I move—

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as you probably know a report was issued recently in regard to the contemplated changes to the Liquor Act. Some of these amendments are far-reaching and I believe there is a great measure of concern, particularly in the hotel industry …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss legislation.

I want to know what the policy of the hon. the Minister is in connection with the legislation. In view of the fact that this report has had a stifling effect on the hotel industry I should like to know from the Minister what the Government’s policy is. Some of the recommendations contained in this report will have a far-reaching effect, particularly on the development of the hotel industry, and I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would indicate the extent to which the recommendations of the commission of inquiry will be accepted. It is particularly necessary to-day that money should be invested and that there should be progress in every economic field. But because a doubt exists as to whether some of the recommendations will be accepted, that doubt has a stifling effect on the development of the entire industry. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to enlighten the Committee on that?

I will give as much information as the Chairman will allow me to give.

I wish to address the Committee on another point. I think everyone in this Committee will agree with me that if there is one field in which the language used should be as precise and exact and neat as possible, it is the legal field. Many cases are centred round what the person meant when he used certain language. What was the intention of the legislator when he used certain language? What was the intention of the contractor when he used certain language? You expect, therefore, that of all the Departments, the Department of Justice should be very precise and exact in the language it uses in all its publications. Unfortunately the latest Annual Report of the Department of Justice (I am referring to the English version) does not come up to that standard. I can only say that the language used is clumsy and not even English in many instances. I want to give the Committee a few examples. On page 22 of the Annual Report for the year 1959 the introductory sentence under the heading “ Inter-Communication System for Head Office ” reads: “ In view thereof that alternative accommodation was provided.” “ In view thereof” is an Afrikaansism. The Afrikaans probably reads “ aangesien ”. They could simply have used the word “ because ”. I learnt my English at Zastron, but even there I never heard anybody say “ in view thereof ”. That is not the worst example, Sir. I can give examples which are worse. On page 24 we find—

We were taught at school that if the noun was plural the verb too had to be plural. There are many more examples. I find, for example, that “ the revised Public Service regulations relating to official residences is not yet available ”. What shocking language! Not only is the language shocking but it is clumsy. The sentence in this report which takes the Oscar however appears on page 34 under the heading “ Deaths ”—

Not only is it bad English but also bad Afrikaans. On page 44 under the heading “ Districts ” we find—

I cannot understand why it was necessary to insert the word “ that On page 46 we find—

A similar mistake. Here is another example—

This is a Department of Justice which is in daily contact with the courts. How do they describe our Chief Justice? On page 48 they talk about “ Hon. Chief Judge Mr. Justice H. A. Fagan ”. It is not a typing error because in the following paragraph we find “ the hon. Mr. Justice L. C. Steyn was appointed Chief-Judge ”. Here is another example of fantastic English which I did not even learn at Zastron. On page 49 under the heading “ Griqualand West Local Division ” we find—

Hon. members laugh, but this is serious. The hon. the Minister who attended the Cape Town University will agree with me that this is a serious matter. I attended the Pretoria University but even there we never used English such as this.

My difficulty is that it is not my Department. You should bring that matter to the notice of the Government translator.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has made that point. As it is, the whole world is interested in us to-day and this report is sent to all the libraries in the world; jurists throughout the world read, not in Afrikaans but in English, what is happening in our Department of Justice. What must they think of South Africa when they read language like this? The hon. the Minister blames the translator, but the report is signed by the Secretary for Justice and surely he is the person responsible.

He does not translate it, does he?

But he is responsible for it. The Minister ought to go seriously into this matter. This sort of English should not go into the world. What will people think of our legal system when they read English like this? This is one of our official languages and a report such as this should be written in proper language. I read a short report recently about Ghana and I was amazed at the standard of the English. What impression must people get of South Africa when they read a report in which one of our official languages is mutilated like this, in which it is murdered like this? I trust that in future the hon. the Minister will ensure that before his Department sends any official document into the world, the language is checked by one of his senior officials. It is no good blaming the Government translator. [Time limit.]

I am grateful to the hon. member for having drawn the attention of this House to this bad translation. I am not trying to find excuses for it. It ought not to happen. However, when you complain in this House, your own conscience should be clear. Let us compare the Afrikaans used by the previous Government with the example which the hon. member has quoted, and let us even compare it with the Afrikaans used by the Convocation of the University of Natal.

Which Vote are you discussing?

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) took exception to the bad translation into English. He spoke in the interests of the English-speaking public and I said that I agreed 100 per cent with him. But this is a case of a university where students are trained to become teachers, and they are the people who want to have language rights entrenched in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that question.

I admit that, Mr. Chairman. I will probably have the opportunity under the Vote dealing with the Government Translator to discuss this matter and to give the hon. member an example of how the Convocation of the University of Natal murders Afrikaans.

There were occasions when I too quarrelled about the use of a language, particularly an official language. I agree that the hon. member for Jeppes has reason to complain. You seldom read perfect Afrikaans or English in this country to-day. The two languages influence each other and in many cases the idioms in the one language have an adverse effect on the idioms in the other language, and in some cases the other language has been enriched because of that. The attitude we should adopt in this instance, however, is that the two groups in this country should have greater respect and love for each other’s language and be less critical of each other. We should not weigh every word that is spoken to ascertain whether too much or too little English is being spoken or whether too much or too little Afrikaans is being spoken. Those days are gone.

Order! The hon. member can raise that under Vote 29.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I conclude by saying that we should help each other. We can be of greater assistance to our officials by helping them not by criticizing them. At a later stage I will have a great deal to say on this question that this is not the right time to quarrel about language. We must help each other.

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Mr. Chairman, straight away I should like to get out of the way a relatively unimportant matter, although it has its importance. On 7 February, Sir, I put a question to the hon. the Minister, namely:

The hon. gentleman replied that his Department was indeed investigating the question, but that no decision had as yet been come to in the matter. I raise it because I have serious misgivings about that proposal. There are a great many objections to it, and a great many dangers will arise if that proposal is implemented. I need only point to the possibility of mistaken identity if initials are used instead of the full name of the person accused. I want to say that I hope that the hon. the Minister will not agree to such a proposal. I hope that he does not intend to introduce such legislation. If he does, I would ask him why this exception to the salutary rule that save in exceptional circumstances in regard to the hearing of cases by a court, where for instance on grounds of public interest or public morals the Press is excluded, court proceedings should be published.

I may just tell the hon. member that the matter has not yet been considered on ministerial level.

I only wish to say that I hope that if it is considered, he will not urge his colleagues to accept such a proposal.

Then a short word about the treason trial, which was very fully ventilated yesterday afternoon in the course of the debate. I want to say at once, Sir, that I am perturbed about the suggestion that the Minister and the Government may be contemplating some appeal in this matter. I could not be here last night, but the hon. the Minister is reported as having said that when the full judgment of the court becomes available, the Government will decide whether to appeal against the recent decision acquitting the accused.

I did not say that. I said that the Attorney-General would decide.

Very well, Sir, but the hon. the Minister has an over-riding decision, and in this case I suggest that he has a duty to exercise that decision, if it should come before him, to ensure that these unfortunate people who have been subjected to so much anxiety, so much uncertainty for a period of five years, will not continue in that uncertainty. Rightly or wrongly, this trial has been regarded overseas, as well as in this country, with great disfavour, and I believe that this has done us very great damage indeed. Why? I believe that this case—this marathon witch-hunt—had all the totalitarian trappings of a mass political trial, the sort of thing that happened in Russia under Vishinsky. It failed because our Judicial Bench is still a sure shield and upholder of the Rule of Law. Sir, in this hour of South Africa’s isolation from the rest of the world, I think we should be profoundly grateful that the reputation of our courts stands high wherever the Rule of Law prevails. But I ask: Are the accused and their families to be subjected to further uncertainty and to further anxiety? I hope not. And incidentally I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would repudiate the astounding suggestion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that in future, if citizens of this country are tried for their life on a charge of high treason, the trial court should be a court martial and not the normal courts of the land. I can only assume that this suggestion possibly springs from the hon. gentleman’s military reminiscences in the time when he was a recruiting officer with the South African Forces, and that he has so admired the military tradition that he believes that we should outrule the Rule of Law, the ordinary civil law by the military law! I hope the hon. the Minister will very firmly turn down that suggestion.

I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the sombre picture which the hon. the Minister of Justice has painted to this Committee, a picture of lurking dangers, of conspiratorial plotting in South Africa. I am certainly most perturbed at his suggestion that another state of emergency may be declared next month if the Government’s attempts to maintain law and order were to fail. The hon. the Minister is reported as saying: “We all hope that bloodshed can be avoided in South Africa, and we do not want any more Sharpevilles, but if necessary the Government will do its duty ”. Those were ominous words, Mr. Chairman, and one assumes that the hon. the Minister has information at his disposal, which he may not be able to give to this Committee …

Certainly not to you.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Bantu-“ hater ” will cease these stupid interjections. I assume, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has information at his disposal which has caused him to utter this ominous warning. But if that is so, I would ask him how his sombre picture of South Africa sitting on a smouldering volcano can be reconciled with the extravagant announcement of his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that race relations have never been better in South Africa? How is this sombre picture to be reconciled with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister only last week, when he painted a picture of a rosy future for South Africa, and said that all was going well with us. Of course I concede at once that it is the duty of the Government, any Government, to maintain internal security. That is their responsibility. But what the Minister is offering to us in the picture which he paints and the steps he says may become necessary and in the preparation which his Department is making in co-operation with the Department of Defence, is a palliative and not the remedy for our ills. The hon. the Minister and his Government still fail to get down to the root causes of unrest amongst the non-Whites. The hon. gentleman talks glibly about the “ troublemakers ” among the Bantu no longer demanding R2 a day, or the abolition of passes, but wanting the whole country. I ask the hon. gentleman: Who are the trouble-makers to whom he refers?

