someone is knocked down and killed or another accident occurs. That is exactly what the public does when the police have to take action. I want to plead for steps to be taken, by the Department or the police, to educate spectators, or the general public, to give way and to leave the way open for the police to take action.

Then there is a final matter. Last year I pleaded in this House for the White women of South Africa to be taught to handle firearms. To my surprise, I saw my own wife’s picture in a newspaper the next day, standing with a firearm. She can handle a firearm very well. She is an old Bisley shot. In the meantime I have spoken to several women in this country, people who shuddered when they touched a revolver or some other firearm. There are so many who do not even possess a firearm. It will not help the country when it faces great internal difficulties to say: “ If only I had a revolver, if only I did this or that.” Allow me to tell both sides of the House that there were times in the history of a country like America and also in the history of South Africa, in the Eastern Cape—1830 and later—when the White woman in South Africa could handle a firearm just as well as her husband. It was the same in America. The time may come when it will be deeply regretted that the women cannot handle firearms. If it cannot be done through the defence force, then let the police act as instructors for the women in the different towns. I am glad to say that there has been a response in many small towns. One need not necessarily think of unrest and disturbances, but how often are women not attacked in their homes when their husbands are away? If the woman has a firearm and can handle it, then such a thing will not happen. I want to plead again to the hon. the Minister that it should be part of the duties of the police to perform this essential service in South Africa of instructing the White women in the handling of firearms, to get them acquainted with it, so that they will not shudder and get scared and run away when they see a firearm, or hurt themselves with it. There will be hon. members who will say that such firearms will only be stolen. It will be stolen for one reason only, and that is because the owner does not know what to do with it. When the owner is not trained then it gets stolen. My firearms and those of my wife do not get stolen; we are accustomed to them. The same applies to hon. members opposite and on this side. I see hon. members opposite are amused; they grin at me. This matter is far more important than some of them know or will admit. My plea to the hon. the Minister is, therefore, that he should consider this matter very seriously, together with his police chiefs, and help South Africa in this respect.

I am not without understanding and sympathy for the case that the hon. gentleman from Pretoria-District (Mr. Schoonbee) has just raised. But it is a pretty macabre sort of thought, is it not, that an hon. member should stand up in this House and, as I say, not without reason, and put it to us as a serious proposition that there should be a campaign for training all the White women in South Africa in the use of firearms. It is part, I think, of the sombre atmosphere in which this debate must necessarily be conducted; a feeling almost of foreboding that every hon. member in this House has; and a feeling, I think, also of sympathy —whatever we think of what he does—the feeling that all of us must have for the task with which the hon. the Minister of Justice in South Africa in 1961 finds himself confronted.

A good deal has been said by previous speakers of the necessity for us to debate this particular vote in calmness and with the least possible recriminations. I think this, too, is perfectly true. And it is in this spirit that I will commence by giving what seemed to me to be three reasons why this hon. Minister here to-day has a far more difficult task, a far more delicate task than his opposite numbers in most other countries in the world. The first of these reasons—and I am not at this stage saying whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I am stating it as a fact—the first reason is that we have a number of laws, and they include the laws which give rise to the greatest number of offences and arrests, and prosecutions in South Africa—a number of laws which discriminate between some of our citizens and other citizens. They are applied differently to one group of citizens to another. I repeat. I do not now wish to discuss the merits of that but I wish to point out that this in itself must create a situation where the administration of justice becomes the more difficult for that reason. Because to the citizens concerned it is not clear, as I think it should be and as I think it is in many other more fortunate countries, that the law bears equally on every citizen.

In the second place it is the duty of the hon. the Minister’s Department to administer and to enforce a number of laws which, for particular citizens in South Africa, do not automatically involve their moral sense; laws which must be obeyed by them because they are laws, but laws which they cannot feel instinctively it is their duty to obey. And, of course, these two categories of laws are very closely linked if they are not identical.

Thirdly, because of the state of political affairs in this country, and because of the disturbances there have been and threats of disturbances which exist to-day, it has been thought necessary—and again this is not the time for me to say whether this was right or wrong—to enact a number of statutes to control excessive political protest, or what is held to be excessive political protest. The fact of the matter is that in many cases the line between what is political protest and what is breaking the law is extremely hard to determine.

This brings me on to the subject of the recent treason trial which was raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and which has been referred to by other speakers during this debate. The hon. member for Springs and others have put the facts of the matter, and many of the considerations which we should have in mind, very clearly before us. I was interested to hear a question put by way of interjection by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who, when the hon. member for Springs was discussing the possible advisability of the payment of some sort of compensation to the accused in that trial, asked “ Why then not recompense all accused who are discharged from any kind of trial at all?” He asked, in other words, what is the difference in principle between this treason trial and the trial of a man for theft or for any other offence. I think we all know what the difference is. Whether or not it is right to pay compensation, the difference is that here is a trial, again, with a political flavour. Here is a trial where the essence of the charge is that a political protest has been carried so far as to have constituted, nearly, the offence of high treason. It has been shown that this has not been the case. That was the finding of the trial. But it serves to emphasize the point I am making, the difficulty and the delicacy of the hon. the Minister’s task, and the need for him to go so very carefully indeed in the discharge of his duties to the State. And that flows in no small measure from the fact that none of us could have a very clear impression in our minds as to whether what those accused had said and done was, in fact, a high treason—a grossly serious crime—or, m fact, fell within the bounds of ordinary political protest. And I believe that there are few countries in the world where the distinction would be so hard to see, because there are few if any countries in the world that have the kind of statutory set-up that we have in South Africa at the moment.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) commented, as I have done, on the difficulties of the times and on the need for us to be extremely careful. His interpretation of the word “ careful ” is perhaps not exactly the one which I want to give now. I think the hon. gentleman meant thereby that it was necessary to go out of your way to nip events in the bud, to nip anything in the nature of internal disturbances in the bud. That is naturally true and that would be done in any country. But there is another sense in which one has to be extremely careful, and that is that: one has to be particularly careful in the circumstances which I have sketched not to give-the impression that political motives rather than the motive of the defence of law and order lie behind any action.

This brings me to a case about which I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would be prepared to give this House more comment and more information than has already been made public. There was a recent banning in terms, I believe, of the Suppression of Communism Act, and I refer to the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, not so much to comment on this individual case, because I think he will be reluctant to say anything much about individual cases in this debate but, arising from this case, to give us some indication of his general line of policy in cases of this sort.

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman concerned, Mr. Patrick Duncan, quite well. I have often crossed swords with him politically. I have been violently attacked by him in the newspaper of which he is the editor. Further than that I know him and I am on friendly terms with him. This I do know about Mr. Patrick Duncan, that whatever the error of his political ways may be, he is passionately anti-communist. Now I am not concerned to say, and indeed it would not be proper for me to say whether the Minister’s action in banning him is correct or incorrect. But I do want to draw attention to this, that he is banned under a Statute called the Suppression of Communism Act. Yet Mr. Patrick Duncan is one of the most violently anti-communistic people with whom I have ever had a political discussion. This is quite true, Sir. The Minister, I think, has held that nonetheless Mr. Patrick Duncan has, by some action or by some words, furthered one or other of the aims of Communism as defined in this Act. That again draws attention to the extremely wide wording of some of these Acts and to the need for extreme care by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister does not act only in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act in these banning cases; he can act in terms of the Unlawful Organizations Act and, I think I am right in saying that he has power in terms of several other Acts that can be used. In the light of this very difficult background, in the light of the dangerous situation which, as admitted by members of the Government, exist in South Africa; in the light of the fact that the hon. gentleman finds it necessary to suggest that every woman in South Africa be trained to use a gun; in a situation of this sort it seems to me that one of the actions which could conceivably trigger off the kind of trouble we are all trying to avoid is an injudicious and unwise banning of some political person or other. In other countries not very far from here actions of that type have been the trigger factor in serious disturbances. And where the hon. the Minister’s powers are as wide as they are it is not possible to know simply from a study of the Statutes, precisely what is likely to lead to actions of this nature. I think it would be in the public interest, in the interest of the Government and in the interest of the maintenance of law and order, rand very much in South Africa’s interest as regards opinion in the outside world, if the hon. the Minister could find it possible—and I concede it to be a difficult task—to try to give this Committee in this debate some idea of where he draws the line; some idea of what sort of conduct leads him to apply a ban or do go further and arrest in terms of one of these Acts.

These persons are entitled to get the reasons if they ask for them.

Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that these persons are entitled to get the reasons. According to the Press—and I do not know this from any other source—Mr. Duncan, I believe, did apply for reasons and he was given the reason in a single sentence. I do not want to risk trying to quote it, I have not it in front of me, but the hon. the Minister will agree that it was not very informative in the sense in which I am talking now.

He did not ask for the information.

If the hon. the Minister would have been willing to give more information to Mr. Duncan, I am glad of it …

No, the Act says you can ask for two things, reasons and information. He only asked for the reason.

I am aware that the Act says that, and I am grateful to the Minister for what he says Mr. Duncan did. But the point I am making is very much wider than the individual case of Mr. Duncan or any other individual. [Time limit.]

In the first place I cannot neglect to congratulate the hon. the Minister also on this forward step in connection with the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. We are glad to see that these young men will now be taken out of the prisons and that they will receive their training in better institutions. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not got something in mind that can be done about the youths who walk about the streets, who get into mischief and are a danger to the neighbourhood? On the Rand there are a number of suburbs where it is absolutely dangerous at night, so much so that the people are scared—and this is not an exaggeration—to go to certain places, like cinemas and cafes. On the slightest provocation they are prepared to attack any person. I have thought of a measure, and it is also the idea of many others—-whether something similar to what the hon. the Minister is already doing cannot be done to stop those youths, who roam the streets without work, from being a danger to the environment. Most of these youths are unemployed. Their parents do not know what to do with them. In many cases they are afraid to argue with their children and to try to give them guidance. I wonder whether it is not perhaps a good idea, if it is feasible and practicable, if such a boy who gets into mischief or roams the street and is a nuisance to others cannot be taken to his father or mother and they are asked why the boy does not work and why he roams the streets from early in the morning until practically the following morning. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the parents will appreciate it. It will assist them in cases where they virtually do not know what to do with the child. I hope something can be done in that direction. Many hon. members sitting here may perhaps not know what the actual position is on the Rand and in certain small towns. Something must be done. I was there three weeks ago and in a certain café I saw what happened to three women who came to the counter to make purchases. Five of the boys stormed the women and the proprietor of the café was compelled to take a knife and try to help the women. Such things should not be allowed to happen and I think the time has come for something to be done about it. I now leave the matter to the hon. the Minister. This is not the first time that I plead for this. I consider it to be of the utmost importance.

Then I want to put another matter to the hon. the Minister. Three years ago the former hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Swart, gave me the assurance in this House that a start would be made soon with the building of a new police station in that vicinity where ground has already been set aside for the purpose.

Order! The hon. member must discuss that under Vote No. 23, “ Police ”.

Very well, then I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. It will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would consider these few points which I have raised in connection with the ducktails and if something could be done about it.

Mr. Chairman, I think I speak on behalf of every member in this House and also on behalf of the country when I say that we, at least we on this side of the House, have nothing but the higher regard for and deepest gratitude to the Police Force for what they have done during the past year. They had to perform their duties in very difficult circumstances.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the Police Force. He should do so under the Police Vote.

I am only mentioning it in passing. Sir. I am coming back immediately, and I wish to say that where the police are doing their best and in spite of the fact that they are subject to severe criticism, it is usually …

Order! The hon. member has said that he will not discuss the police and yet he continues to do so. He must deal with another point.

I want to deal with another point, Sir, but you do not allow me to couple the two together. I wanted to turn from the police to the case of Phillip Kgosana. When we had the riots last year I heard the Minister say in this House that it was the Secretary of Justice and not he who would interview Kgosana. Since then we have had the evidence of Colonel Terblanche to the effect that if he had not come to that agreement with Kgosana that afternoon, when he said the following to him: “ Tell your people to go home and I will undertake to try to arrange an interview for you with the Minister and you and three others must come and see me not later than five o’clock this afternoon ” there may have been serious trouble that day. At five o’clock that afternoon Kgosana and three others went to Colonel Terblanche as arranged.

He promised to try to arrange an interview.

No, they had to come to him at five o’clock and he promised to try to make arrangements for them to meet the Minister. He did not promise that he would make the arrangements. He said he had promised to try to make arrangements.

He said he would try.