You are one of them.

Order!

I am not really disturbed by that, Sir, but I find it difficult to reconcile this noise with the occasional murmurs that come from my friends on my right over there, which are quickly stifled. I say that the Government still fails to get down to the root causes of unrest among the non-Europeans if the Minister talks glibly about the troublemakers among the Bantu no longer demanding R2 a day. Who are these trouble-makers? Are they members of the banned African National Congress and the banned P.A.C.? Last year we were told, when the Minister introduced his Banning Bill, the Unlawful Organization Bill, that the members of the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. constituted only some 70,000 of the Bantu population, less than 1 per cent of the whole Bantu population. Are they the trouble-makers? Is it because on the most extravagant estimate 70,000 people may attempt to make trouble that we are now to be put in a suspended state of emergency, a constant state of emergency in South Africa? If it is not the Bantu, is it some of the Coloured leaders who now say that their patience is exhausted and that they feel they can no longer refuse to align themselves with members of the Bantu group? Or is it the persons referred to in the Report submitted by Mr. Justice Diemont on the Langa inquiry, who on page 125 of the report talks about the unprecedented crowds attending meetings at Langa, an estimated 10,000 people being present at the final meeting. What does he attribute this tremendous attendance to? These are the words of the learned Judge—

Does the hon. Minister believe that to be correct? Does the Minister believe that that is one of the basic causes for the unrest among the Bantu people at the present time? The hon. Minister talks about “ trouble-makers ”. He talks about having to do his duty to use force if it should become necessary. I would say that this approach to our race relations problem characterized the Minister’s handling of the emergency last year, the emergency in Pondoland and all matters cognate to them. I would say that that attitude is the granite rock of unrealism, the complete unrealistic approach to these cogent problems. I would say that if this approach is maintained by the Government, we shall, in effect, be in a continuous state of emergency which will be ended only by some mighty explosion, in which our Coloureds may be involved by linking up with the Bantu. Now, Sir, not one single member of this House wants that explosion; not one single member wants there to be a clash of races in this country; not one single member of this Parliament, the supreme body in the Union of South Africa, wants that state to arise in our country. I ask the hon. the Minister: What did the Government do last year after Sharpeville and Langa? What did they do to avoid such an explosion, and what has been the results of the steps they then took? In the first instance they declared an emergency. Then the hon. the Minister detained 11,513 persons, White and non-White, under the emergency regulations. They were imprisoned as detainees under the emergency regulations. He introduced the Unlawful Oragnizations Bill, the Banning Bill, and he banned the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress. At the time I and others warned the Minister and the Government that neither by the use of force nor by the imposition of a Banning Bill could the Government hope to solve the deplorable situation in which South Africa then found herself.

You now talk like an inciter.

We all deplore violence and lawlessness. But you cannot cure violence and lawlessness, you cannot prevent incipient unrest, by merely banning African organizations. The answer does not lie in force and bannings. The answer lies in consultation and reform—“ Aanpassing ”, call it what you like. In the ultimate event the answer lies in fair dealing between man and man, so that there can be no domination eventually of any one group by another group. But I would say to the Minister and I would say to the Government, at this time when he is contemplating further trouble in this country, that if you want to know what the African people are thinking, and if you want to meet their legitimate needs, the best way is to hear what they have to say, however extreme they may be. Do not push a man aside, because you think he is too extreme, because you do not agree with his views. Hear what he has to say. Let him get it off his chest. Understand what is the motive force. I concede at once that there are agitators, there are communists. But I do not for a moment concede that the great bulk of the Bantu people, or that the great bulk of the Coloured people, or the great bulk of the Asiatic people in this country are communists or have any near affinity with Communism. But, Sir, they are suffering under certain disabilities, and people in that situation provide a fruitful field for ploughing in the doctrines of Communism and sedition. Therefore, I say that the Minister should listen to these people. Let them get it off their chest. Let him consult them. As I said, the hon. Minister has painted a sombre picture. He has actually filled in the darker colours here and there of a picture which was painted by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and other hon. members recently, this picture of gloom, unrelieved gloom, which suggests that our destiny is what it is, that if our destiny is to go under to the Blacks, we shall go under. Let me say here that I have no time for this “ laager ” complex, the sort of suggestion that we, the Whites of South Africa, are right and infallible, and that if it should come to that, we must band together with our backs to the ox-wagon to fight it out. Sir, we are living in the second half of the twentieth century—not in 1838, not on the banks of the Bloedrivier. I am not so pessimistic as the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Education. I still believe that we can go forward and win the battle of race relations in this country—if we read the signs properly and make adjustments in our policies. But we must make these adjustments from strength, and not, when it is too late, from weakness. It is essential for us to put ourselves and our laws on a tenable basis and on a fair basis. This, of course, cannot be done overnight. But if we do that I believe we can stand firm against any unreasonable demands and look for support, not only in this country, but also from outside.

Sir, I have said that I do not believe that the answer to our race problems lies in force and bannings. And this brings me to the Banning Bill which the hon. the Minister introduced last year. Our attitude towards the Banning Bill was very clear. We opposed it. We did not want to have anything to do with it. We said that by that method you would not curb incipient discontent. Let the people come into the open and then deal with then under the ordinary common law. Sir, the attitude of the official Opposition at the first reading at the Bill was that it was not the correct way to set about it.

An amendment was moved at the first reading of this Bill, to this effect—

That was an amendment to the first reading. Now the hon. the Minister responded to that appeal, and in the course of his remarks on 29 March 1960—and I quote from Hansard, Volume 104, columns 4303 and 4304—he said this—

The hon. the Minister then detailed his amendment as follows—

That apparent assurance—and I did not regard it as an assurance—but that apparent assurance was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition who said this—

Now the hon. the Minister has apparently found it necessary to impose an extension of the ban because he has renewed, merely by proclamation, not by means of a resolution before this House—he has renewed the ban against the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress. He has given us no reasons for the renewal of that ban; he has given us no “ fine justification What are his reasons for the extension of that ban? He takes it all in his stride as we suggested he probably would. It is merely a matter of a rubber stamp! A ban was imposed. And once the power was taken under this Banning Act the hon. the Minister merely puts his rubber stamp on an extension of the ban, and he treats Parliament with contempt.

Why has the hon. the Minister not come to Parliament and said: “ I propose to renew the ban on the A.N.C. and on the P.A.C., and I propose to renew it for the following reasons”? He has treated the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with contempt. He has treated the whole of this House with contempt. We warned that that might happen. I never for a moment considered that that was a safeguard, that provision in the Act. And that is why we voted against the Bill.

I always held it would depend on the circumstances.

Well, what are the circumstances, Mr. Chairman? What is Parliament? And why does the hon. the Minister of Justice not tell Parliament what the circumstances are? I challenge the hon. the Minister this afternoon to produce one title of evidence of “ fine justification ” for this further banning.

Talking about banning of these organizations, how does the hon. the Minister believe that he is going to solve our problems by this continuous banning of individuals under the Suppression of Communism Act? How does he believe that that will help us? The question of the banning of Mr. Patrick Duncan has been raised in this debate. Now I hold no brief, necessarily, for the political views of Mr. Patrick Duncan. But he is no communist. The hon. the Minister was challenged to say why he had banned Mr. Patrick Duncan as a communist. He has remained silent. Answer came there none. And I challenge the hon. the Minister again to tell this Committee this afternoon that Mr. Patrick Duncan, the son of a distinguished South African, is a communist. He is no communist. I say that if this sort of thing goes on we in this House, and the public of South Africa, can be left with only one irresistible conclusion, namely that the hon. the Minister is abusing the powers granted to him under the Suppression of Communism Act to stifle the opinions of persons whose political views are not consistent with those of the Government.

I come back now to the hon. the Minister’s approach to these race relations problems. I say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing certain aspects of the emergency last year and the resultant detentions, because the emergency was lifted only at the end of August 1960, after Parliament had been in recess for some three months. I say that in the light of events, in the light of the information we now have at our disposal, the detention of many of these thousands of citizens—in fact the vast bulk of these thousands of citizens— was not justified.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. gentleman says I am talking nonsense. Let me give this Committee the figures. The official figures as given to me by the hon. the Minister of Finance are as follows: 63 European men and 35 European women were detained, making a total of 98 Europeans. Many of them were detained for a long time; many of them in dire circumstances. In the result, three European men and one European woman were charged before the established courts with offences. But there was not a single conviction.

It seems to me that that leads to the irresistible inference that the alleged prima facie evidence upon which those persons were detained was not such as to justify their detention. It was an intimidatory move and not a basically genuine attempt to preserve law and order. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that these 35 European women who were detained, many for long periods, if left free, would have gone about subverting the Government and being guilty of subversive and dangerous actions? If the hon. the Minister had felt that they needed some curbing, could they not have been put under some form of control rather than being compelled to submit to this detention?

Of the non-Whites, 11,279 were Bantu; 36 were Coloured, and 90 were Asiatics, all of whom were detained, making a total of 11,405 non-Whites. That made a grand total of detainees of 11,493. Of the non-Whites, 301 men where charged and 136 men were convicted of offences not related to the Pass Laws or employment. And of the women 19 were charged and 16 were convicted. Those facts, in my view, show that the action of the Government in detaining this large number of persons was not justified in the interests of public security and public safety.

In answer to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher), the hon. the Minister of Justice gave an assurance to this House last year—I think it was last April—that all persons detained would be brought before the established courts and charged before the courts. The figures show that of all the persons brought before the courts only a limited number were charged and, as I say, in the case of the Europeans there was not one single conviction. I ask the hon. the Minister: Why this prolonged misery of imprisonment for these detainees? The hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House. The fact that the emergency was lifted when Parliament was in recess is no excuse for the hon. the Minister now to slip out of this matter, and for failing to give this Committee and Parliament and the country an explanation of what happened. If we are to judge by what happened then, Heaven help this country if there is to be another emergency.

Let me return to where I started, Mr. Chairman. I have talked about the granite rock of unrealism. I say that force and bannings are not the answer to our problems. The nightmare which seems to obsess the Minister and the Government is, I would suggest, expressed in Roy Campbell’s poem on the Zulu girl suckling her child—

Sir, as men sow, so they reap. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister, and I would suggest to this Government, that it depends upon us, the White South Africans, what the coming harvest is going to be.

Before dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) I want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The hon. member has always posed as the economist—the expert economist—on that side, but he has now assumed the role of philologist. I am of the opinion that he will be as great a failure as a philologist as he was an economist. He uses an Afrikaans which hurts one to listen to and then he has the temerity to criticize the English of Government officials. He was incapable this afternoon of using his own mother tongue language. He referred to the “ universiteit Pretoria ”. The correct Afrikaans is “ universiteit van Pretoria ”. He said “ die Minister sal sien ” but it should be “ die Minister sal toesien of sorg ”. If he lives in a glass house he should not throw stones. Sir, do you remember how the Opposition murdered Afrikaans in every official document they issued?

I now want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Salt River. That is a more serious subject than the hon. member for Jeppes. The hon. member for Salt River said that he hoped the hon. the Minister would not note an appeal in this case. On what grounds should an appeal not be noted? In the first instance the Minister is not the person to decide whether or not an appeal should be noted, but the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General will note an appeal if, after having studied the judgment, he thinks there are good legal grounds and argument to do so. If there are good legal reasons for appeal, the Attorney-General will do his duty as it behoves a good official, and note an appeal. But what does the hon. member for Salt River want? Even if there are good arguments and legal grounds for appeal he wants the Minister to act and to tell the Attorney-General not to note an appeal. On what grounds does the hon. member say that? He probably does so on behalf of people who are very close to him. The hon. member for Salt River does so on behalf of those Leftists who are his kindred spirits. Because they are his kindred spirits, and for no other reason, an appeal should not be noted against them.

The hon. member asked which people had caused trouble and who had been banished. He spoke about 70,000 people and he wanted to know whether we were afraid that those 70,000 people who were members of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. would cause disturbances, etc. He said that the majority of the non-Whites were kindly disposed towards us but that we were afraid of these 70,000. That was his argument. Let me tell him that one swallow does not make summer, but one fly can spoil an entire jar of ointment. When you hear a speech such as the speech of the hon. member for Salt River, you will think that that fly is in this House, Mr. Chairman. I listened very attentively to what he had to say but I did not hear him say one word disapproving of riots or possible riots in this country. Does he want me to believe that he is so stupid that he is unaware of conditions in South Africa; does he want me to believe that he does not know that there are people in South Africa who want to riot? We are all aware of the fact that there is a large number of those people all over the country and that they are wide awake. Is one of the tactics of the communists not to infiltrate and to incite the people in order to create unrest? What are the tactics they employ? We know they are in our country and must we not take action against them? The Minister has issued a warning to those people and instead of the hon. member going out of his way to back that warning, he disapproves of it and encourages those people all the more to riot. I think it is scandalous for an hon. member to be so irresponsible as to act like that towards his fatherland in this House. He says we should follow the road of consultation and right and justice. Did he follow that road when he was Minister of Justice? When he was Minister of Justice did he consult the people whom he banished and placed in concentration camps—without trial? He kept those people there for three years and more. What was his reply in those days when members of the Opposition approached him and asked him to try those people? He told them that it was difficult to prove many of the actions but that they knew that they had been committed and that that was the reason why those people were placed in the concentration camps. That was his reply in those days to Europeans. We know, however, that on occasions such as we had last year, in times of unrest and disturbances, in emergencies, you arrest people and put them in prison not because you can prove anything against them but because you want to prevent them from causing unrest in the country. You want to prevent them from doing the things which they can perhaps do and from committing crimes. The hon. member knows that. Not only are you protecting those people themselves, but you are protecting society. The hon. member knows that as well as anybody. He ought to know it much better because he has had three years’ experience.

Mr. Chairman, whom does this hon. member who spoke here this afternoon represent? The hon. member for Salt River hardly represents himself in this House. His own committee in his constituency has discarded him and asked him to resign, and yet he hangs on to his little position in which he represents nobody. I remember when I was a youngster here in Cape Town that that hon. member was a prominent member of the United Party; he was already a member of the Cabinet. He was a person with a sense of responsibility and who sat in the same Cabinet with right-wing men like General Hertzog. Do you know, Sir, that since that time he has been leaning more and more to the left? There is one disease to which no one is immune, and that is what they call “ senile decay ”. And when you look at …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I did not accuse the hon. member of suffering from it. It is not necessary for you to call me to order. I said that there was one disease to which no one was immune, and that was “ senile decay ”. But one finds that that hon. member has deteriorated politically to such an extent that he has joined the ranks of the Leftists in this country, and that he is only talking on their behalf. He did not say a single word this afternoon to promote the interests of South Africa. He did not even plead the cause of the Progressives or the Liberals, not even that of the United Party. He pleaded the cause of the Leftists and the Leftists alone. The hon. member wants to know why the Minister does not give the reasons why the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. have again been banned. But it is only a week or two ago that the court gave its judgment and said the following, inter alia—I am referring to the treason trial—

That is the organization which has been banned—

That is what a court of justice in South Africa says about the A.N.C. The judgment goes on—

It clearly says “ the evidence proved that the A.N.C. took up the attitude that communists were free to express their ideology amongst members of the A.N.C. ”. It is quite clear from the judgment which was given only two weeks ago in the treason trial, that they are communists. That is in regard to the A.N.C., but the P.A.C. even goes further. The hon. member for Salt River now asks the Minister why he has again banned these organizations. I think it is clear to every rightminded person in South Africa why those organizations have been banned. It is not necessary for us to tell the hon. member that. The facts are well known to everybody except to the Leftists who associate themselves with those people. The people who associate themselves with the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. talk the same language as the language which the hon. member for Salt River talked this afternoon. I am sorry he made the speech which he did, because it is something else that will be used against South Africa in the world outside. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) stated this afternoon that South Africa was living on the top of a volcano. There is no doubt that all of us in this House, and, I am sure, the people outside, appreciate that the situation in so far as this country is concerned is very grave indeed. The matter which I wish to raise is one which has been under consideration for some considerable time, and it is the matter of establishing a sound civil defence organization.

Mr. Chairman, this matter goes back to 1950. In the year 1950 the Secretary for Defence of that time stated this matter was under consideration. However, this responsibility now falls under the Department of Justice, and it came under the Department of Justice in 1955. I cannot see any expenditure for civil defence reflected in the Estimates, but on inquiry I find that the expenditure incurred falls under the heading of salaries, subsistence and transport allowances. I have made this point, Sir, because you may have felt that I was deviating from this Vote and was raising a matter which rightly belonged under another Vote.

I have stressed the importance of this question of the organization of civil defence in view of the grave situation in which we in this country find ourselves. No less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister has referred to the gravity of the situation, both as a result of external pressure and the circumstances within our own borders. Why are we in this grave position? Externally this may be said to be due to the strategic importance and the vital lifelines of the Cape route. Externally, also, it is possibly due to danger from communist countries. And it is also due to the pressure from the explosive nature of the conditions on the African Continent north of our borders. In so far as we in the Union are concerned, we may be in difficulties due to the explosive nature of the situation arising from the natural organization of the non-European bloc which may at any time—and we have had experience of this in the past—erupt and result in actions which may have serious consequences for the people of this country.

Civil defence is extremely important because its basic approach is designed to protect the civil population of a country. We know that in a global war it is the civilian population which will be affected, perhaps more than the armed forces. In addition, and quite apart from global war, we have occasional outbreaks of mob violence within our own country. In this event it is absolutely necessary that, quite apart from the army and the police, we should have another organization to make certain that the people of the country will be protected and cared for in times and conditions which might almost bring chaos. From time to time, ever since 1950, when the Government stated they had this matter under investigation, this question has been raised under the Justice Vote. The need for a sound civil defence organization has repeatedly been stressed. We do get assurances from the Government, but what are those assurances? Those assurances are to the effect that the Government is building up an organization; that the Government has a blue print. But what is the use of a blue print when you are suddenly faced with a revolt or, in time of war, military aggression? Organization means you have to be prepared, and a blue print is useless unless its details are translated into action. After all, in modern war there is no timely warning. The blue print itself may be completely ineffective because the public have no confidence, and panic and chaos results. It is on this account that I wish to stress the vital importance of having a sound civil defence organization.