I can understand that; that is fair enough. But that evening, while the debate was on, the Minister told us that there had been a slight misunderstanding and that the Secretary of Justice would have the interview with Kgosana. I am informed that the interview did take place. I also understand why the Minister was not available.

Did it take place?

I understand it did, according to the Minister, and I take his word for it. I know Ministers are busy people, the Minister was particularly busy at that time. I do not blame him for not having interviewed Kgosana, but what hurts me as a White man and as a Christian is the fact that Kgosana was brought under the impression that he and his three friends merely had to come to learn where and when they could meet the Minister of Justice. And what happened? When he arrived there he was immediately arrested. We have the evidence of the police official who said that it was not on his instructions that Kgosana was arrested but that the order had come from higher authority. Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether members appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I do not know and I am not concerned with whether or not Kgosana was guilty of an offence. What I am concerned about, however is this: A senior police official had given his word. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not make that type of interjection. The only other case in the history of South Africa where people were inveigled into a position and then arrested, was in the case of Dingaan, and White South Africa does not consist of a nation of Dingaans. I trust the Minister will tell us exactly what happened. I can only hope that at five o’clock that afternoon the Minister did not know about that agreement between Colonel Terblanche and Kgosana. I want to add this that if he had not known the country would have respected him much more than they did when, on being informed what the-agreement was and that Kgosana had been arrested, he said: “ No, we do not do that sort of thing. The fact that Kgosana has been arrested does not worry me, but do not arrest him under fal.se pretences.” I was told—I do not know whether it is correct—that Kgosana was arrested that afternoon not because of anything connected with the demonstration, and I accept that, but why was he not brought before the court if he had committed ordinary criminal offence? But if the position is as Colonel Terblanche has stated, I think I am fair in saying that the Minister owes the country an explanation.

There is a second matter which I want to discuss with the Minister. After the Sharpeville and Langa incidents an article appeared in Die Burger which created an impression as though the Minister of Justice had said that town guards would be organized in the Native areas. I should like to know from the Minister whether such town guards or such special constables have been organized and how the system works. I personally would welcome the idea and I think that should go a long way towards solving our problems.

I want to discuss something else. Although I do not wish to discuss the Immorality Act as such, I trust you will allow me, Sir, to say that very difficult cases arise to-day under that Act. I know of a case which I have discussed with the Minister where a person was alleged to have died in an accident not far from Cape Town, according to newspaper reports, but who had in actual fact shot himself. I realize the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself— all of us as a matter of fact—but I wonder if the Minister would not use his influence so that legislation is not passed under which such very severe penalties are imposed; that will assist all of us. I am not referring to the penalty imposed by the courts, but that imposed by society. That would also make the position of the Department of Justice easier.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that I follow the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) is indicative of the complete lack of interest on the Government side in this whole debate. Because of the fact that an important matter such as the treason trial was raised to-day and certain comment was made on other important events which shook this country almost to its foundations last year, we find that members on the Government side are running away and are leaving only the Minister of Justice to handle the matter. I think it is a very poor reflection indeed on the seriousness with which members opposite take the affairs of the country, particularly under this most important Department.

I do not think it is fair to say that.

The Minister can reply to it later. I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), who suggested that the accused had extended the length of the case because the defence had taken every technical point possible. It has already been pointed out, and I would like to repeat it, that this country should be grateful for the brilliant work of the defence team, who not only played an important part in elucidating the whole of the issues involved which the Crown tried to place before the court, but at the same time were able to throw full light on the indictment and the problems and difficulties which faced the court during the trial, not only in the interests of the accused but particularly in the interests of justice. It is a fact that of the 156 people arrested and sent for trial, 65 were released before the trial commenced because the Attorney-General did not find himself able to indict them. Thereafter, when the 91 had been put on trial the indictment was quashed and a further 62 were then released and were not at that stage re-indicted. Then, finally, only 29 proceeded to trial until the final stage of the case. How can the hon. member for Smithfield talk about this case being a normal case, where a person is arrested and brought to trial and is either convicted or discharged? This case lasted four years and created international interest, and it was not this side of the House which drew attention to the matter internationally. International jurists were sent from all parts of the world to witness what went on and to satisfy themselves as to what course the proceedings were taking. This case was not only of concern to the legal world, but also politically. There was no question at all that in this extraordinary case which obviously was inspired by the then Minister of Justice, possibly for political reasons, because he had given evil forebodings to the country of serious things which would take place and against which he was going to take certain steps, the then Minister of Justice did not only have certain political motives but he himself was not entirely aware of what charges he wanted to charge these people with, because the whole of the proceedings were conducted under most chaotic conditions.

We have denied that time and again in this House.

Then the Minister must continue to deny it, because there are very few people who can accept it in view of the actual facts which were brought to light in the course of the preparatory examination and the various incidents that took place during the case. The law was amended on more than one occasion to enable the prosecution to contain themselves within some type of indictment so that the prosecution could continue and to charge these people with the most serious crime they could commit, viz. high treason. The most extraordinary thing was that in the final judgment it was found that all the evidence which had been led did not in any way support the indictment and that neither the accused nor the organization which they were alleged to represent were guilty of communist activity in the country. It was found that they were not communist organizations, which after all was the very basis of the case which the then Minister of Justice and the prosecution endeavoured to prove. It was the most extraordinary finish to any case which this country has ever witnessed. The hon. member for Smithfield wants to dismiss it as just an ordinary, normal case which should not even be stressed in order to avoid its receiving any international significance. Sir, we know that the whole world was watching the case and was concerned, and that is why the hon. member for Springs paid such a tribute to the maintenance of a high standard of justice in our country.

I want to come to another aspect concerning this matter and to deal with the question of compensation to the accused. For a period of four years these people were not only most of the time in gaol, but they were unable to pursue their normal occupations and earn their livelihood, and were it not for contributions by the public of this country and abroad, which organized themselves into an organization registered tønder the Welfare Organizations Act, many of the families of these accused would have starved. They would have had no means of support, and as it is many of them suffered great privation. Now I know none of the accused. I do not think that possibly, with the exception of one or two Europeans, I have even heard their names, but I do know one thing, that as a South African I am very jealous of the prestige of my country not only in our own eyes but also in the eyes of the world. I am also very jealous of the fact that we have a country with a high tradition of fairness and justice, and it is in the interests of justice and fairness that I think the Minister should do something and institute some form of inquiry which would enable him to consider the cases of these people in order to give them some ex gratia payment—those are words suggested by the hon. member for Springs— which will to some extent repair the serious ravages made into their personal and domestic affairs. I do not think that is asking a great deal of the Department of Justice or of the Government, which after all is not concerned with the pigment of a person’s skin, nor is it concerned with its own personal views of the content of the charge, but only with the fact that those persons were found not guilty after a protracted case where the presiding Judge himself from time to time was compelled to intervene and to ask the Crown to bring some evidence on which the court could try to make up its mind as to what was the purpose of the indictment and what the court was expected to accept in order to support the indictment placed before it. [Time limit.]

I want to begin by saying that I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) completely misunderstood me. I did not say that the high treason case was an ordinary case. What I wanted to say was that this case followed the ordinary rules of procedure which have to be followed in every case. In other words, if the hon. member differs from me, he misunderstood me.

I accept that.

Very good. Then I just want to say that I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an insinuation here against a Minister of the State which I do not think he ought to have made, by intimating that this case was one which was inspired by the previous Minister of Justice. This Minister and the previous Minister have already repeatedly denied it and I do not think the hon. member should have said it.

What is more, I again want to revert to this question which was again raised by the hon. member in regard to the payment of compensation to these people. I think it is very dangerous to establish such a precedent. It is very dangerous to establish a precedent of paying compensation to people who were charged in a criminal case and who were acquitted. It will infinitely complicate the position of the State if every time it thinks that it is in the interest of good order to initiate a prosecution it exposes itself to the danger of having to pay compensation. I think it is a very dangerous precedent to establish by introducing the principle that compensation should be paid to people who are acquitted in criminal proceedings.

On 7 March I had a question on the Order Paper, in which I asked the Minister of Justice for certain information regarding the number of police stations covering the Durban area, the number of police and the number of police patrols supposed to patrol the residential areas.

Order! The hon. member should discuss that under Vote 23.

I want to deal with it under the Minister’s policy.

The hon. member can do that also under Vote 23.

When the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) tries to alleviate the sufferings of people, it is not right to oppose it. I understand the hon. member’s humaneness very well and we appreciate it. But apart from the important point raised by the hon. member for Smithfield in regard to establishing precedents, I want to ask the hon. member for Springs and the Committee to consider that before one dares ask the Minister to consider paying compensation to the people who were tried, it is the duty of those who advocate it first to tell this Committee how much money was collected on behalf of those people. It is said that other nations were interested in the case. When the hon. member for Springs makes this plea, he ought to know how much money was collected. Is this not an attempt by the defence to do something extraordinary? I want to know how much money they got from Europe, and then one must still ask the taxpayer of South Africa to pay more. That is how I view the matter.

There is another thing too. We must remember in what state of mind the people of the country were before we can consider such a suggestion. I sympathize with the Minister because he is saddled with this matter. In my primitive way, I would have thought that no high treason case should ever come before the Supreme Court because it is dragged out for years. In my opinion there should be no such thing as all kinds of legal points being raised in a high treason case, so that eventually years afterwards one has forgotten what one started with. I think it would be much better if all high treason cases were heard by a military court. If that had been done, this case would long since have been forgotten. Then the case would have been finished long ago. I think· we should relieve the Department of Justice of this burden and have all high treason cases tried by a military court, because then they would be dealt with summarily and would not be protracted and there would be no chance of having this tremendous agitation throughout the world such as we have had in this case, which in my opinion is very wrong, to incite the feelings of people in other countries without their knowing what the case is about. If it had been tried by a military court the matter would have been disposed of speedily and there would have been peace now.

I hope the hon. the Minister will repudiate the suggestion of the last speaker. Already these proceedings at this trial were a travesty of criminal procedure, but at any rate the rule of law prevailed. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) now suggests something which is completely terrifying and I hope the Minister will repudiate him entirely. Notwithstanding the principle of Cabinet responsibility, I accept that in regard to this treason trial the Minister acquired from his predecessor a hereditas damnosa, and it is the result of that that there stands in Pretoria an unfortunate monument in the form of an empty building which was converted for the use of the court. I think the Minister should tell the Committee how that building will be used in future, because apart from the figures given by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), this building was converted into a court at considerable cost.

But I want to deal with a different matter, with sub-head E of Vote 21, which provides for a legal aid bureau the sum of R11,000. Sir, it appears that the Minister has decided upon a change in the basis of legal aid to persons who cannot afford to employ attorneys or counsel to plead their cases in litigation in which they sometimes may become involved unwittingly. It transpires from the reply the Minister gave last month that legal aid officials are now going to be appointed who will be permanent officials of his Department and that they will now select cases in which the individual will be given guidance and may in certain cases have the assistance of counsel to appear for them in court. I am aware that this change in the scheme …

I said it was an experiment.

I am aware that this experiment was discussed with the Bar Council and the association of Law Societies, but the point I want to make is this. The Minister calls it an experiment, an I would be interested to see how the experiment works out. As a matter of fact, we are only back now where we were in the early 1930s where a legal aid scheme was introduced in the Magistrates’ Court in Johannesburg. But I particularly want to ask the Minister why the change should be considered necessary at this stage and how it will be financed, because provision is being made on the Estimates in the item I referred to and apparently that will no longer be used. So I hope the Minister will tell us how this scheme will be financed for the coming year. But I am particularly concerned as to why it should be introduced at this stage because it is no secret, of course, that throughout the public service there is a great dearth of staff, particularly experienced staff. I am concerned to know, therefore, how the Minister will staff this new organization which obviously must grow. I understand that it will start in one court in the beginning, but it will obviously have to grow as time goes on. It so happens that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission gave evidence before the Public Accounts Committee on 16 March this year and he confirms this very difficult position. In fact, I can only describe his evidence as being frightening in regard to the difficulties in the Public Service. I want to read some extracts from his evidence. At page 128 of the report he said this—

He then goes on to indicate that the percentage of vacant posts in the Public Service increased from 22 per cent in September 1956, to 29 per cent in September 1960. He indicates that firstly the increase in the Public Service establishment is an important factor in frustrating the attempts to fill the vacant posts by recruitment. In other words, the Public Service as a whole is already overworked, with a shortage not only of staff but particularly of efficient and experienced staff. Yet in spite of this difficulty, the Minister now decides to make a change into this form of relief to people who cannot afford to provide the fees for their defence.