Sir, blue prints in themselves are useless. In a previous piece of legislation reference was made to powers given to the Government to remove people from certain areas and transferring them to other areas. But although the Government has such power, if the eventuality does arise, how are those people to be removed? You have to take into consideration questions of transport; you have to take into consideration the siting of an evacuation area. You have to take into consideration such questions as whether the evacuation area has water and sanitation. There is the question of food supplies. In fact, the people in the area to which they have been evacuated have to be amply protected from every conceivable angle. When I refer to the necessity for a blue print having to be translated into action, I contend that the action in so far as such blue print is concerned with a civil defence organization, that translation can only be made effective if the details of the blue print are exercised in advance. You must have exercises in which the transport is employed, where the transport is earmarked for a specific purpose in a specific area. It must be able to remove people at a given time from one area to another.

What other implications are there in a sound civil defence plan? Quite apart from transport and evacuation and the satisfactory siting of evacuation areas you have to consider the question of medical auxiliaries. There is the need for medical personnel and nursing personnel. There are numerous other approaches in this connection which also have to be given consideration. I think the time has arrived, in view of the situation in which we find ourselves in this country, for this Government to let this public know what proposals they have for the implementation of a sound civil defence plan. After all, it is the public that has to be protected in terms of a civil defence plan. And I cannot understand why, if such a plan does exist, there should be any secrecy about it, because the very people it seeks to protect are the people whose co-operation you require. If there is a civil defence organization it is imperative that the Government should reveal to the public what their plans are in this connection so as to give confidence to the people. And with that confidence, when the time comes, the public will be able to appreciate that there is a plan ready to put into action. Then they will co-operate and that will tend to alleviate panic. But without a proper plan and without adequate exercises based on that plan, you will not eliminate the inevitable panic and chaos if faced with an uprising and mob violence. Because chaos precipitates panic. I feel that the hon. the Minister of Justice and this Government have a definite obligation to the public. Civil defence is designed to protect the public, and in the protection of that public no plan will adequately succeed unless it has the cooperation of the public. And fundamentally, if you have a plan for the public which requires the co-operation of the public you must reveal what your plan is. And you must carry out the essential exercises to ensure that there are no faults in the successful operations of that plan. Now I think the time has arrived and that it is long overdue, because I think that in any sound Government in the world this was done. The U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Britain ever since 1948 have had their civil defence plans. But in this country, in our isolation, with our small White population, we delayed and delayed, and the time will arrive when that delay will be regretted due to the chaos which will ensue. I appeal to the Minister to institute this plan as quickly as possible, because the survival of our women and children is wrapped up in what should be an outstanding plan for their protection.

I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat on his participation in the debate as compared with what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has just said. I do not think it redounds to the honour of the hon. member for Salt River to say what he did to-day.

I would like to speak about the heavy task resting on the shoulders of the police.

The hon. member will have to do so under the next Vote.

This whole task rests on the shoulders of the Department of Justice and I want to discuss it under the Minister’s salary.

The Police cannot be discussed under this Vote.

If you do not want to allow me to do so, I will say what I want to say now under that Vote, but I do not want to say anything specifically about the police.

Then there will be no restrictions. The hon. member may continue but I will listen to what he says.

For the sake of safety I shall then discuss it under the Police Vote.

On a point of order, I wonder whether for the guidance of the Committee you could give a ruling. It would appear that there has been a change in practice. I am not objecting to it, but I would like to get the position clear for the information of hon. members, because the same point was raised yesterday. I understand that in the past in general most matters could be raised under the Minister’s salary.

May I say something on a point of order. May I suggest with great humility that this is a matter on which you might reserve judgment, because I think there is an important question of principle involved. The ruling you gave yesterday is, I think, a sound one, but it may very well be that circumstances arise in which it is very difficult to disentangle the activities of the Police Force from those of the Minister of Justice. For my own part, I would prefer a wider latitude. But I do not ask for a considered ruling now. Perhaps you can give it later.

In the past we always had three Votes, Justice, Police and Prisons, and where it is easy to differentiate between them there is nothing to prevent one from doing so. So far we have not had any difficulty, and this is the first time that difficulty has arisen.

On a point of explanation, I think that if I had not specifically said that I wanted to discuss the police you would have allowed me to continue.

Perhaps it is as well that the hon. member mentioned it, because if he specifically wants to discuss the police it it easy for me to judge.

May I just say that instead of discussing the police I want to talk about the duty of the Department of Justice to maintain peace and order in the country.

But surely that is the duty of the police. But the hon. member may continue.

In regard to the task of the Department of Justice in the present circumstances in which we live, I would like to say the following. A tremendous task rests on the shoulders of the Department of Justice, with special reference to the police. This heavy duty is that as a result of the attack being made against South Africa at the moment, this attack consists of two parts. The first is directed towards subverting the existing authority as we know it in the Union, and the second consists of propagating that which they want to put in the place of the existing authority. Both these methods, the whole flood of propaganda, are directed at poisoning the mind of the Black man against the White man, and not only the White man in the whole of Africa, but lately specifically against the White man in South Africa. Through this process of subverting the authority and propagating their own ideology, their own alternative, the Black man in South Africa must be conditioned, and we must see that in the shape of a certain form, and the form in which it is done is part of the whole communist process of forming a front in Africa, and that places a tremendous task on the shoulders of the Department of Justice in combating it.

In order to take counter-action we must analyse the working of this front, because its operation is similar in South Africa to what it is in Africa and it is already assuming a pattern here. How does this front work? What are their methods and through which channels do they make their propaganda, and how does it reach the Black masses? Because we should not forget one thing, viz. that all this propaganda directed against South Africa is not meant for the White man but for the Black masses. How does this front work, and how does the propaganda reach the Black masses? How does it reach the ears of the millions here? What happens in South Africa and Accra and Addis Ababa and Cairo reaches the ears of our Blacks here and as against that we can set up no alternative.

This front works as follows and the channels through which the propaganda comes to the ears of our Black millions is in the first place by the Afro-Asian Conferences held periodically in different parts of Africa; and, secondly, by periodical threats intended to influence the minds of the Black people. I wonder whether there is anybody in this House who could show me a single speech made by the Black leaders in Africa during recent years in which there were not threats and attacks on the White man and Western authority in Africa. These threats are the second method.

The third method is the radio. Here I have some data given by the monitoring service of the B.B.C. in connection with the bombardment directed at the minds of the Black man in Africa over the radio, and I think it is interesting to give it. I want to show how many hours are devoted by the various Eastern communist countries to influence the minds of the Blacks in Africa and here, and that complicates the task of our Department of Justice and particularly of the police of maintaining peace and order and to keep these people calm. From the Soviet Union there are broadcasts in English for 19£ hours, in French for 19¼ hours, and in Swahili for 3½ hours. From East Germany they broadcast in English for 5½ hours, in French for 5¼ hours; from Czechoslovakia they broadcast in English for 3½ hours, in French for 3 hours and in Portuguese for 3 hours. From Rumania they broadcast in Portuguese for 3½ hours. From China they broadcast in English for 5½ hours, and in Portuguese for 7 hours a week, and they say further—

What does all this mean? It means a terrific bombardment emanating from the communist countries and directed to Africa to incite the Black minds against one thing only. If one analyses these broadcasts, one finds that they are directed at the undermining of White authority in Africa, including South Africa. The poor Black man in South Africa is being harried day after day and does not know where he is any longer. They have radios and they read what happens beyond our borders, and they listen to what comes over the air. In the face of this continuous process of poisoning the Black man’s mind, we must preserve peace and order, and what assistance, I ask in all seriousness, do the White man and the Department of Justice get in maintaining order and calming feelings which are incited in this way by the Communist countries, i.e. by our enemies by propaganda directed to the White man, from a speech such as that made by the hon. member for Salt River? [Time limit.]

In regard to the two points of order raised I want to quote two sentences from the principle rules which cover debates in this Committee of Supply. It should be emphasized that the discussions must be relevant to the items contained in the Vote proposed from the Chair and must not traverse services for which provision is made elsewhere. The same rule of relevancy applies to Votes which are either directly or indirectly charged with Ministers’ salaries, and general questions affecting ministerial policy or administration may only be discussed under such Votes if there is no provision on the subject in another Vote. So that obviously police matters will have to be discussed under the Police Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the matter of the exercise of the discretion of Attorneys-General. The Minister stated yesterday that it was not his policy to interfere with the decisions of Attorneys-General. I would like to suggest to the Minister that the time has arrived when the decision of an Attorney-General should be given as soon as possible and in certain cases should be expedited. My reason for bringing this up is illustrated by a case which occurred in my own constituency, a very sad case indeed, the full details of which are known to the Minister.

In 1959 a young girl of about 11 years of age was sent to her parents’ garden to pick fruit. The allegation is that she was enticed to another part of the garden by a policeman, and there she was criminally assaulted. She reported the matter to her parents and immediately the mother telephoned the father, who advised the mother to go to the police at once and to report the matter to the police and to the doctor. Some three to four hours intervened before the mother took the child to the district surgeon. In the meantime the child had been examined by the parents’ own doctor, and the policeman had been allowed to go home and change, and later there was an examination and some three to four months later, in April 1960, the father received a telephone message to the effect that the Attorney-General declined to prosecute. The father wrote to the Department asking for further particulars and was unsuccessful in getting them. He wrote to the Minister’s Department but was unable to get satisfaction. Then they were advised by friends to see me and the parents were introduced to me and I was shown all the documents and I took the matter up with the Minister. The Minister then told me that it was his practice not to interfere with the decisions of the Attorneys-General, and I respect the reasons for the Minister making that decision. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the section of the Act to which our attention was drawn yesterday by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), which says that every Attorney-General shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and the directions of the Minister who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or on any specific matter exercise such authority and perform such function. Sir, I submit that in this particular case the Minister might well have been advised to exercise his discretion. In this case the father was employed in the Minister’s Department. The policeman was employed by the Minister’s Department. The parents feel very bitter indeed. They feel that an unnecessary amount of time was taken before they were advised. I think that wherever possible the Attorney-General should notify persons as soon as possible and preferably in writing, giving reasons why the charge should not be preferred. I am in this difficulty, that I am faced with this question from the child’s father which I do not wish to answer. I would like the Minister to answer it.

This practice has been customary since 1910.

This is the question that father put to me: If I was a White man and my daughter was White, and if the policeman had been an Indian, would the case have been treated in the same way? This little girl of 11 was the child of an Indian, and the policeman was White, and that is my difficulty.

I want to thank the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) for having drawn the attention of the Committee to the type of language used in the report of the Department of Justice. We should certainly not allow language such as that to be used in any official publication. But I resent the way in which he did it. He treated it as a joke. I think the hon. member should regard it in a serious light. There must be a reason for that language. I think there are only two reason for it. The first possible reason is that it was not an English-speaking person who wrote it otherwise the language would not have been as weak as that. The other reason is that it was written by an Afrikaans-speaking person, who did not receive proper training in the use of English. In both cases the solution is that we should receive more assistance from the English-speaking section both in the educational field and in the Public Service. However, I say that in passing, Sir.

I want to refer to the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan, which has been raised by various hon. member, amongst others the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). He asked the Minister to give the reasons. He says Mr. Duncan is not a communist and wants to know why he has been prohibited from attending meetings for a couple of years. [Interjections.] The law does not say that action can only be taken against communists but that action can be taken against anyone who says anything to promote Communism. [Interjections.] Many speeches are made in this House which, if they are made outside by people other than Members of Parliament, will not be allowed under the law, such as the speech of the hon. member for Salt River.

Another surprising thing is the way hon. members have pleaded for the treason trial case. Listening to the remarks made by hon. members opposite and the pleas put forward by them and not knowing any better, Sir, you will think that those people are the most peace-loving in the whole country, people who will not harm a child, people who find no pleasure other than in doing their daily task of work and having done it going home in peace and finding their joy and pleasure in their families, and watching football or cricket on Saturday afternoons and occasionally participating in our great national sport by attending innocent political meetings. That was the picture we got of the 156 accused. On the other hand, we had the picture of the police, more particularly of the Security Branch and of the Attorney-General and of the Minister’s predecessor, as people who found pleasure in conspiring to ruin and to embitter the lives of these peace-loving and innocent people for four long years. But we know that that is not the case. Surely the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) is a sensible man and he has read the judgment, has he not, and he knows that just as in the case of the moth of Langenhoven, they have flown very closely to the candle. In this case the story did not end, with the ash of the moth, but there is no doubt about it that those moths singed their wings badly. That being the case, the hon. members say those people should be compensated on humanitarian grounds. They go as far as to say that it is shocking on the part of lawyers. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) went so far as to call it a “ judicial farce ”, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) called it “ a travesty of judicial proceedings ” and the hon. member for Salt River called it a “ marathon witch-hunt ”. Sir, we know that that is not the case. We know that these people were charged in the usual manner and if it did last for a long time, it was due to the scope of the case. We even know that an international jurist was sent to keep a watchful eye over matters and that he returned because he was satisfied that everything was all right. We also know that a British lady journalist came here and that she got into trouble because of what she had said about the case. Where it is clear to everybody that they were definitely up to something, even though they were discharged on the main charge, it is also clear that they were sailing very close to the wind, and on those grounds alone, apart from the accepted legal principle that an accused who is found not guilty is not entitled to compensation, I really cannot understand how the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members can plead for special compensation to these people.

I do not intend to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because there is a certain other important matter that I wish to discuss with the Minister. At the outset I would like to say that last evening when I was passing comment in regard to the statement made by the Minister in connection with the establishment of youth rehabilitation centres, I dealt with certain suggestions that I wished to put forward to him. However, as a number of those suggestions deal with preventive measures that can be taken by the Police Force, I hope to have an opportunity of putting forward those suggestions when that Vote is discussed.

The matter that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is one which I sincerely regret haying to raise in this Committee. However, it is the only opportunity I have of asking the Minister what his policy is and why he has not answered certain questions put to him in this House in regard to a very important principle. The principle that is involved is the question of telephone tapping as a means of obtaining certain information. I think all will concede the necessity in certain circumstances of tapping telephone lines in order to obtain certain information. However, it is in the public interest to be assured by the Minister that indiscriminate tapping of telephone lines by the police to obtain information is not permitted, because I am sure that people look upon this means of obtaining information as an inroad on the individual’s rights, and therefore it is an important matter of principle and one on which I am sure the public would like to know on whose authority the tapping of telephones was permitted to obtain certain information.

I want to refer to the questions that were placed on the Order Paper and to which the hon. the Minister favoured replies. In response to letters that I received from constituents, I placed a question on the Order Paper on Tuesday, 21 February, asking the Minister whether he had seen a certain Press report stating that telephone lines had been tapped in the Durban area by a branch of the police during the emergency last year and asking him to make a statement in regard to the matter. The Minister replied that he had seen the Press report, but that he was not prepared to make a statement in connection with the matter. His reply was—

Arising out of that reply I asked the hon. the Minister whether in fact the security branch of the police had made an approach to the City Council of Durban for permission to tap telephones. The hon. the Minister then asked me to Table that question. Following up the reply given by the Minister and realizing that this was not a matter of purely local interest in connection with the Durban municipally owned telephone system, realizing that this was a national issue, I then placed a question on the Order Paper for 24 February. The hon. the Minister on that date asked for the reply to be allowed to stand over, and it was finally answered on 28 February (Col. 2012). Here I put certain specific questions to the hon. the Minister, again trying to ascertain what part the police had played in obtaining information by these methods. Sir, I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee unnecessarily by quoting this lengthy question that was put to the Minister. I would simply say that in that question I tried to obtain the necessary information by setting out a series of questions, the last of which was whether he would make a statement in regard to his Department’s attitude towards the principle of tapping telephone lines. His short reply was—

I thereupon asked the Minister of Justice whether he would state whether the security branch of the police do in fact tap telephones and once again he asked me to Table the question. I replied that I had already done so. Following up the Minister’s further request to Table another question on this matter, I then tabled a question which was replied to on 3 March 1961 in Col. 2332 of weekly edition No. 6, and here again I put another series of questions asking the Minister to give further information in regard to the matter. I may mention that one of the questions was for what reasons the police wished to tap telephone lines in Durban, and the Minister then replied—

On that same day, arising out of the reply, I asked whether the Police Force had any apparatus for the tapping of telephones and what the Department’s attitude was towards the principle of tapping telephone lines. The Minister’s reply to the first question was “No ”, and he said that the second portion fell away. However, that was not a reply to the question as to what the Department’s attitude was towards the tapping of telephone lines. The hon. the Minister may have good reasons for not wishing to reply to these questions. I used every means that was open to me in terms of the Rules of the House to Table questions. As you know, Sir, according to the Rules I am unable to Table identical questions, but I did endeavour in various ways and means to ascertain from the hon. the Minister this vital information in regard to this particular principle.

It will be generally admitted that you did your best.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will not be obstinate and that he will in this instance use this opportunity under his Vote to reply to the questions which have been put to him. The reason why I have been persistent in regard to this matter is because to the best of my knowledge I have been certain of my facts. As far as Press reports are concerned, I checked these facts. In the Natal Daily News of Monday, 13 February, it was revealed by the deputy mayor of Durban, Mr. J. Forsdick, that permission had been granted for the tapping of telephone lines subject to certain conditions. The deputy mayor, explaining why he and Mr. Gild had agreed to the police request, said—

The Press report goes on to say who were represented. It said that the police were represented and also a member of the Government postal services at this meeting. I have also checked with the responsible person, the town clerk of the City of Durban, and he has said that on 22 February 1960 a meeting took place at which the officer in charge of the Special Branch of the South African Police and another Government official were present. He also refers to various requests that were made to tap certain telephones, which were acceded to subject to certain undertakings and conditions. Then there is another matter which goes even further to substantiate that this method is being employed at the present time, and it does require some guarantee from the Minister that these telephones are only tapped after due authority from his Department or from some higher level, because the evidence appears to be irrefutable that during or about November 1960 a further request was made by the Special Branch of the South African Police for similar facilities to be given in the new offices to which Police Headquarters had been transferred. [Time limit.]