Some of these offices closed as the result of the lack of public interest.

I hope the Minister will give us more detail about that, because my information is that they closed because last year the Department indicated that there was going to be no further support for this form of relief and there was a foreshadowing of what has happened now. Obviously these offices cannot run without some form of financial assistance such as is provided here. That is what the subsidy is being paid for. I think that is the basis for what the Minister has mentioned now, but I hope he will give us more specific information as to which places have been closed down. I want to continue with my quotations. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission goes on to say—

Sir, when I started to quote this evidence I called it frightening; I think it is even worse than frightening; I think it is alarming and I think the Minister therefore should indicate to us why it was necessary at this precise time, with all these administrative difficulties which are prevailing, to make a change of this nature in regard to a Service which was running very well indeed.

There is one other matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. We are quite aware, of course, that an Indemnity Bill will come before the House shortly, but Press reports indicate that there are already in existence a large number of claims which have been made against the Government. The information available to me at present is that claims amounting to something like £400,000 have already been lodged by the hon. the Minister of Justice by some 216 claimants in connection with the Sharpeville shootings. [Time limit.]

I am not a lawyer.

We can all see that.

I am pleased that hon. members on the other side can see it; I have made my money honestly. I am sorry that I cannot associate myself with previous speakers who have congratulated the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). Perhaps they were congratulating him on the way on which he raised this matter here; that I could also do. But I ask myself of what use this debate, which has been conducted here this afternoon with regard to the treason trial, can be to any person or any group of persons in South Africa. Why have they raised the matter here this afternoon? In my humble opinion this matter is being raised here at a time when we should rather be imbued with the spirit that was reflected in the speech of the hon. the Minister when he announced what he proposes to do for people who unfortunately cannot or will not observe the laws of this country. But this matter has been raised here to create the impression once again that the Government acted unjustly. What was the position a year or two ago when there were disturbances here in the streets? The names have been mentioned here of persons who played a leading rôle in the disturbances which took place here in South Africa. There was such a great feeling of fear at the time that even members of this House ran about in the Lobby saying, “ Where are the police? What is going to become of my wife?” If hon. members want me to mention their names I could do so. But, Mr. Chairman, why were these people who were charged with treason discharged? I ask myself why these people were arrested by the police. Why did the Attorney-General see fit to charge them with treason if they had absolutely nothing at all to do with the disorder that we had at that time? Why were they arrested?

Not just for show.

They were arrested because the Attorney-General, rightly or wrongly, believed that they had made themselves guilty of treason, and if a person acts in such a way that an attorney-general believes that he can be charged with treason, then no member of this House should try to create the impression that the Government acted unreasonably in taking the necessary steps. Hon. members on that side talk about the high standard of our administration of justice in South Africa. I wonder whether they would still have had such a high opinion of our administration of justice if the court had found these persons guilty.

Certainly.

The hon. member over there should rather remain silent. Mr. Chairman, what has happened now in this debate? After this threat to law and order, we find that a member like the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) stands up here and defends a person who himself felt so guilty in connection with the rôle played by him in this matter that he fled from this country.

It was not the hon. member for Pinelands.

Well, it would not surprise me if the hon. member for Pinelands did the same thing. I was referring to the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer). I think in these circumstances we should rather thank the Government and Providence that law and order were restored after these disorders. Today there is a possibility again of trouble in this country. There are rumours that in the near future there are going to be demonstrations again in South Africa, and I think that the matter raised here by the hon. member for Springs, namely the question of compensation to the accused in the treason trial, is one which should not have been raised in this House today. We should rather promise the Minister of Justice and those who assist him that we will co-operate in maintaining law and order in this country. Hon. members on the other side talk about the impression that the outside world will gain. When members get up here and plead that accused persons who were discharged should be compensated, what sort of impression does that leave in the minds of people who are perhaps less educated than we are and who are inclined to jump to conclusions more quickly? Is this the first time in our history that accused persons have been declared innocent by our courts? Sir, there are people who have appeared before our courts on a charge of murder and who have been found not guilty and who have received no compensation. During that short period those people suffered more than these persons who were charged with treason. Let hon. members also mention the other side of the story; who were the persons in that court who constantly came forward with objections which necessitated a postponement of the case? It was not the Attorney-General; it was the advocates for the defence. That is how one makes money; the longer the case lasts, the more money one makes.

Then there is one last matter that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. One continually reads in the newspapers about people who disappear from their homes, and then the police have to try to trace them. Their photographs are published in the newspapers, and they are virtually represented as heroes. When they return home their photographs are published in the newspapers, and many of these people simply leave on joy rides. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down started by telling us that he was not a lawyer. I think it is quite obvious that he is not, but it is also obvious that he has a very poor concept of judicial proceedings in any case, because when this side of the House says that it is very pleased that the rule of law has prevailed and that justice has been vindicated, we are dealing with the matter in reality. Adherence to the rule of law and to justice means that the guilty should be punished and that the innocent must be set free. We would be satisfied so long as that rule applies. It so happens in this case that the innocent have been set free, but that does not affect the position. I hope the hon. member will therefore be a little more careful in future when he deals with matters of this nature.

You are an optimist.

Sir, I was putting a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to claims which have arisen as a result of the Sharpeville incident. I was saying that my information was that claims amounting to about £400,000 have already been lodged with the Minister by some 216 claimants in connection with that shooting. I had also indicated that there is before the House an Indemnity Bill which deals with this very incident. I am aware that the hon. the Minister has provided for some form of inquiry by the State Attorney, I think.

No, an inter-departmental committee.

I accept that some form of inquiry by an inter-departmental committee is taking place, and I think therefore that the Minister should inform the House what has transpired. I think this is a suitable occasion on which to do so, because we will not be able to get that information otherwise before the Bill comes before the House. I hope the Minister will give us details as to how many claims have been made against the Department, for what amounts, and how far this inquiry has proceeded and what is likely to result from it as far as this very important and difficult problem is concerned.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), when he started speaking a little while ago, referred in a somewhat sarcastic way to this side of the House and said that we were so little interested in this Vote that very few of us were taking part in the debate. I just want to tell him that it is not a question of lack of interest, but the Justice group in particular does not believe in raising a great hullabaloo. It is not always those who have most to say whose speeches contain the greatest substance. The reason why so many of us have not spoken is because we are very surprised that certain hon. members on the other side are availing themselves of this opportunity to-day to try to make political capital out of this treason trial. Mr. Chairman, recently there were a few journalists here from abroad, amongst others the representative of one of America’s biggest newspapers, and then the English-language newspapers came out in Cape Town with the report, under banner headlines, that all the accused persons had been discharged, this individual said that this was one of the finest bits of news about South Africa to send to the outside world …

Order! The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) must not pass between the Chair and the member who is speaking when he goes to his seat.

May I say with respect that it is the custom and the rule that a member may not pass between the Chair and the speaker, and may I draw your attention to the fact that I did not do so.

It is precisely because that is the rule that the hon. member must come this way to go to his seat, because the rule means that a member may not cross the line between the speaker, the centre of the floor and the Chair.

Is that a new rule?

Order! The hon. member must walk this way.

I was referring to this American journalist who told me and a few other members in connection with this newspaper report that this was one of the best bits of news about South Africa. I notice that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also agrees that the standard of the administration of justice in this country is very high. But he finds fault with the fact that this treason case, according to him, was protracted so long. There are also members on that side who even seem to find fault with the fact that those persons were charged at all. Well, since hon. members opposite did not want to attack our courts, I want to ask them to show a little respect for our Security Branch. I do not believe that our Security Branch would have detained those people unnecessarily or allowed them to be charged unnecessarily. I do not believe that they did so because it afforded them pleasure. These are people with a high sense of responsibility, and I am sure that hon. members on that side will agree with me that our Security Branch, in the times in which we are living to-day, has a particularly difficult task. There is not one member in this House who is not sorry that this case lasted so long, but I contend that that is further evidence of our democratic administration of justice in South Africa. Every possible attempt is made to collect every scrap of evidence. Nobody can dispute that. What I find very disturbing is that hon. members on that side stand up here and refer to the damage that these people suffered and that they go so far as to drag in the Treason Fund. I ask them which other country in the world, in the times in which we are living, would allow money to be collected all over the world to defend people here who are charged with treason? They have made martyrs of the accused and practically brought the South African Government into discredit in the eyes of the rest of the world. I do not suggest that there are hon. members on that side to whom this is known, but if there are members over there who are familiar with the Treason Fund and who know what has been collected in this country and overseas, I want to put this fair question to them: Is that Treason Fund still going to be kept alive; is money still being contributed to it? If the impression that I and others have gained from the Press is correct, namely that that Treason Fund is going to be kept alive for future cases, then I want to put this fair question to any hon. member who still dares to attack this Government because of the action it took in connection with this treason case. Do you as South Africans approve of the fact that that Treason Fund is being kept alive and that money is being collected from overseas countries for an indefinite period, so as to use that money for the defence of accused persons in cases which the Security Branch may see fit to institute?

In reply to the hon. member who has just sat down, I would say that we on this side of the House have made no attempt whatever to defend people who were guilty of high treason. What we have done is to blame the Government for incompetence in the handling of this case.

Now I want to deal with another matter. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the large amount of serious crime that prevails in our Native urban townships. The situation there, in spite of the fact that the police have done their best, is alarming and it has been so for a very long time. People are murdered and assaulted and robbed from day to day. In a statement to the Handels-instituut last September, the Minister of Finance announced measures to protect the law-abiding Natives in their own residential areas, and he said that the intention of the Government was to establish auxiliary police services among them—a sort of home or civic guard—and I want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to tell us what steps have been taken or are contemplated in this direction, and what part his police administration will play in connection with these proposals. Sir, in 1951 a joint advisory board in Johannesburg asked that Bantu civilians should be enrolled as an auxiliary civic guard, but the then Commissioner of Police rejected the request and I raised the matter after that in the House, but the Minister’s predecessor refused to consider such proposals on the ground that it might lead to abuse. We appreciate very fully the fact that special Native guards, having no experience, are apt to take the law into their own hands and to treat their own people, with unnecessary violence. On one occasion the African mayor of Orlando organized am unauthorized civic guard and treated Native gangsters with the rough and ready justice that they deserve. But the police hauled them before the court for their pains and the magistrate had the wisdom to discharge them with a reprimand. But I submit that something should be done on the lines suggested. Law-abiding Natives in most of our townships are being terrorized and robbed, often in broad daylight, and I submit that under suitable police supervision these civic guards could serve a useful purpose in maintaining law and order among their own people and so help to release the regular police for other duties.

I want to deal with another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I want to draw his attention, if it has not already been so drawn, to a very interesting book which recently appeared in this country called “ South Africa and the Rule of Law ”, prepared by the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva. I understand that in Another Place the hon. the Minister has stated that he has seen the book and that it has been in the hands of his Department for some time, so that they can consider all its implications.

It has been sent to me gratis.

I had to buy it. Sir, the thing that concerns me is that a serious indictment is made in the various chapters of this book, that the laws of our country in effect are a negation of the rule of law, and it is in that sense that I think the matter was raised with the Minister, and it is in that sense that I understand the Minister has asked his Department to give it consideration. I assume that the hon. the Minister is as aware as any of us who have read this book, how important it is that something should be said about it because this book contains an indictment more serious than any of us with all our eloquence will ever make, because this is a very careful and very thorough analysis of the legislation of this Government over the last 13 years. I think this Committee would be very interested to know whether the Minister has as yet received any advice from his Department on the subject; what his intentions are and how he intends to approach the whole subject in his defence of South Africa’s legislative observance of the rule of law, not only as it was originally taken over from the Roman Dutch law and as it has taken over some of the best conceptions of English law, but as he sees it now in the light of legislation passed over the past 13 years.

The other factor to which I would like to draw attention is the fact that one of the great changes which have taken place in our law over the last 13 years, has been the gradual shifting by the Minister’s predecessors and by himself of the onus of proof on to the shoulders of the accused. It has been a fundamental principle in our system of law that every man is adjudged innocent until he has been tried and found guilty. But in the laws which have been placed on the Statute Book, over the last 13 years particularly, we have gradually seen a shifting of this onus of proof on to the shoulders of the accused, and the laws contain a presumption of guilt with the onus resting squarely on the shoulders of the accused to discharge that presumption and to prove that he is in fact not guilty.

Could you quote one or two examples?

I could give the Minister dozens of them. There is a presumption of guilt contained in a Bill which is being introduced this Session by the hon. the Minister.

Is that anything new in South Africa?