When my time expired just now, I was saying that the Department of Justice has a tremendous task in their fight against a big organized, well-planned onslaught on the minds of the Black millions in Africa and in South Africa in order to poison them against the White man and against existing law and order. I was saying that they were trying to attain their object by means of periodic conferences and threats over the radio. But the Black people in South Africa—I am saying this with a view to the trouble we had in the past and which we can expect in the future—are also influenced by what is said on the international platform at UNO. When we consider everything that is said there, we can come to various conclusions, but there is one that we have to come to namely that there is a tremendous campaign against Western White authority in the world, and this must inevitably have an effect on the mind of the Black man. However, it is not only the international platform that exercises that influence. It is a well-known fact that agents are being trained in the Eastern communist countries in the art of undermining and in the art of propagating the communist ideology. They are in our midst. It is difficult to lay your hands on them. It is difficult to lay your hands on them but they are well trained in the art of mobilizing the entire anti-White feeling in South Africa. They are active to-day in the areas to the north of South Africa; they are active at the moment within the borders of our fatherland. We need only listen to what the so-called leaders of the Black man north of our borders say; we need only listen to what they are saying within our borders; and we get an idea of the gigantic task which rests on the shoulders of the Minister and his various departments in maintaining law and order. Sir, we ask ourselves what we must do. I say we should erect our defences; we must employ the strategy of our enemy. We should react to the periodic Afro-Asian agreements which all pass the same resolutions, namely anti-Black resolutions— “ Away with imperialism, away with colonialism, free the oppressed nations ”—by availing ourselves of the goodwill of those Black people within our own borders who are well disposed towards us and anti-communist. If South Africa allows discussions to take place at a high level under certain conditions on scientific and technical matters, what prevents us from countering this organized method of periodic Afro-Asian meetings, by having anti-communist meetings in South Africa against the threats of organized and mobilized Black leadership? Within and without our borders we can avail ourselves of the assistance of those leaders within the ranks of the Black people in South Africa to state our case as well as their case. That can be our reply to the onslaught on Africa over the radio. I know it will cost a great deal, but we should at least try to do something from our side to counter their activities and I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to establish a branch of our information service amongst our Bantu to state our case and the case of the anti-communists against the endless—one can say everlasting, unceasing propaganda campaign of this communist front which has already taken a definite form in Africa and in South Africa. We must remember that the battle will be decided in South Africa. I am not afraid of UNO; I am not afraid that any foreign power will invade us because there are too many implications involved in that. But if we can maintain internal security and if we can maintain stability in this country in spite of the communist pattern to cause localized eruptions —and South Africa is definitely part of their pattern—and if we can maintain our position in this country, we will cause a breach in that communist front as far as their aims in South Africa are concerned. I want to ask this question; Do we not have the Black people? We have them here. We have Black people in this country who are well disposed, who are as anti-communist as we are. But I think we made a mistake in the past, or rather we neglected in the past to use the Black goodwill potential within our own ranks as a countermeasure against that used by the communist front throughout South Africa and Africa. If the communist front employs agents to work against us, to stalk by night to undermine law and order, I am sure we too have agents who can counter them. We have our defences. We who sit here as legislators constitute the first line of defence and I want to know this from the Opposition: What have you as legislators done during the past 12-13 years that the National Party has been in power, to erect a line of defence against this communist front which has been erected in Africa and in South Africa against the White man? If I have to judge from your speeches, I think you have been of great assistance to them in establishing that front against us. That is the gravamen of my charge against the Opposition as legislators. Our second line of defence is the police. They have to maintain law and order. They have done so in the past with great distinction. Their task becomes more onerous every day. The onslaught against them is being intensified. There is an organized onslaught, an onslaught which is directed against us not only from within our own borders, but from beyond our borders. As legislators in this country it is at least our duty, both as a Government (which we fulfil) and as an Opposition, to support our police by word and deed, particularly in this House, in their task in establishing a front against the communist front which is being erected in this country. [Time limit.]

I would just say that there is a very simple answer to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). If he will stop following a policy of discrimination based on colour, and instead assume a policy of judgment on merit, then I would say that his troubles, his fears and his phobias will quickly disappear.

And my reply to you is that that will land us in complete chaos.

I got up this afternoon to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister on the subject of the Press and his relationship with the English-language Press. I do so because I think it must be obvious to the hon. the Minister that it is vitally important to the country, in the very interests of the country, that there should be an excellent understanding between the Minister and the Press and a very good relationship between the Minister’s Department and newspapers.

Is there any reason why you think that it does not exist as far as I am concerned?

As far as the Minister’s Department is concerned, there are reasons and that is why I have risen to my feet. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring statement this afternoon. I do not think I need to dilate on the importance of such a good understanding and how mutual co-operation can lead to the good of the country. I am not referring to day-to-day association on such matters as criminal investigations, burglaries and all that kind of thing. Press relationships in that regard depend very greatly on the personality of the local Commissioner of Police and his own personal relationships with newspapermen. As far as I know, on the whole, there is nothing to complain of in that regard, and while these relationships do vary from area to area, on the whole I have nothing to complain of there. What I am complaining of and where I say misgivings do exist, is that I fear a measure of political pressure is being brought to bear on newspapers via the hon. the Minister’s Department. That is the gravamen of the charge that I am making and I hope the hon. the Minister will reassure us in that regard. Sir, what has given rise to misgivings in Press circles is first of all the fact that over the last six months, especially since the emergency, there seems to have been a sudden spate of proceedings against the Press on matters in which the police have never attempted to interfere before. There have been no less than six charges brought against newspapermen, some of them very prominent indeed, and on subjects where they have not intervened before, and I would suggest that on the whole they were matters which would have been very much better left alone. I will not quote all of them because I have not the time, so I will just mention three. The first is the case instituted against the editor of the Evening Post, Mr. John Sutherland, in Port Elizabeth. Mr. Sutherland’s offence apparently, according to the Department, was that he had published an interview with a Canadian visitor, who had made a statement to the effect that all over South Africa he had found people who were afraid to talk. Sir, what an innocent statement that is, and how many more serious Statements have been published where action might have been taken not merely against the English-language Press, but also against other sections of the Press. But, Sir, the editor of the Evening Post was singled out and proceedings were taken against him. The whole feeling of the public was that this action was political action against that particular editor. Then, we have had cases where newspapermen were suddenly called up before the magistrate under the provisions enabling a magistrate to compel a witness to give evidence who is reluctant to do so. Suddenly out of the blue these newspapermen are hauled up. There was the case of Mr. Brian Parks of the Rand Daily Mail who was subpoenaed on a very ridiculous quest, it would appear, where a semi-humorous article appeared in the newspaper about taking bets in regard to the republic. He is suddenly hauled before the magistrate and sentenced to the usual eight days’ imprisonment, a sentence which was fortunately quashed before the sentence was put into effect. Then there was the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan who was sent to gaol for refusing to disclose the source of his information for an article on Communism. In this regard may I say that if the Minister wants articles on Communism, he can see plenty of excellent articles on what is happening in regard to Communism, not only in the overseas Press but in many sections of the Press. However, they picked on Mr. Duncan’s article, which was nothing unusual so far as articles are concerned. That action had the appearance of a sort of semi-political action. But that is not all, Sir. There appears to be an intensification of special branch activities in relation to newspapers, visits by the Special Branch and questioning of prominent newspapermen. But there also seems to be a sudden new practice of questioning people who write letters to the Press, if they write and express a certain opinion which may be off the cuff, as it were. Most of them are perfectly innocent. These people get a visit from the Special Branch and they are asked a lot of questions. A number of perfectly innocent cases which could not possibly have been of any political significance whatsoever, have been communicated to me, but I will refer to one about which a public complaint was made; and that was against one of the correspondents to the Natal Mercury, who wrote a seemingly innocent sort of letter and immediately got a visit from the Special Branch. This person was extremely indignant about it. There was no possible evidence allied to any kind of subversive activity in which that person could have engaged and yet the Special Branch paid him a visit. The Natal Mercury was very indignant about this and wrote an editorial which began—

The paper gave details as to how this correspondent had been visited by the Special Branch and it ended by saying—

I hope the hon. the Minister is going to get up at once and tell us that he is keeping a very close control over the activities of the Special Branch, and that he will not stand for undue persecution of the Press and undue nosy-parker activities and intimidation. There is a strong impression that that is happening, and that it requires curbing. I say that if that sort of thing grows—and there is such a trend— then it is going to do our country and relationships between the Press and the Minister an enormous amount of harm, and it has to be taken in hand straight away. I hope the Minister will get up and say that he does not stand for anything in the nature of undue harrying, not merely of the Press, but of private people. May I say here that I have previously in this House drawn attention to what seemed to be entirely unnecessary harrying of private individuals by the Special Branch. I hope he will get up and say that those things will not be tolerated by him. I think a declaration of that kind at this stage will do a very great deal of good. It will help to improve relations between the Government and the Press. Finally, may I say that at the moment one is under the impression that this kind of activity may be coupled with the wholly irresponsible campaign against the English-language Press which is being waged by hon. members on the other side of the House. I hope there is no such relationship, and I hope that it is not indeed a new interest and a new and uncomfortable kind of interest which the police are now taking in the Press. I would say to the hon. the Minister that much as I deplore the irresponsibility of the campaign which hon. members on the other side are waging against the English-language Press, and much as I believe it harms this country, the Minister must be very, very careful that this kind of police activity does not give some substantiation to the feeling that the Government is, indeed, conducting a vendetta against the English-language Press.

I think I should at this stage reply to a number of points which have been raised since last night. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asked certain questions in connection with local defence, and he and other hon. members made certain suggestions as to how the question of local defence should be tackled. The hon. member said that home guards should be established for assistance. I want to tell the hon. member that in our commando system we have an excellent home guard organization of which the world outside has been very jealous in the past from what I have heard. That is South Africa’s home guard, more definitely, and within those commandos smaller groups have been organized which are more mobile, and I think we should regard the question of home defence as a question which is closely associated with existing organizations. Perhaps the hon. member could again raise this question when the Defence Vote comes up for discussion.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) last night made some observations in regard to juvenile crime and in connection with the statement that I made yesterday afternoon in regard to youth rehabilitation. I must congratulate him on his observations, because I think that he showed signs that he has made a study of this subject. His first question was that he wanted to know whether the instructions will be given by artisans. The reply is, as I said yesterday afternoon, that qualified artisans will be appointed in these youth rehabilitation centres. He asked about the training. The training of prisoners was discussed with the Department of Labour and labour organizations and, so far, no objections have been raised. As far as short-term prisoners are concerned, I am not in a position at the moment to make a statement in regard to the treatment that they will receive. The hon. member will readily understand that some are convicted for about three months and it will be almost impossible to put them through this course of training in that very short time. Therefore the position of the short-term prisoners, as far as these young people are concerned, will be considered in due course. As far as further rehabilitation centres are concerned, I cannot say at the moment to what numbers we will be limited in the different centres. I can, however, say that at Leeukop the intake cannot be greater than 600. At the other two centres we may be able to take in more. There has been collaboration with the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Coloured Affairs, and the Department of Bantu Administration, aided by non-governmental associations. These Departments have all promised us that they will help us in guiding these young people when they are released.