I will deal with that particular aspect, but what I am trying to impress upon the Minister is that all the legislation in the last 13 years that has had anything to do particularly with the policy of apartheid, has built up a certain pattern, and that is that the presumption of guilt has rested at all times on anyone who has infringed any one of these numerous laws and has imposed on the accused this peculiar responsibility which basically is foreign to our criminal law.

Perhaps you can oblige me by quoting one example.

As soon as the House resumes this evening, I will give the Minister more than one example of laws where the guilt of the accused is presumed and where the onus of proof rests on him.

Sir, when one deals with the rule of law, one must realize that there is no question of any blame attaching to the courts of our country, who can only apply and interpret the law as they find it. The rule of law is something which one could define as a law which is designed to protect an individual from arbitrary government and also to ensure that no individual shall be deprived of his freedom or any of his rights except through a properly constituted court, independent of executive government.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

I think that it will be as well if I reply at this stage to a number of questions which have been raised this afternoon. In the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to both sides of the House, and particularly to the leaders of the two groups, namely, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), for the tone which they have given to the debate this afternoon, for the leadership they have given both sides of the House. I think both hon. members have introduced the debate at a very high level and hon. members on both sides of the House, with very few exceptions, have kept the debate at a high level throughout. I should like to associate myself with what hon. members on this side have said, namely, that if we can debate these matters at the level at which we have done this afternoon, then I think there is hope that the people of South Africa will not only look to this House with respect, but also I think with pride at the way in which these matters are being discussed.

Before dealing with the specific matters which have been raised, I want to say a few words about the difficulties with which all countries are faced to-day and with which South Africa is also faced. To me it seems as though the mood of the people of South Africa has changed a great deal since last year. I think that last year, the people, both Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, still believed at the time of the disturbances that the main issues were the £ per day, the reference book system and the pass (as they call it). Since then the people of South Africa have changed their views, namely, that what those people want, what they wanted last year and what they want to-day, is not the £ per day and it is not the abolition of the reference book system, but what they want is our country. I therefore say that when we discuss these matters we must do so in the light of the fact that the people of South Africa, judging by the letters, telegrams and telephone calls which we are probably all receiving from both sections of the population, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people, have changed their opinions this year. Consequently, if people want to cause difficulties they will be faced on this occasion with a united public opinion which is quite different to the position which prevailed last year. I therefore think that when I speak to-night, I am speaking on behalf not only of the Government party in this House, but on behalf of many people in South Africa who are also represented by hon. members opposite because, as I have said, the mood of the people of South Africa has changed during these difficult times. We are experiencing difficult times, but in what country of the world are difficult conditions not encountered to-day? There are the African countries particularly, but also countries outside Africa which are experiencing great difficulties. South Africa is still one of the fortunate countries in that we can still overcome the difficulties with which we are faced. We are a country which still to a large extent enjoys peace and order. What the people now expect of us is I think what the Government will do. I therefore just want to say to-night, and this must also be regarded as a word of warning, that if there are people who think that they can in any way disrupt the establishment of the republic on 31 May by lawless behaviour, they must realize that the Government is aware of the position, is drawing up its plans and will take drastic action without respect for persons. Those are introductory words which I want to say here because the spirit of the debate this afternoon was such that I accept that we all hope we shall be able to avoid bloodshed in South Africa, and that we do not want any more Sharpevilles. By the measures it is taking the Government will do everything in its power to ensure law and order in South Africa without bloodshed or without any difficulties of that nature and even without resorting to emergency regulations. But if that is of no avail, the Government will do its duty.

Under the leadership of the hon. member for Springs, the debate developed into a discussion of the treason trial and criticism of that trial. Indeed, that was also to be expected. I therefore want to deal with the matter as a whole because a number of hon. members opposite, and later a number of members on this side of the House, have discussed the treason trial. I do not resent the fair criticism of the hon. member for Springs. It was fair criticism. But then I also want to tell him that what we are discussing to-day, namely the hearing of the treason trial, was fair—no one will say that this was not a fair trial. I think that everyone admits as regards the treason trial that the trial was conducted fairly in accordance with the best democratic principles of justice and that it was a fair trial.

The question has now been raised as to why this trial was started. My reply is that it started like all trials of a criminal nature in South Africa. The police submit the facts and the country’s Attorney Generals consider those facts. If they are convinced that there is at least a prima facie case, they take it to the; courts. That is the procedure in South African. Now it has been said to-day: Yes, but the Minister of Justice exercises control over prosecutions. Theoretically that is correct, but as far as this Government is concerned, no. Minister of Justice has interfered with prosecutions since 1948. It is our policy and I hope that as long as I hold this portfolio I shall adhere to that policy as rigidly as I have done since taking over this portfolio for the simple reason that if one does not do so, it gives rise to trouble. The House will remember the occasion when Mr. Tielman Roos as Minister of Justice interfered, as he was accused of doing, in a prosecution for the first time in history. And we never heard the end of it. I now want to say to hon. members opposite in all reasonableness that when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) said that the decisions as to whether a prosecution should be instituted eventually rested with the Minister of Justice, I think the hon. member did not mean what he said. Perhaps he expressed himself badly. But do hon. members know what he was asking us to do this afternoon? He was asking that in effect the Minister of Justice should interfere with prosecutions. When the Attorney General has to decide on a case and the trial goes on for too long a period, then—so he argues—the Minister of Justice should intervene. I say that I refuse to do so and I think that my predecessors would have said: We refuse once and for all to interfere with prosecutions in South Africa. It is the democratic principle in South Africa of which we are proud that the people of South Africa are not at the mercy of the Government. It therefore surprised me somewhat to hear the suggestion from hon. members opposite this afternoon that the Minister should have intervened and that the trial should have been brought to an end at an earlier stage. No, it was a fair trial and no one has ever complained that it was not a fair trial. We all regret the fact that the trial continued for so long. But in the nature of things it is not only the prosecution which can be held responsible when a trial goes on for too· long. It is also often the defence which must accept the responsibility when the trial continues for too long. Do not let us hurl reproaches at one another. Let us tell the world in the name of South Africa that this was a fair trial and a fair judgment, and let us leave it at that. What I have been asked to do would create a dangerous precedent. I should not like to be a member of a government which interferes with prosecutions, and that is what I have been asked to do this afternoon. I am thankful that we have not done so. Of course when one listens to the speeches made here this afternoon, one would have thought that there was only one side by which anything could be said, that there was nothing to be said for the other side. It will take about a month before the court gives its full judgment. Hon. members will appreciate that it will be a lengthy judgment and only when the full judgment have been given, does the Government intend appointing an inter-departmental committee to consider all the implications and consequences of the judgment. Only when the Government has all the implications and consequences of this judgment before it, can it consider what action should be taken. I have said that all the arguments are not just on the one side. I have here a short extract comprising just two paragraphs of the judgment. I do not want to read the whole judgment, but only the brief finding—

This is the court—

I am merely reading this extract because more damning words have seldom been expressed in a court. While hon. members have therefore, perhaps without bearing the judgment itself fully in mind, tried to create the impression this afternoon that there was only one side for which anything could be said, it appears from these extracts that that is not so. But only when the full judgment is available can the Attorney Generals decide whether or not an appeal should be lodged against the judgment.

Then the hon. member for Springs has raised the other point of compensation. In this respect he would also be creating a very dangerous precedent in asking us that we should make an exception of this case and pay compensation to people who have been tried and found not guilty. I assume that the hon. member did not consider all the implications when he made this suggestion because he is a lawyer and I want to tell him to-night that what he has advocated this afternoon surprised me somewhat. I was somewhat astonished to hear him make this request. What would become of the State, what would become of South Africa or of any other democratic country if the principle were accepted that one should compensate people if one tries them and they are found not guilty? Britain has been mentioned this afternoon, for example. She is the mother of democracy. What is the position in Britain? If one is found guilty on a criminal charge in Britain, one even has to pay the trial costs of both sides. South Africa is therefore, still far removed from that position. The other point which must be kept in mind is that only certain countries uphold the principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. In France and in certain other European countries, that is not the position. The onus is on the accused to prove that he is innocent. I am not expressing any opinion on the Napoleonic Code, but I am merely mentioning it here. When hon. members ask that people should be compensated when they are found not guilty, then that request is in such conflict with the position in most democratic countries of the world that I cannot believe that the hon. member for Springs will continue to insist on this point if he reconsiders the matter.

Then the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members have also raised the important point that there are far too many arrests in South Africa for minor and trivial offences. I am glad the hon. member has raised this matter because this is a matter about which I feel very strongly. A few weeks ago I discussed this matter in the Other Place and I then said what the Government was going to do. I said in the Other Place that 1,000,000 prosecutions were instituted annually against persons for what can be called minor and even trivial offences. These cases take up a vast amount of the time of the police and the courts and cause continuous overcrowding of our gaols. During 1959 the South African Police issued 113,000 reprimands and warnings to minor offenders, instead of instituting prosecutions. They should be congratulated on that. During 1960 122,000 such reprimands and warnings were issued, that is to say, an increase of 8 per cent. This is a very fine achievement on the part of the police. In my opinion, there are still not nearly enough warnings and reprimands being issued instead of prosecutions being instituted. I am therefore glad to be able to announce that we are at present considering a scheme under which the police will make extensive use of warnings and reprimands in the case of persons who have committed petty or trivial offences. That is my reply to the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members who have asked that the Government should consider this matter. It is really important that we should have less prosecutions for petty offences in South Africa so that the police force can devote its attention to more important matters.

In this regard I was also very glad that hon. members opposite had a word of praise this afternoon for the Commissioner of Police. A Commissioner of Police, particularly in a country like South Africa, must have very broad shoulders and the present Commissioner of Police is carrying this burden with great distinction. I am therefore thankful that hon. members have made the kind remarks about our Commissioner of Police to-day. I shall have an opportunity later to express my thanks to the other departmental chiefs and the members of the three Departments who in recent times have done such trojan work in bringing about our reorganization.

The hon. member has asked me about ex gratia payments to persons who should be considered for such payment as a result of the incidents last year. While I have said that the Government is not prepared to consider ex gratia payments to the persons concerned in the treason trial, the Government is prepared to consider making ex gratia, payments to people who have suffered as a result of the disturbances last year at Sharpeville and elsewhere. The Government has appointed an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the State Attorney, a fairly large committee which will go into the whole question of ex gratia payments. Hon. members have asked me how many applications we have received. We have received many applications, but it would not be correct for me to give a figure. It is a large number but the applications dried up when I announced that the Government had its doubts and had appointed a committee to consider ex gratia payments. The committee will consider these cases carefully and will of course recommend ex gratia payments to the Government where such payments are called for. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the findings of this committee.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) informed me that he would be absent to-night, but he has raised an important matter, namely the question of stock theft and other crimes which are being committed along the borders of Basutoland. He has urged, for example, that improved extradition arrangements should be made because the South African Police follow people who are involved in stock thefts or who are suspected of being involved in stock thefts as far as the border, but they can go no further. I just want to tell the hon. member that he can tell the people living along the borders that the Government is giving serious consideration and attention to the whole question of smuggling across the border and also the question of firearms and particularly the question of stock theft. At the moment the Government is considering to what extent police posts should be established close to one another all along the entire border.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) unfortunately criticized my respected predecessor somewhat this afternoon, and I am sorry that he has done so. The hon. member has also done so in the past and the then Minister replied to him at the time. At that time the hon. member also referred to the “ incompetence ” of the police. My predecessor then challenged him and said that he should just quote one example where the police had acted in that way. The hon. member has failed to give this one example. I see from Hansard that the hon. member was later again asked to give just one example of incompetence, of where the police had acted incompetently. That was in 1959. It seems to me that the hon. member is persisting in his allegation that my predecessor supposedly allowed the police to do certain things of that nature. But he has gone further and said that my predecessor was responsible for the treason trial. The previous Minister went out of his way time and time again to deny that allegation. This afternoon the accusation was even made in this House that my predecessor was persuaded by political considerations to continue with this trial. But the Minister made a statement to the effect that that was not correct and that the prosecution did not rest on his hands but in the hands of the Attorney-General.

On a point of personal explanation, I did not accuse the hon. the Minister’s predecessor of being influenced by political reasons or anything of that nature. That allegation was made by someone else and I think the hon. the Minister is doing me an injustice by saying so.