The hon. member asked me about the alleged tapping of telephones in Durban. I said by way of interjection that the hon. member did his level best to put his questions in a way that I had to give the desired answers. But, after so many years in South Africa, I have the guidance of the precedents of my predecessors in the Department of Justice.

But there have been changes.

That may be so, but since 1910 the practice has been that, as far as the security organization is concerned, Ministers of Justice have never, as far as I know, been prepared to supply information of a kind the hon. member has been asking.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister where the authority comes from to tap telephones?

All authority of course vests in the Minister in the end. But that has been the practice, and I think my predecessors will agree, that they were never asked questions about these things. We don’t question the security organization about the steps they take; whatever steps they do take in the carrying out of their work. I think that is general practice. I think no Minister before me has attempted even to reply to such questions, because of reasons of public interest. Nowhere in any Western country, that I know of, are particulars supplied in connection with the work of their security organizations. That is why I have said that I know I have been hedging, because the hon. member has been asking these questions, and I did not want to say to him straight away that he must stop asking these questions because I am not prepared to reply to them. That would not have been the correct way to go about it. But he has put these questions, he has done his best, and I would say to the hon. member now that it would be inadvisable to go on asking questions of this kind, because it is only wasting his time and the time of the House, and my reply will remain the same.

But in case of abuse, would you not take some interest in it?

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to draw the obvious inference from the Minister’s reply now?

I think he can draw the obvious inference that information on this score will not be forthcoming.

Do you approve?

The hon. member has come to certain conclusions, that is why he has put his questions. I say that never have Ministers of Justice been prepared to give this information, and I follow the same line.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Is telephone tapping a means of obtaining information, and secondly, is the Minister satisfied that it is not being abused?

As far as the last question is concerned, I do say and can say that, of course, they do not abuse their privileges, but they act in the interest of the security of the country, and I do not think I can be expected to carry this matter very much further.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park wanted to know what the position was in connection with the granting of bail by magistrates and also in the Supreme Court and in the Appeal Court and he wanted to know what we were doing in this regard, because his objection was that bail was often granted in cases where the Attorney-General had even recommended that it should not be granted. I can merely say this that the whole question of the granting of bail is receiving the attention of my Department at the moment. The hon. member also asked me what the position was in so far as appointments to the Bench were concerned and whether the method of appointing judges had been altered. My reply is: No, we will continue to appoint Judges as in the past. Therefore as far as the type of person who is appointed as Judge is concerned, we are not departing from the procedure which we have been following.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) asked a question about firearms. He wanted to know whether too many firearms were not being brandished in the country, as he put it. I am pleased that he has raised that because I think that in a country like South Africa with its small White population and its large non-White population it is obvious that we should continue with the policy which we have adopted in the past, namely that licences for firearms should not be issued indiscriminately, particularly in cases where they may fall into the hands of children or irresponsible persons. That is the policy and I personally adhere strictly to it. I do feel, however, that it has become necessary—and my Department is attending to that at the moment—that a survey be made in South Africa of all licensed firearms and that facilities then be provided whereby any person who loses his licence or whatever the case may be, will in bona fide cases be in a position to have his licence renewed without having to pay anything. If we do take that step, which I trust we will, it will naturally take some time. You cannot do it within a month; it will take four to six months to go through the whole process of re-licensing firearms. In that way we will be able to determine who owns firearms in South Africa and how many there are.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has now assumed the role of a philologist. I listened when he spoke. He put certain questions to me in connection with the Liquor Act and he said that “ verregaande ” (extraordinary) recommendations had been made, whereas I gathered from the trend of his speech that in his quest for purity of language he did not mean “ verregaande ” but “ verreikende ” (far-reaching) recommendations.

Does that warrant the use of incorrect language in reports? Two negatives do not make a positive.

The hon. member is prone to interrupt before you have completed your sentence, Sir. I do not blame the hon. member for Jeppes for having raised this matter, but I just want to tell him that he should not blame my Department, although I admit that the Secretary for Justice probably signed one of the copies. We are dependent on the Government translator. I do not wish to put the blame on to anybody; I admit that it is wrong. It must be a correct translation and no doubt the Government translator will take note of what has been said here. I must add, however, that I was shocked to hear the hon. member comparing the translation of the Government translator of South Africa with a translation published in Ghana. I did not expect that from the hon. member.

I was simply giving an example.

Yes, but it was very unfortunate that he should have selected Ghana at a time such as the present to compare with our Government translator. “ His translation is not as good as Ghana’s! ” There are many other examples that the hon. member could have given. He could, for instance, have given examples of poor Afrikaans where the translation was from English into Afrikaans. That complaint has been raised for years. The Afrikaans-speaking people have always had reason to complain about the translation. The hon. member could have selected better examples than those which remind us of Ghana. In any case, he has raised the matter and I will give the necessary attention to it and request the Government translator to put the matter right.

The hon. member wanted to know what our plans were in connection with the Liquor Act. I am prepared to admit that the Liquor Commission has submitted a very voluminous report and that they have made very many recommendations. Due to the pressure of work and the long programme that still awaits us, the Government has decided that the Liquor Amendment Bill be submitted to Parliament in an abridged form of the recommendations made by the Commission. That is the position at present. A Cabinet Committee has been appointed and it is studying the Bill in its abridged form, and as soon as they have concluded their work—I trust that will be in the near future—the Bill will be published and made public. People who wish to make representations will then be at liberty to do so. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that anybody who wishes to make representations in regard to the Bill as it will be published, must please do so in writing and not by way of deputation because there will not be time to interview one deputation after another. If hon. members have people in their constituencies who are interested in this matter, they should be encouraged to submit their representations in writing as soon as the Bill has been published.

Will we have sufficient time to study it in detail?

The abridged Bill must still be passed this Session.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has now returned to the Chamber. He made a long speech of half an hour, but I do not intend following the example of the hon. member. I merely want to say that I care less for him than before in his new capacity as advocate—not for the Whites.

My constituents do not care for him either.

This is not an accusation, but a deduction which I am justified to make from his speech. The hon. member also said that I painted a sombre picture yesterday but he only read a small extract from what I had said. What I did say yesterday was that the Government would do everything that was necessary in these difficult times. I asked which country in the world, also in Africa, was not experiencing difficult times. The Government will do everything it its power to maintain law and order.

Naturally.

Naturally, because it is a good Government. It does everything in its power to maintain law and order, and in regard to the predictions we have had as to what will happen on 31 May when we become a republic …

I trust the Government will not introduce emergency regulations and declare a state of emergency.

That is necessary in certain circumstances. But the Government will do its best to ensure that everything goes off smoothly and peacefully. I said yesterday, and perhaps I should repeat it, that the Government will not allow anybody to disturb the peace the day when we become a republic in South Africa. That was what I said—and in that respect the hon. member did me an injustice by not quoting what I had said before that—that “ as a last resort, if nothing else avails ” the Government will declare a state of emergency. I adhere to that. The hon. member was not here yesterday, but I think the public of South Africa are wise to these people and they know what the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and certain other people stand for and they know what the White people in South Africa stand for who constitute the link between another government and certain circles here in South Africa.

We must be realistic as far as this matter is concerned and face the facts. My contention is that the people who pleaded for the £ per day last year and those who pleaded for the abolition of the pass book system, etc., were airing grievances which the people in South Africa believed—I think the hon. member for Salt River included—were their real grievances and judging from the speech which the hon. member for Salt River has made to-day he still believes that those people are making trouble because they have complaints. No, the only grievance is that we do not want to give them this country of ours. I want to tell that hon. member that there are more English-speaking people than I thought who had come to that realization. Judging from correspondence, from letters, from telegrams, from telephone calls from English-speaking people, it would appear that many English-speaking people stand by the Government to-day, people who say: “ We support you in your attempt not to allow these people to create the same position in South Africa as prevails in the Congo.”

Was the object of the Afrikaners in days gone by not to get land?

No, the Afrikaans-speaking race and the English-speaking races are both reasonable races, and under the 1936 legislation we told the non-Whites that we would give them land. That land is being made available to them. But what questions does the hon. member ask to-day? He wanted to know why I had extended the banning period of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. The hon. member complained and said that I had extended the banning period without consulting Parliament. What more could I have done than the law demanded of me? Parliament is in session, isn’t it? They were banned on 6 April and a few days later I tabled the relevant documents with a view to the fact that my Vote would shortly come up for discussion and that hon. members would then have an opportunity of discussing the matter. And that is what the hon. member is doing at the moment but he complains that I did not give Parliament an opportunity of discussing it. What has happened to the wonderful logic of the hon. member? I do not want to go into the whole list of reasons why the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. have again been banned. In anticipation of the judgment in the treason trial case, there is even more justification for he step which I have taken. Because of what that judgment says about the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. there is more justification to-day than there was on 6 April for extending the banning period.