Oh, then I am incorrect; then I must move back two benches. It was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) who made the accusation. My predecessor made a statement in this House, which I think hon. members accepted at the time, to the effect that he had had nothing to do with the prosecution and that he was acting correctly and that it was the Attorney-General who had decided whether or not to prosecute. We also know that that was the position. The Department has just provided me with the relevant extract from the statement which my respected predecessor made in this House (Hansard, Col. 5674) on 12 May 1959. I do not want to read the whole state-bent, but inter alia he said—

I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now returned. He has probably heard that while he was away his senior colleague did not wish to be associated with the allegation which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made against my predecessor this afternoon.

The hon. member for East London (City) has also referred to the incidents in Pondoland, but what has struck me most this afternoon is that he is very concerned about the four Pondos who were killed, and that he refuses to accept that the Attorney-General later decided that no prosecution should be instituted against the police officer concerned. He refuses to accept that a prosecution could not be justified. I do not know what more we can do. The Attorney-General went into the matter and decided himself that he would not prosecute any further. But what has surprised me this afternoon is that the hon. member is so concerned about the four Pondos but not about the other persons who have been injured or killed.

I confined myself to the finding of the magistrate and the refusal of the Attorney-General to take action.

I wonder whether the hon. member expected me to intervene in the matter. Does he want me to refer the magistrate’s finding back to the Attorney-General and instruct him to prosecute the police officer? Does he want me to do that? If I were to do so, he would be the first to criticize me.

I only ask that you should do your duty.

But what I regard as my duty and what the hon. member regards as my duty are two quite different things. Other people were also injured in Pondoland. He did not mention them. Then the hon. member has asked two further questions. In the first place he has quite justifiably asked about the increase in crime. Of course, as the population grows, so the crime rate rises. But the Government is considering this question of the increase in crime. The Government is giving serious attention to the matter, and we are not only considering steps but we are actually taking certain steps to release additional police from office work so that they can give their attention to this aspect. In the first place the hon. member has seen that we have announced that the Government is considering the establishment of a police reserve. This reserve will consist mostly of former policemen whom we can re-employ to do certain office and other work so that we can use the younger policemen outside in order to combat serious crime.

That is one method. The other method is to make additional police available, that is to say, we have adopted the scheme of employing women typists and clerks in police offices so that additional police can be released in order to make more policemen available for protecting the public. Another aspect which the Government is now considering is to what extent we can once again make use of dogs for street patrols, as is done in Europe, so that it will not be necessary to send two policemen out on patrol, but one policeman with a dog. There are countries in Europe which have found that this system works extremely well. The experience in South Africa is that certain sections of the population particularly are very afraid of a dog. The Government is sending two police officers to Europe to ascertain to what extent this scheme which is used in Holland and elsewhere, can be applied in South Africa. I therefore do not want to anticipate their findings, but I only want to say that this is another method which the Government is considering in order to make more policemen available.

Then, as far as the ladies are concerned, I just want to say that I think we shall soon have succeeded—-in the few months which have passed—in recruiting 500 women to replace policemen in offices, so that those policemen can be released for outside duty. I am glad that the hon. member has asked this question, and I think that this represents a great step forward.

What about the civic guards in the Native towns?

I have made a note of that point. Another hon. member has also asked this question, and I shall be glad if the hon. member for East London (City) will repeat the question on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because he has further details in this regard. But the position is that we have established civic guards for the Bantu to give the Bantu the protection to which they are entitled, and particularly to give Bantu chiefs the protection to which they are entitled. We have established these civic guards. At the moment they are being trained by Bantu sergeants of my Police Department. But, as soon as they have reached the stage where they can become sergeants themselves, the police will withdraw their sergeants and the Natives will do the work themselves. They are being trained by Native sergeants. We expect great things of this step in the future. I am glad that hon. members have applauded this step to-day and have said that this is a good thing which the Government has done.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) for his kind words, particularly in connection with the rehabilitation scheme which I have explained to the House to-day. I am glad that he has discussed the arguments which were used in respect of the treason trial in the way he has.

I have already replied to the question of prosecutions for trivial offences. I have been questioned by the hon. member for East London (City) and also by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) about the Kgosana case, about the young Native (jong kaffertjie) who is now in England. I have been asked: What happened after they had marched in procession to Cape Town and after Col. Terblanche …

Do you want that description recorded in Hansard?

I do not think anyone will take it very seriously. I have been asked what happened when these Bantu said that a committee representing them would like to see the Minister. When the request reached me, I said that I was too busy. I was told that Col. Terblanche had informed them that he would try to see whether he could arrange an interview for them. When the message reached me, I said that I was too busy, and I asked the Secretary for Justice to go and see them, that is to say, Kgosana and three or four others. The Secretary for Justice then went to meet them. He said: “ You say that you want to see the Minister; what do you want to see him about? ” They then said that they wanted to see the Minister for one reason only, namely, to ask him to release the Native leaders who had been arrested. The secretary then said: “ Yes, but then we must have a sworn statement that that is what you are asking for.” He then asked whether that was all they wanted, or whether that was all they wanted to ask the Minister, namely, that he should release the Natives who had been arrested. They then replied in the affirmative again, and a sworn statement was then taken from them; the statement was properly signed and is in our possession. Those are the facts of the case. After all, all they wanted to see me for was to ask me to release the Native leaders, perhaps knowing full well that I would not give the slightest consideration to such a request.

I think the hon. member for Sea Point has said that Kgosana was actually led into a trap. He was asked to come and he was then arrested. The fact of the matter isi that the police had already been searching for Kgosana ever since that morning.

[Inaudible.]

He only believes “ Janne-warie ” and not a White man.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) must not make such senseless remarks.

I was under the impression that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) would accept my word when I put the facts as I have been given them. I am putting the facts as I have been given them.

Why did they not arrest him when he came on the first occasion?

The hon. member knows how to put a question.

But the hon. the Minister has put a question to me, and not I to him.

Order!

I just want to clear up this matter and give the hon. member the assurance that, to the best of my ability, I am trying to put the facts correctly as they have been given to me. I understand that when it became apparent that he was the leader of the people who had taken part in the procession, the colonel concerned spoke to him and did not arrest him because he (the colonel) was not concerned with the question of his arrest. Whether he knew about it or not I do not know. I have been told that he was dealing with people who were asking for an interview with the Minister. Then the police, who were concerned with the arrest, came and said that they had already been looking for that person since the morning. To be accurate, they had been looking for him at the university. They could not find him. Then eventually they found him there. He was not led into a trap Because he was an outstanding figure at the demonstration. He was not someone who hid away or anything of that nature. There was, therefore, no difficulty about arresting him if they wished to do so. The arrest had nothing to do with the fact that they were asked to come at 5 o’clock, or whatever time it was, to hear the Minister’s reply. The Minister then sent a message that he could not see them, but that the Secretary for Justice would see them.

Who instructed Terblanche to arrest Kgosana?

I did not do so. I shall have to go into the matter to find out who exactly it was. I am sorry, but I do not have that information; all I can say is that I did not do so. Hon. members will appreciate that, in the case of such arrests, there is always a higher authority which does not rest with the Minister.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) has also discussed the treason trial and he then asked me about home defence. He has complained particularly that the Whites are in the way at these meetings and that we should take steps to get them out of the way. It will be very difficult. At the meeting which was held on the Parade on Saturday there were 100 Whites, but they keep together in the middle. It is difficult for the police to go to those Whites and to say: What are you doing here? It was quite clear what they were doing there. It will be very difficult to carry out the request of the hon. member, namely that the police should see whether they can get the Whites out of the way. I agree with him that it is true that because of their curiosity the Whites are more in the way and are more of a nuisance. I am not saying this to criticize them, but I am submitting it as a fact. As has been said here to-day, we know what happens when there is a motor accident. Everyone wants to see because they are curious. This also happens in the case of processions, etc. I do not think we can do much about it.

Then the hon. member has asked another question, namely whether we shall teach our women to handle firearms. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) was very upset that such a question could even be put. I do not know why he is upset. It is traditional in South Africa, amongst both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples, that our ladies can shoot rather well. There were times in the history of the Eastern border when it was essential that the women should know how to shoot. I am not so sure that the time has not again come when it will be a good thing for our women to learn to shoot. We are continuously reading in the newspapers about women being assaulted in their homes by armed and unarmed Natives. I think that if we would just teach our women again to shoot, there would be less attacks on them. For that reason we have also drawn up a scheme whereby we use our police stations for this purpose. There are approximately 1,000 police stations in the country, and there is usually a sergeant and other policemen who can help us in establishing these ladies’ clubs in each area and teaching them to handle firearms. I hope it will not create an incorrect impression abroad because if it does create such an undesirable impression, then the fact that such attacks are being made on women, particularly in the big cities of South Africa, must also create an undesirable impression. After all we must seek a remedy. I should therefore like to put the matter in this way. It will not create an undesirable impression abroad if South Africa should teach its women to use firearms. The husbands cannot always be at home. [Interjections.] No, no I think it would be a sensible thing for South Africa to teach its women to shoot. This is my reply to a point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (District).

The hon. member for Maitland has also discussed the treason trial. Then he made the distasteful remark with reference to my predecessor “that it was a trial with a political flavour”. I do not think that he had considered that remark very carefully, and I think that if he will actually sit down and reconsider the matter, he would like to withdraw such a remark, namely that this was a trial with a political flavour. As regards the banning of persons, so that they can only remain in certain areas or so that they may not address meetings for a period of two or five years, he has asked what our policy is. My reply is that our policy is to carry out the law. Our policy is to do our duty in order to safeguard and to protect law and order in South Africa and if there is any indication that the Suppression of Communism Act is being contravened, we shall take action. I cannot take the matter any further. It would be a very weak government which, if there are laws on the Statute Book, did not implement those laws.

With reference to my announcement this afternoon regarding the Government’s intentions as regards juveniles who are sentenced to imprisonment, the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has asked what we are going to do about those who have not yet been punished. Approximately 475 of them are being sentenced daily and I said this afternoon that the Government would establish rehabilitation centres for them. The hon. member says that that is a good thing as regards those who have already been sentenced, that is to say, the 475 per day between the ages of 15 and 24. But, he asks, what about the loafers who cause trouble on the streets, the disturbers of the peace and the loafers—what about those young people? I am glad that the hon. member has asked this question. The Government has appointed a Cabinet committee which is considering this matter and which we hope will submit proposals. The announcement I have made to-day represents an attempt on our part to deal with those who have already been sentenced and who are in jail. Those whom I am now discussing are the people who stand around on the streets, and who have not committed a legal offence so that they can be arrested. As I have said, a Cabinet committee is considering that aspect.

The hon. member for Sea Point has also asked me about Kgosana and I have already replied in that regard. I have also already replied to the questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has put one or two interesting questions to which I should like to reply. He has asked about the legal aid bureaux. He has asked why we are now undertaking an experiment in Johannesburg, instead of the legal bureaux appointing an official to do the work. My reply is that the previous system was not a success. What is the task of the legal aid bureaux? They should help people who have legal problems, people who would like to go to court but do not know how to set about it. Often if such a person could be given legal advice they would not go to court at all. That is the general work of the legal aid bureaux. Legal aid bureaux only existed in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban. They were organized by a private body. They had one or two officials in their offices and the Government paid a subsidy of £5,500 per annum in respect of these three offices to enable them to continue with their work. The legal aid bureau in Cape Town was closed in November 1958. As the hon. member has said, certain of these bureaux could not function properly at all and were eventually closed. The legal aid bureau in Pretoria was replaced at approximately the same time, namely in November 1958, by the magistrate’s office taking over the work itself. In the case of the three remaining offices, there were three Whites and two Bantu in the Johannesburg office. But they have told us that there was not really enough work to keep them occupied for more than one or two hours per day. In Port Elizabeth there is one White and one Bantu and in Durban one White. The hon. member now asks why the R11,000 still appears on the Estimates. That figure appears on this year’s Estimates because the legal aid bureaux have incurred certain costs hitherto What remains of the R11,000 will be utilized in respect of the offices which the Government is to establish. I hope that on the next Estimates another amount will appear which will be utilized to meet these costs. The hon. member has referred, quite correctly perhaps, to the shortage of public servants and has asked why under those circumstances we are now going to entrust a public servant with this work. It seems to me that the legal aid bureaux have very little work, and if it appears that it only involves one or two hours per day, we can revert to the system which is already operating in Pretoria, namely that the magistrate’s office does the work itself. In any case, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I take a personal interest in this type of work and that I shall do my best to ensure that the function which the legal aid bureaux have fulfilled in the past will not be detracted from. I only hope that if the State takes this service over—it seems as though the public is not able to support it, even with the subsidy of £5,500 per annum—if the State gradually takes over these duties, then I think that we shall achieve satisfaction in view of the fact that we will not need to appoint much additional staff, but that the office concerned will actually be able to do the work itself. At the moment there is an official in Johannesburg with the status of a magistrate who is doing this work. But it may appear later that he does not have much work and it will then be transferred to the magistrate’s office.

Have you considered the British system? When we discussed the matter last year, you said that you would consider the British system.

Yes, we have considered that system. The interest of the public would also have to be aroused. That is the difficulty at the moment. The public are probably not aware of all the work that the legal aid bureaux do and consequently take practically no interest in them. The bureaux can therefore not find the necessary funds. That is why the State will have to take over this work.

Then the hon. member has asked me what will happen to the court building which was fitted out for the treason trial. My reply is that the Judge-President of the Transvaal has asked that the building should be left unaltered so that he can use it as a court, He does not have the necessary court accommodation. A new supreme court is to be erected in Pretoria but this will still take a few years. During this time this court building will be used to serve the Transvaal. Eventually we shall probably take a final decision in the light of the suggestions we receive.

Then the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has raised the question of people who disappear and then the police have to search for them. That is the position. People do disappear. When the hon. member’s time expired he was just going to say that these are people who go on “ joyrides ”. All I can tell the hon. member is that I cannot express an opinion in this regard. I can only say that the police have their duty and they must carry out that duty.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) has discussed the treason trial, but I have already dealt with the points which he raised. I have already replied to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the same matter. He made a strange statement this afternoon to the effect that during the 13 years which the National Party Government have been in power, we have enacted a large number of Acts which embody the presumption that a person is guilty until he has proved his innocence. I then asked the hon. member to give just one example. He says he could give dozens, but he did not mention one. During the adjournment I had inquiries made and I can easily mention a dozen Acts which were adopted prior to 1948 which place the onus on the accused. That was done by the previous Government.

But do you agree that it should not be done?

I shall wait for the hon. member to give me a few examples of where this Government has done so. I have taken the trouble to examine the other examples and there are at least 12 such Acts which I can mention and which were passed under the régime of the previous Government.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for detaining the Committee for so long, but I think that I have now answered more or less all the points which have been raised. If I have not replied to all the points, then I am only too willing to do so if hon. members will raise those matters once again.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has answered as fully as he did and in the spirit in which he has replied. I would like to say it was a very pleasant change and one does wonder whether it would not be better if this hon. Minister were to represent us in other countries of the world in place of his hon. colleague who represents South Africa at the moment.

From what the hon. the Minister has said it is possible that there will be an appeal. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that as I read the Press report of the findings of the judges, the material sentence in regard to the question of a possible appeal says this—

It would therefore appear that the findings is a question of fact in which case, of course, it seems inconceivable that there can be an appeal. However I do not want to press that as the Minister says that it is possible that there may be an appeal.

I did not say on the facts.

No. I may misread it, but it does seem to me that it is only a question of fact that that would be possible, in view of these findings.

I did not bind myself.

Of course I may be wrong. It would be very inadvisable, if a possible appeal is being contemplated, to debate this matter any further. I therefore do not propose to take it any further.

I was rather sorry that the hon. the Minister did not disassociate himself from one of the hon. members on the Government side who appeared to call into question, as I understood what he said, the bona fides of persons who were acting as trustees of the fund which had been formed for the defence of the accused. I would like to say that I have seen the names of the persons concerned and I want to state immediately that I believe that they are persons of such high standing that everybody can be well satisfied that they would not misuse any of the funds that come into their possession. However, it is not for me to defend them …

Who are they?

They made a political issue of it.

I am not dealing with the question of the issue. The imputation in the remark of one hon. member was that the Government should look into the question of the use of those funds.

Mr. Chairman, may I explain this position. It was not I who made that statement, it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). He said that before there was any talk of re imbursing these people for what they had lost as a result of appearing before the Court, it should first be established exactly what the amount was, otherwise money may be made out of it. That was his meaning.

I can only say to the hon. member that if he reads Hansard it was not in the terms which he has just given to this House. However, I am not going to pursue the matter any further except say this, that the persons who have been the trustees of that fund—as I said I have seen certain of the names in the Press—are recognized as persons of the highest standing and I would not like it to be left on record, that I heard correctly, that there is any possible imputation against their personal characters. That is all I wish to say. I do not feel it would be right if any such imputation has been made, or if it can be deduced from anything which the hon. member said. I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is right and that I am wrong in my understanding of what has been said during this debate.

I must say this to the hon. the Minister: I am very glad to have his assurance that he as Minister of Justice, has never made use of the powers which he has under our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in regard to prosecutions. In other words, he has left decisions on prosecution in the hands of the Attorneys-General. I accept his word unhesitatingly, and also that that had been the practice previously. I think it is a very sound practice and I wonder whether it would not be a very good thing if we were to reverse the position and go back to the law as it stood prior to amendment. The final decision was then left in the hands of the Attorney-General. The hon. the Minister has said that only in one single case did a Minister of Justice interfere, and he had reason to regret it. The amendment was made in the year 1926. I would say that this amendment has been on the Statute Book for 35 years too long, and perhaps this hon. Minister will consider bringing the position into accord with what he tells us has been the practice all these years. It would be a good thing for this country and I commend it to the hon. the Minister.

I would like to say one further thing in regard to this trial, that I hope there will never again be a case in this country where a Minister of Justice will make statements about pending prosecutions either in this House or elsewhere, prior to the public knowing anything of a proposed prosecution. I believe it was most unfortunate that that happened. It has been responsible for a good deal of criticism against this country in connection with this case in the years that it has been before the Courts.

Certain hon. members became very heated in regard to a suggestion which I threw out earlier on in this debate. I dealt first with the question of compensation for innocent persons injured at Sharpville. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the assurance which he has given that there is an interdepartmental committee looking into certain cases. In all the circumstances of the Treason case the Minister might look into the question of possible compensation. Let me make it clear that I think that the general principle applied in this country is a sound one, but I would say that there are very special circumstances here and I would draw attention to the fact that in relation to some of the accused they were first arrested on 5 December 1956 and the only charge brought against them was quashed by this special court on 20 April 1960. In the case of persons who had been committed for trial and stood trial and were acquitted, there can be no question of compensation, but in respect of these persons where there has been this tremendously long delay. I know the case was complicated and I am not suggesting that all the delay could have been avoided. I accept what the Minister said that certain of the delays were quite unavoidable and due to the defence because there were intermediate proceedings which took time. Where there was no justification on the facts for an indictment I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the Minister should look into the question of compensation of innocent persons. I make no apology for suggesting this. I agree that it is contrary to the normal rules, but I do not think that any harm could result if, on going into the matter, the Minister felt that special compensation should be paid.

I would like to come back to the point made by the Minister in regard to petty prosecutions. He referred to the fact that there has been an increasing number of cases where prosecutions did not take place and I welcome that very much indeed. I know that previous statements have been made. I can only say to the Minister that anything he might be able to do to cut down the number of prosecutions in petty cases further will have the full support of this side of the House. I would say to the Minister also that there are also cases of unnecessary arrest. I know that the Minister said his policy was to avoid this, and I believe there has been an improvement, but I do not think we have reached the end of that road. The Minister might continue to keep that matter very clearly before him. It can only redound to the credit of the country if we can reduce the number of these cases. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) referred to the high treason case and particularly to the one paragraph which constituted the main part of the report on the day judgment was given, viz. that the court found that the A.N.C. was not a communist organization. When we look at the judgment as reported in the Press, it creates the impression that the A.N.C. was charged with being a communist organization and that it was found not to be one.

I wonder whether the hon. member will allow me to read the whole of the paragraph, because that might remove any misapprehension—

I just quoted the first paragraph and I can quite understand that the hon. member thought that it referred to another paragraph.

I am grateful to the hon. member. I also read that report, but I want to read a little more from the original judgment than appeared in the Press. Before doing so I want to round off my proposition, viz. that the Press reports created the impression that the A.N.C. was found not guilty. The impression was further created that there never should have been such a case and that the A.N.C. was not a subversive organization at all. The fact is that a charge was laid against four organizations, of which the A.N.C. was one. The charge was that these organizations worked together with the common object of overthrowing the State by violence. It therefore had to be proved that each of those organizations first individually and thereafter jointly, plotted to overthrow the State. The judgment said that the Court found that “ it has not been proved that the A.N.C. was a communist organization That created the impression that there was nothing wrong with the A.N.C. and that there was no reason for the State to institute this action against the accused. But when we look at the preliminary judgment we see, inter alia, that also this matter was proved, and of the matters the court found to have been proved very little or nothing appeared in the Press. Inter alia, the Judges came to the following conclusion. The Minister quoted the first part, which I do not want to repeat, viz. that “ the State seen by the A.N.C. is a dictatorship of a proletariat and accordingly is a state known in Marxist Leninism as a people’s democracy ”. But there are further findings—

They also found the following—

And then this—

We therefore see that certain allegations made by the State were Droved, and in the concluding paragraph the Judge, who drew up this resume said the following—

The result is that they did not succeed in proving violence, but they found that certain things had been done. Whereas the impression was created here that this was quite an innocuous organization with harmless intentions and that people were accused who never should have been accused, it is clear from the preliminary judgment that there was incitement to the commission of illegal acts and that the whole matter was not as innocent as one might have gathered from the Press. I refer to this portion which says that it was not proved that the A.N.C. was a communist organization, but it is not correct to say that it was completely blameless and had been charged wrongly. The Minister’s predecessor clearly said in this House that he left it to the Attorney-General to investigate the case, and that independent legal advice had been obtained before the charge was framed, particularly to ensure that there would be no injustice committed. In the light of this, we believe that the previous Minister of Justice was fully justified in not interfering when his officials had decided to prosecute. But from the judgment it is clear that there was a prima facie case which they were fully entitled to investigate, and that no injustice was done to any accused person who was charged in the case.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the general remarks made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) in regard to non-interference in criminal prosecutions. There is no doubt that the attitude placed before the House by the Minister is the correct one, but in a case of such public importance l feel that the Minister has really evaded the issue and has not carried out his function as Minister of Justice. I think that the House should be informed what the reasons were for not taking action. Here we have a case in which a number of Natives are killed by police action. I am not judging whether the police were correct or not, but we have a finding by an experienced magistrate that in the case of four of the deceased the shooting was not justified and he suggested that a certain officer was guilty of culpable homicide. The Minister’s function is clearly defined in Section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955. The Minister mentioned the fact that it was Mr. Tielman Roos who introduced this principle years ago, but the fact is that in 1955 this law was amended and consolidated by the present Government. That section reads—

I do not say that the Attorney-General’s decision was wrong. I have not got the facts. I submit that the Minister of Justice did not do his duty in omitting to call for the record to satisfy himself in a matter of such public importance that the Attorney-General was acting correctly. The Minister himself is the final arbiter in this matter. I would like to repeat the point raised by the hon. member for Springs, namely that if the Minister considers that this section is superfluous and that he is not prepared to act on it, then I ask whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to repeal this provision and to revert to the position as it was before the law was changed in 1926. Sir, the matter is a very serious one. The public and this House are entitled to know what the reasons were.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) is a strange phenomenon in this House because he is the person who so strenuously criticised the previous Minister of Justice. He blamed the previous Minister for the fact that the high treason case had been commenced and the prosecution instituted on his initiative and not on that of the Attorney-General. That influenced the previous Minister to make the statement which the present Minister read out to-night, in which he denied that he had done so and said that it had rested exclusively in the hands of the Attorney-General. But now he comes along with the case of Pondoland, where a few Pondos were shot, and he blames this Minister for not doing the very thing which he wanted the previous Minister to do. Here he says the Minister should have intervened, but in the other case he blames the Minister for having intervened. I fail to follow his argument. We all know what the law provides, but it has always been the policy of all Ministers of Justice not to intervene and to leave the matter in the hands of the Attorney-General.

I am very sorry that hon. members of the Opposition did not devote any attention today to the statement made by the Minister in regard to youth rehabilitation. It is a very important statement and it is a pity that they did not say a word about it. Brilliant work is being done here and it is something which will be a better advertisement for South Africa overseas than the speech of the hon. member for East London (City). I want to express my particular appreciation for the fact that one of these youth camps will be in my constituency.

In regard to the fund established in connection with the high treason trial, the hon. member for Springs made a few remarks. He said that we had said that the trustees were not bona fide. What I say is that the money was collected under false pretences. This money was collected not so much just to defend these people, but under the pretext that the Government was oppressive and depriving people of their human rights and putting them into prison unjustly. This money was collected on that pretext, and I say it was a false pretext. What would we think if money were to be collected for every man who contravened the law and if the blame was then put on the Government? That is what I have against the fund and I hope that fund will now come to an end, seeing that the case has been concluded.

In regard to this suggestion that compensation should be paid to people, I want to remind the hon. member for Springs that they were not the only people to have been charged with political crimes in South Africa, and, moreover, did his predecessors plead that the rebels should be compensated or that the people charged during the strike should be compensated? But at that time White people were concerned. But this time a number of Natives were charged and now compensation has to be paid just because they want to make political capital out of the matter. Let us view the matter in the right perspective. They think that if the Government agrees to compensate these people it will be an admission that it has done them an injustice by prosecuting them. For my part, none of them need be compensated.

I want to touch on a matter which has not received any attention yet, viz. that home defence falls under this Minister. In the past home defence was regarded from the point of view of modern warfare, missiles, etc. and that we should build air-raid shelters, etc. But if modern warfare comes to our country it will come in the same way that it came to Angola, by local riots by terrorists to terrify the people. I therefore ask that we should organize home defence on a voluntary basis in every town in South Africa. Not only should there be home defence in the Bantu areas, but also for the Whites and it must be on a voluntary basis. The magistrate should call together all people interested in it in every district and there should be a nucleus of people who will be able to defend every town if necessary. I want to mention the example of Sasolburg, where a number of women get together voluntarily every week to receive instruction in home defence and the handling of firearms. I ask that magistrates throughout the country should get the people together to serve as home-guards in those towns, and there will be enough people who are willing to do so. The position in Angola shows the technique which is applied and how riots will take place in this country. It will not come through Russia firing missiles at us or through artillery being aimed at us, but by uprisings of terrorists in all the towns with the object of murdering the inhabitants. I therefore feel that every town should protect itself and that the large cities should also be organized, block by block, to defend themselves. I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying these few words.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) dealt with the treason trial again. I do not intend to pursue the matter, except to say that one should always take into consideration the severe hardships that were experienced by the families of these persons during a period of four years. When the breadwinner is removed from the family it causes severe hardship on his dependants.

What did your party do during the war?

What did yours do?

I do not intend dealing with the war record of the hon. member. As far as I know, the war record of hon. members opposite will not stand scrutiny.

I wish to discuss an important matter in regard to the statement made in the House this afternoon in regard to the establishment of youth rehabilitation centres. At the outset I would like to say that the details revealed will be welcomed by all those organizations, societies and persons who are interested in rehabilitation, particularly in regard to youth matters. It is an important step towards the rehabilitation of the juvenile offender. In this regard I want to make certain observations about the details put before the Committee. Before doing so, I would like to refer to the whole question of juvenile crime which has shown a marked increase over the past five years. One might argue that the increase in population to a certain extent has the effect of increasing crime proportionately. But in regard to juvenile crime, I feel that that does not altogether apply, because in 1955 there were 157,814 convictions of persons under 21 years of age and the latest available figures I have for the year 1958 show that this figure has now increased to 188,000 odd. The figures for the first part of the year 1959 was 97,848. Therefore I think we can safely say that the total number of convictions of persons under 21 is now approximately 200,000. This is an alarming figure, which requires attention, and I hope to be able to put forward certain suggestions to the Minister in this regard. However, to deal with the statement and the training proposed to be given at the rehabilitation centres, there are certain items on which Í would like to pass comment.

Firstly, the training envisaged here is very similar to the training at present being given in the reformatories, training which we believe to be successful, but we have not been able to ascertain what degree of success has been reached. Some of the items in the proposed training scheme, with which I wholly agree—there is the question of re-education of these people which is of vital importance. It has become accepted, particularly in dealing with the rehabilitation of young persons, that complete rehabilitation is only possible through re-education and not purely through penal punishment. In this proposed scheme the Minister mentioned certain features in regard to agricultural training and training in various trades. I would like to suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to general education and higher education, whereby facilities will be provided—I know it is perhaps not possible due to financial difficulties to have a staff to give higher education —but financial assistance should be given to these people to take correspondence courses. This should apply to persons who are more studious and who do not wish to go in for agriculture or a career in the various trades. While dealing with the various trades, the Minister said that persons committed will be able to obtain full artisan status and diplomas. I would like to ask the Minister whether the persons who will be responsible for the training of these young people will be qualified artisans, and whether this scheme has the approval of the trade unions, because that is rather important.

There are other suggestions which we hope will bring about a greater degree of rehabilitation. It has been the experience of many people to find that young persons who have served imprisonment have often become associated with the hardened type of criminal and it has done them far more harm than good. Therefore the whole question of the classification of prisoners, particularly in regard to age groups, is a most important one, and also aptitude tests to see that these persons are applied to the careers which will be most beneficial to them in later life. These principles should prove to be a success. However, there are other items in regard to which information would be appreciated. When dealing with this matter one must realize that this type of training can only be applicable to long-term prisoners. What the Minister has in mind for the short-term prisoners is not too clear at present. The system has been one whereby long-term prisoners have been afforded facilities to qualify for various trades and careers. The other important factor is the question of the number of persons to be accommodated at this rehabilitation centre. The Minister said that there was a daily average of 375 White youths between the ages of 15 and 23 at present held in prison. Whether the policy is to transfer these persons immediately to this institution is one matter, but my point is that in regard to establishing institutions of this type it has been found that establishing a too large institution is not conducive to obtaining the highest possible degree of success in regard to rehabilitation and that to work with a smaller unit is far more successful. I hope that if the scheme is satisfactory and the Minister intends establishing further rehabilitation centres later, he will consider establishing smaller centres.

That will require more staff.

I appreciate the difficulties, but I feel that the additional staff and expenditure involved will in the long run be beneficial.

Then there is the question of after-care. That is dealt with in the concluding portion of the statement and it is a very important matter. It has been found in various institutions such as reformatories and industrial schools that when these young persons are released, unless a careful check is kept on their career they very quickly go back into their old ways and therefore the problem exists of giving after-care. I realize that the Minister will have close liaison with the Department of Social Welfare and I hope that an effort will be made and that the Minister will use his influence … [Time limit.]

In the first place, I want to throw the searchlight on the statement made by the hon. member for Springs on behalf of the United Party in regard to the attitude adopted by the United Party towards the so-called Treason Trial Defence Fund. In his half-hour speech the hon. member said that “ South Africa owes a debt of gratitude ” to Bishop Reeves and others for having established the Defence Fund and for having collected the money, and in his reply, after the Minister had replied to him, he again referred with approval and praise to the trustees of this fund. Now, what was this fund established for? It was not established for the defence of ordinary criminals, but to defend political offenders, and what was the charge against them? It was that, in the name of Communism or as communists they wanted to achieve certain communist objects by violence or, alternatively, by that they committed high treason because they sought to overthrow the South African State by means of violence. I have never before heard the United Party associating themselves with this deplorable fund for the support of subversive activities in South Africa. But now that judgment has been given to the effect that there were strong communist influences in the A.N.C., but that it was not proved that it was communist action in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, now that the judgment says that it was an attempt to overthrow the White Government but that it did not amount to high treason—that enough violent objectives were not proved—the United Party comes along and says: We approve of the establishment of this fund: we approve of the fact that money and world opinion were mobilized to defend these political offenders in South Africa and to support them. I say that is a terrible statement to make. It would have been better if this matter had been left alone. But the United Party associates itself, through what was said by the hon. member for Springs, with the collection of money for the defence of these political assassins of the South African State. As far as I am concerned, only one point of interest emerged from this discussion of the high treason case, viz. that the hon. the Minister said that a departmental committee would be appointed to study the voluminous judgment which is expected to be delivered. I want to ask whether this Committee can give special consideration to the question of whether the definition of high treason in South Africa should not be a statutory matter. If that were done, it would be an adaptation to the actual circumstances in South Africa and to the probable circumstances in which high treason will be committed. A definition of high treason should be put on the Statute book. I trust that the hon. the Minister will consider giving specific instructions to the Committee to investigate and to ascertain whether it is not necessary to define high treason statutorily, and if so, what the definition should be.

Then, Sir, I would like to deal with a few other points. The United Party referred, through the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), with a certain amount of approval to one Kgosana who was described by him “ as a young university student ”. I want to pose the question whether he did not enrol at the university to escape the regulations which would otherwise have prevented his illegal entry into Cape Town. I also want to refer to Kgosana, but in another sense. Kgosana, who, according to the hon. member for East London (City), was evidently done an injustice by the Minister of Justice, forfeited £25 bail, escaped to Basutoland, crawled through Africa and now declares in London that this White state will be brought to a fall in 1963. I read to-night that another Native, one Espin Xintolo, who was arrested on Monday for illegal membership of the P.A.C., also disappeared to-day, also forfeiting £25 bail. It shocked many people in South Africa that Kgosana should have been granted £25 bail. There was of course a presumption of honesty which the hon. member for East London (City) ascribed to him, and that is why he was released on bail. This series of escapes and forfeiture of bail started with Kgosana and is still continuing. I want to· put it to the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived when magistrates should no longer have discretion to grant bail to accused persons who are charged with certain offences against the state, directly or indirectly I think that discretion should be abolished. What sense is there, Sir, when a person like Kgosana who is charged with a crime affecting the safety of the state is released on £25 bail in the discretion of a magistrate, and if that small amount of bail can be forfeited and he can act as an agitator against South Africa on a platform overseas. To sum it up, Sir, we: in South Africa have arrived at the stage where a person like Kgosana can tell our enemies that they will take over in 1963. If they declare war on us, let us show that we will handle those people who are so inimical towards us with a firm hand. I would like the: hon. the Minister to give this his serious and prompt consideration.

Then I want to raise an unrelated point with reference to the announcement of the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of our ordinary magistrates’ courts and regional courts. I notice in the Press that to the publication of this Bill there is coupled the suggestion that this might be the introduction of a system whereby magistrates of those courts with increased jurisdiction can be taken into account for appointment to the Bench of the Supreme Court. I shall be glad if the Minister can take us into his confidence and tell us whether it is the policy of the Government to continue appointing judges from the Bar as in the: past, which I hope is the case—nr whether this policy will be deviated from as is alleged in the Press, which is generally unreliable.

Then I want to raise a small point in regard to the safety of firearms. Our police are faced with many difficulties in regard to the theft of firearms from private individuals, but the owners of firearms also find it very difficult to safeguard those weapons. The position in South Africa is simply that few people,, except those who are interested in shooting, possess firearms, and therefore those who do own firearms usually have quite a few of them. If a man is interested in shooting he usually does not possess one gun only. There are numbers of South Africans who quite justifiably and for good reasons, in my opinion, have three, four or five firearms, and it is quite a responsibility to keep these weapons safe in one’s house. I would like the Minister to consider whether he cannot arrange for the police stations to be equipped with lockers which can be rented at a small fee where these firearms can be kept in safety. [Time limit.]

I do not quite know how the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) was going to develop his last argument, but I would like to associate myself with the danger inherent in the widespread carrying of firearms from the other angle. I am the last person to say that people should not defend themselves. A society in which you are going to have a widespread possession of firearms by private citizens without adequate training in the responsibility that goes with the handling of those firearms, is looking for trouble. South Africa has a long tradition in which firearms played an important rôle, but in spite of that there are many cases of shocking handling of them—leaving them loaded and so forth. I am not speaking of the danger of having them stolen at the moment, but that angle must also be watched. There is grave danger that these weapons can get into hands where we would not wish them to be either by robbery or by people who may perhaps have fallen on evil ways and trying to make money out of their weapons by selling them. This is also something that should be guarded. Generally speaking I would say that a society is happiest where firearms are carried by the minimum of people, by those people specially ordained and specially trained to carry them. Therefore if it is to become general practice in our country, I think we should exercise great care and control over those who do possess them.

I rose at this juncture, Mr. Chairman, because I wish to give my view—although I had not intended to take part in this debate. Things have been said in this debate about the treason trial fund and I think it is only fair that a citizen of South Africa who tries to view that fund objectively should give his views. The argument that people subscribed to or encouraged that fund indirectly, as members have suggested, as a stick to beat the Government with is a very exaggerated view on the one side, if I may say so. [Interjections.] The court has given its judgment and as we expect from a South African court, it was an impartial judgment.

Of course.

Had no such fund been available it is very doubtful whether that defence could have been conducted at a time when the eyes of the whole world were focused on South Africa because of the importance of this case. Had we not had that fund it would have been said in the outside world that South Africa did not give those people a fair trial, and how much more propaganda would there not have been against us irrespective of the gravity of the charge. High treason in which a large number of people are involved is not a common charge, and this case attracted the attention and the sympathy of those people who looked at the position of the accused, should they be innocent, in which there means of livelihood have been suspected. I think most of the people who subscribed to that fund were people who were thinking along those lines. They wished justice to be done but they wished the defence to have a fair chance in that trial. I just give that as my own attitude to the fund and in that respect I support the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) that the existence of that fund did not harm the good name of South Africa outside this country.

I only have a few minutes at my disposal but there is one point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. Before I do so, however. I wish to associate myself with those who have responded to those portions of his address where very constructive proposals have been made. I refer to the statement he made to-day in regard to the one method of prison reform. I think no one in this House would not wish to see corrective rather than punitive measures used in the case of criminals or potential criminals wherever it is possible and I hope this can be extended. In that regard I cannot help but to express my regret, although I do not agree with all his ideas, that such a man as the Rev. Junod has gone from the field of prison reform in South Africa. Although you may not agree with his ideas on politics in all respects, he was a man who dedicated a great deal of his life to this field, and it is not a field in which the layman can tread easily unless he is a dedicated man. I think our own senior prison officials are men who are trying to prevent the prisons from becoming a sort of return place, that flings its product out only to receive it again within a few years. In that regard I think the gentleman I mentioned did excellent service.

The other point that has been raised here a good deal has been the question of such organizations as the A.N.C., and the P.A.C. and the banning thereof. Last year we had the bill dealing with the banning of people and organizations and the Minister did say that although he did not agree that this matter should come up yearly before Parliament, nonetheless he would take the responsibility and give Parliament an opportunity for review. This is a most difficult question and I agree with all those who say that we are living in very dangerous times. However, to listen to some of the hon. members on that side of the House, like the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) you would think that we were living in such dangerous times that you could not move without a machine gun in your pocket. But leaving that aside, the question I want to ask is this—and it is a very difficult one for any Government to face up to at the present time. We all know that throughout the Continent of Africa there are African nationalist movements some dedicated to violent means and some dedicated to nonviolence. We all know that it is the practice of communists throughout the world to infiltrate wherever possible, into every organization that is dissatisfied with the existing social order and who wishes to promote unrest. What I want to ask the Government is this: Do they consider banning as the only solution for any indefinite time? I ask that for this reason: In my opinion we have the judgment of the court which says in effect that although the bodies concerned were not directly communist, a certain amount of infiltration had in their opinion taken place without actually leading those bodies to declare themselves in favour of the class war and the whole of the communist ideology. It is my firm conviction that whenever you ban and you drive underground you strengthen the degree of communist infiltration that will exist in such an organization, because the communists are trained masters of the underground. We have seen organizations such as the A.N.C. grow from a dominantly nonviolent organization, which wishes to change the order of society—I am not contesting that—(there are many political parties which are quite legitimate who wish to change the order of society), into something else. We have seen the battle between the non-violent advocates within that party and the violent advocates. We have seen that struggle for power simply within a nationalist movement, and there comes the other struggle for power between the violent nationalists within that party and the communist-violent members in that party. One of the difficulties to the north of us is the battle to rule not so much between the violent and the non-violent sections, as between the extreme of the violent nationalist element and the communists. I suggest that the more you adopt a direct technique of banning, without taking any positive action on any other side, the more likely you are in the movement that is now invisible to increase the power of the direct action man, of the communist. [Time limit.]

Before completing what I was saying, I just want to come back to this High Treason Defence Fund. To-night we see very clearly that blood is thicker than water. It is interesting that the United Party and the Progressive Party should show their blood relationship by their common love for the Treason Trial Defence Fund. It is like a serious disease which one can often diagnose from a small reddish eruption; that is how we can diagnose the disease of the United Party and the Progressive Party. Both of them, Sir, act in defence of this fund, and on what logical basis do they do so? They say that it is a good thing that this fund was established so as to be able to carry on the defence in order to demonstrate that there is justice in South Africa. They had such confidence in our courts in regard to the trial of these accused persons that they considered that hundreds of thousands of pounds was required to ensure the impartiality of our courts. Out courts give an accused person an opportunity whether he is defended or not; our courts need not be persuaded to be just by means of expensive advocates. They are now praising our courts; therefore they also know that justice would be done in our courts. No, Sir, the love of the United Party and the Progressive Party for this Treason Trial Fund is just because it was one of those things which strengthen the subversive anti-South African elements in their actions against the South African State as personified by our Government.

If the hon. member carries that argument of his to its logical conclusion, does he not consider that it will be a good thing to abolish the legal profession completely?

If the hon. member had had an attorney to advise him he would not have asked such a stupid question. If I had wanted to serve the interests of the legal profession, I would surely have pleaded for the establishment of a defence fund in every case.

The point I was busy making when my time elapsed was the question whether the Minister could not try to provide lockers at our police stations for the use of the private owners of firearms, a locker for a pistol or racks for guns. That would in the first place reduce the theft of firearms. In the second place, it centralizes the firearms. If and when a state of emergency might arise, one will know where the firearms and ammunition can be obtained, and it relieves the private owner of a responsibility which weighs heavily on him. I shall be glad if the Minister will consider that.

I want to raise one final point. Unfortunately it is also a point in reply to the United Party, viz. the persistent demand by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) that the Minister should interfere in the case of Sgt. Fourie of Pondoland and either reverse the decision of the Attorney-General, or otherwise give reasons to this House as to why he does not want to institute a prosecution. It is surprising that an experienced and generally intelligent member like that should state such a proposition in the House. In the first place, we should remember that the person concerned was a member of the South African Police, who committed certain actions in the exercise of his duty. The magistrate who conducted the inquest found that this member of the Police Force was in his opinion guilty of culpable homicide. In other words, the magistrate found that it was not a case where there had been intent, but a case where the powers provided for by the Police Regulations had been exceeded, or else a case of negligence. Sir, anyone who allows for human frailty and has regard to the pressure under which our police work will always be grateful if the Attorney-General in his wisdom decides that such a police officer who perhaps, in the stress of emergency, somewhat exceeds his duties should rather not be prosecuted. But instead of the hon. member being satisfied with the fact that the Attorney-General considered this matter and came to a decision, he persists in saying that the Minister should take vengeance and prosecute this poor police constable. I ask whether that is fair. The hon. member makes this extravagant suggestion at a tremendous price. He is prepared to pay the price for the Minister of Justice being directly concerned in the institution of prosecution in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether on sober reflection he does not think that he should rather not have raised this matter, and that we as Members of Parliament should rather have left it alone. Here we have the case of a police official who did his duty at a certain time according to his own discretion; there was a magistrate who held an inquest and freely expressed his opinion in regard to the matter; there was an Attorney-General who considered all the facts and decided not to prosecute. Let us be thankful that it was decided to leave the matter there and not to wreak vengeance on this police officer.

The speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) surprised me. What were his allegations against the United Party? In the first place he says that because we believe that every man is entitled to be defended he now wants to associate us with the motives of the persons concerned in that High Treason case.

No.

I think the last person to listen to the nonsense we had from the hon. member for Kempton Park is the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I will say why. It is because I have never heard the United Party accusing the Minister of Justice of being a communist. What has he done in his life? As a young articled clerk I saw that same Minister of Justice giving evidence at Caledon Square for a well-known communist of those days, Gomza, in 1936. He was not subpoenaed to give evidence. His leader, Dr. Malan, was subpoenaed as a witness, but he gave evidence of his own accord.

What is your argument?

My argument is this. I have never said it and I do not believe for a single moment that that hon. Minister made himself guilty of subversive propaganda against the State because he believed that Mrs. Gool and Gomaz were entitled to all the defence available to them. [Interjections.]

May I correct the hon. member? Dr. Malan gave the evidence and I merely accompanied him.

That is quite correct. The hon. the Minister at that time was the organizing secretary of the Nationalist Party. Dr. Malan was subpoenaed …

[Inaudible.]

I will deal with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in a moment. Within a short time he will suffer the same torture as that applied to him during the war by the Ossewa Brandwag.

I referred to the Gomaz case. That person was stigmatized as a communist by this Government but they defended him. Dr. Malan, the then Leader of the Opposition, was subpoenaed. Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts were also subpoenaed, but they did not give evidence. Dr. Malan went, and he was quite entitled to go, but the hon. the Minister of Justice went with him and he was also available to them. What does the eloquent member for Heilbron say to-night? He says it was a scandal that a fund should have been established to assist political offenders, people who were accused of high treason, to defend themselves.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I never said anything of the kind.

That is not a point of order.

Then I do not know what the hon. member spoke about.

I do not object to the fund having been established to assist the defence, but to the fact that it was used to put the Government in the wrong light.

The position is this. If it is a crime to collect money for the defence of political offenders—if these people were in fact political offenders—then I just want to say that not a single member on this side of the House subscribed to the political motives of any of those people. We shall continue to fight for the right of those people to be defended. This is nothing new in the history of South Africa. Was there not a time when the supporters of that side of the House appeared in court not because they were political offenders but because they had committed high treason during wartime? And what happened? The Nationalist Party collected almost £500,000 from the poorest people, people who could not afford it, for the defence of those men. I am not saying anything against it, Sir; I myself would perhaps have contributed, but what I cannot subscribe to is the fact that that money is still being used to-day to make political propaganda and to allow that hon. member to continue sitting in the House …

That is not true.

Are you referring to the Helpmekaar Fund?

I cannot answer questions now. [Interjections.] They used that money for political motives.

You are lying!

Order!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Sir, the hon. member is giving the wrong facts …

The hon. member must withdraw the words: “You are lying.”

I withdraw, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, every word I say here is the truth. I just want to repeat that I hope that the political enemies of South Africa will not regard as martyrs those people who have an ideology which is foreign to South Africa, those people who are perhaps communistically orientated.

Perhaps!

Yes, until such time as they have been convicted I must say “ perhaps But let me say that I do not agree with them, just as little as I agree with those people who set them the example that if one does not agree with the Government one is entitled to rise in revolt and to rebel against the Government. I want to ask the hon. members for Heilbron and Kempton Park whether they will be satisfied if these enemies of South Africa in these difficult times in which we live do what they did during the last war—no more and no less? Let the hon. member get up and say that he gives the right to every Native who is not well disposed towards this Government to do precisely—no more and no less—what this Government did when they sat on the Opposition benches during the war. There are such things as fairness and justice, and if we as White people no longer show reasonableness, we have no right to govern this country. [Time limit.]

I am really disappointed in the trend this debate is now taking. I am bitterly disappointed in the behaviour of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), who has just resumed his seat. He now pleads for justice. Where was the justice when they were in power? Was there any justice on that side then? We did everything in our power to treat the accused persons in this high treason trial with justice. We even invited overseas lawyers to come and hear how we conduct such cases. Eventually they grew tired of the justice they saw in South Africa and they went back home. Now the hon. member makes insinuations against an hon. member on this side, and he talks about justice! Does he remember that it is only a few years ago that people sat in concentration camps without trial for four years? Does he no longer remember that? Has he no conscience? Did those people have a fair trial in court? Sir, I am compelled to ask these questions because of the hon. member’s behaviour. Does that hon. member remember that 58 people charged with high treason appeared before the court? Does he remember that they were found not guilty by the court and threw their hats into the air because they thought they were free to go home, but then the detectives rearrested them and put them in the concentration camp for four years? Does he remember that? These are unpleasant things to mention at this stage, but hon. members should not carry on in this mariner. We cannot bear it.

I was amazed that a hon. member of this House, who is a member of the legal profession, should make the speech which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) made. All I wish to say in that regard is that it is my belief that one of the most priceless things in our legal system is that a person who is accused is entitled to be considered innocent till the court has found him guilty. Sir, I say that if the day should ever come when, what apparently is the policy of the hon. member for Kempton Park, should hold sway in this country, that will be a sorry day for South Africa. I have made it clear that I do not approve at all of the things which these people have done as found by the court. I want to remind this House that the penalty for high treason is death and that being so, Sir, I say it is the duty of a civilized state to provide a defence and the best defence. I would like to pay tribute to the State of Israel. There is a man on trial there for his life—Eichmann. The crimes with which he is accused are among the most dreadful of which anybody has ever been accused. It is to the everlasting credit of the State of Israel that they have ensured that he has the best defence possible at State expense.

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.