I said a few moments ago that we should be realistic. It is clear what the object of these people is and they have never tried to hide it. I want to read something to the House which has been worrying me for a long time and which probably influenced my decision in this case. I am referring to the speech of Sebukwe, the leader of the Pan African Congress. I am only quoting two sentences from it: “ Briefly put, our organization aims at the complete overthrow of White domination.”

White domination.

Surely the hon. member realizes that those words must be read in their context, and when he wrote that speech it could not have meant anything else than has also become apparent from the speeches which we had last week-end and the week-end before: The White man must go. This is their country. I have been very worried about this. I wish I could lift the veil for the hon. member. After what had happened during the past few months in South Africa, before 6 April, any government would have regarded itself justified in extending the banning period. And the Government did so.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer) asked a very important question in connection with civil defence organizations. I appreciate his interest in this matter and I agree with him that we have reached the stage where we should get beyond the “ blue print ” stage.

Time is running out.

I agree with the hon. member but what are the circumstances that have to be considered? The hon. member knows of course that during the past few years circumstances have changed considerably in the world and in South Africa. The civil defence organization was originally established to see to the safety of South Africa in the event of atomic warfare, etc., more particularly, in other words to provide shelters, transport and to establish medical auxiliary services, to lay in a supply of food and to attend to water supplies, etc., but the position has changed considerably since then. The hon. member says now that we should already have converted the blue print into reality. He must realize that as it becomes more evident that the world has changed, as far as one can reasonably expect, it is more probable that attacks will be launched on this country by means of ordinary conventional weapons than by means of atom bombs. I may be criticized for this statement, but I think I am correct. If South Africa were to be attacked, which we hope will not happen, it is more probable that the attack will come from within our borders or from wherever the case may be, by means of conventional weapons than by means of atom bombs. That is why the whole object of this civil defence organization has to be revised. A few months ago I seconded a high officer to the staff of General Brink, who was Director of Civil Defence up till a month ago, in order to assist him. My colleague from the Department of Defence also seconded somebody to him, so that in any case he had two officers who assisted him with his work. Unfortunately General Brink decided a short while ago that he wanted to rest and that he no longer wished to carry on with the work. The Government then decided that the best thing to do would be to decide on two matters. Firstly what form the civil defence organization should assume; and secondly which Department should be responsible for it. When I was still responsible for the Department of Defence I thought it should fall under Justice. But I am no longer sure about that. I do not know. We have to go into the whole question, but I do not think it can rightly fall under the Department of Justice; I think it should fall under another Department. I can assure hon. members, however, that the question is being investigated with a view to prevailing conditions in the world and in Africa and according to that it will be decided which Department should be responsible and how it should be organized; whether we should again appoint a director, or whether we should set about it in a different way. I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised this important question.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) pleaded inter alia for the establishment of an information service among the Bantu. I will appreciate it if the hon. member will raise that question when the Vote of my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, comes up for discussion, because I think he has an appropriate reply to the hon. member in regard to an information service under Bantu Administration.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) drew my attention to an unfortunate matter and I have acquainted myself with the facts. It is an unfortunate case, but one where I cannot do anything, for the simple reason that the hon. member should not ask me to interfere with the Attorney-General as far as prosecutions are concerned. In all democratic countries such as ours, the executive authority and the administration of justice should remain separate. I know the reply will be that the official concerned really falls under the Minister of Justice, and it can also be said that according to law the Minister must in the long run accept responsibility. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinetown that if he expects the Minister to play the role of public prosecutor the task of the Minister of Justice will become impossible and untenable as far as the public is concerned. In other words, if a case is brought to the Minister’s notice where the Attorney-General has refused to prosecute or where he has decided to prosecute, he should be the court of last instance— he has to be the arbitrator. As long as I have the honour of filling this position, I refuse to be the court of last instance as far as prosecutions are concerned.

May I ask the Minister whether the person concerned, the member of his staff, has been charged departmentally? I am not referring to the criminal case, but I want to know whether action has been taken against him departmentally.

I will try to get that information. I do not have all the details with me at the moment. All I know is that there was no prosecution. All I can say is this, and this is not much consolation, that people who are dissatisfied because prosecutions have not been instituted, have the law on their side in that they can institute action privately. I know that that is a very difficult matter.

These people are poor.

The hon. member says that but they can always get someone to act pro Deo for them, or to charge a low fee. There are sources where assistance of that kind can be obtained. I do not blame the hon. member for having raised this matter because he is entitled to do so. But he cannot blame me either when I say that I will not allow myself to be forced to abandon the stand which I have adopted, even in very unfortunate cases, and I know there are unfortunate cases. I do not want to be forced to interfere in any prosecution, because once you have said A you must say B. I want to tell hon. members that had I sat in the Opposition benches and a Minister on their side interfered in a prosecution, I would never have left him in peace after that because I would continually accuse him of having interfered in one or other case as well, on the ground that he had done so in one particular case. I am guarding against a precedent therefore.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) has replied effectively to the point raised by the hon. member for Salt River in connection with Mr. Duncan and others. I do not wish to add anything except to say this. The hon. member must realize that the existing committee and the Department of Justice go out of their way to make a thorough study of every case before recommending to the Minister that the person should be prohibited from attending any meetings. It is not done lightly. The hon. member also said that Mr. Duncan was not a communist. Well, the hon. member for Klerksdorp has given an effective reply to that, namely that the Suppression of Communism Act is much wider than the hon. member would like to have it. The complaint is that the Government is abusing the Suppression of Communism Act in order to arrest people who are not communists. But the Act says that if you make speeches or say anything that will further the objects of Communism you are punishable. This Parliament passed that Act and that law is being carried out. It is said that Mr. Duncan is not a communist but his statements do not support that statement. I am not saying that he is a communist but I think he says things which may further the objects of Communism. Some time ago I made a public statement which I should like to read to the House. Ever since this Act was passed in 1950, and since, it has never been a law of the Medes and Persians to say to a person that he should not hold meetings for five years anywhere in the country. That was why I made this explanatory statement a short while ago in which I stated our policy clearly—

And where does the Department get the information?

From the same sources where they got the information as to what the person had done. They get the information that the person has improved and rehabilitated himself in respect of the charge made against him from the same source.

May I ask a question? Supposing a person is banned for five years and cannot attend meetings or make speeches. How are you going to determine that that person has been rehabilitated?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that such a person is a newspaper editor. In that event you can draw conclusions and ascertain whether he has improved. Say for instance such a person sends a message to a meeting which is to be held, as happened in the case of the meeting which was held on the Parade last Saturday, you can conclude from that message what the position is.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us who serve on the committee to which he has referred?

The committee to which I have referred is a committee which has been appointed under the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. The committee consists of three persons and the chairman is a magistrate. The committee studies all the evidence which is submitted to it in connection with an individual and they make recommendations to the Department. The Department, with its officials, then go through it very thoroughly, and as you know, Sir, there are experts in the Department in this field. The Department go through it very thoroughly, and only then do they make a recommendation to the Minister.

Who are the members?

I know who the members are; I shall give their names at a later stage. The chairman is a well-known magistrate, but I must first consider whether it is in the public interest to disclose their names. There are many things to be considered in a case such as this and the hon. member must forgive me if I do not mention the names across the floor of the House. I am prepared to give him the names and he will realize that he should not make them public.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I hope I misunderstood the hon. member, because I concluded from his speech that his allegation was that the police were probably motivated by political considerations in so far as the Press were concerned. I am not sure whether I should reply to such a wild statement. I really do not know whether the Rules of the House compel me to reply to something like that. Does the hon. member realize what he has said? He says that the Security Branch is politically influenced in so far as the Press is concerned, and everything that has been mentioned here in connection with the Press. I strongly deny that. I think that is an allegation which the hon. member should withdraw when he has the opportunity. Or if he does not withdraw it, he should produce data to prove it. He mentioned three cases where a charge was laid against the editor of a newspaper and some others. He should not forget, however, that the police give the facts as they see them, and the Attorney-General decides whether there should be a prosecution. He now blames the police and he says they are politically motivated. In the same breath he complains that that is how they act against the Press. He says the Security Branch ferret things out and ask questions, particularly when somebody has written a letter to the Press. Well, I should like to know what the position will be in South Africa the day when there is no Security Branch, either under the previous Government or under this Government. We should be grateful for the fact that we have a Security Branch which consists of trained men who have only one object in mind, namely, the safety and security of their country. As far as I know, that is their only consideration. If I thought that any one of them had considerations of a political nature, I shall know what to do. I do not think the hon. member should make these allegations against the Security Branch and leave it at that without giving the House instances where that had happened in the case of the Press or without saying to us: “ No, I said too much.”

I do not think I missed it, but the hon. member for Klerksdop raised a matter in connection with the admission of Attorneys. My attention may have been diverted for the moment, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will reply to that.

I am sorry that I have not replied to the question of the hon. member for Klerksdorp in connection with the admission of attorneys. The hon. member pointed out that I had made a speech in the Other Place last year in regard to the admission of attorneys and he wanted more information. Since I stated that the admission of attorneys would be subject to stricter control, I have approached certain bodies in this regard. I have come to the conclusion, however, that there has not been sufficient consultation and that legislation of that kind will not be introduced this year. We are continuing with the consultations, therefore. I can merely tell the hon. member that all the interested bodies will be properly consulted before any steps are taken. The public of South Africa wishes the present position to be changed so that it will not be possible for anybody to become an attorney as easily as it is to-day. I do not think anyone holds it against me for having said that in the Other Place. The matter is receiving attention. The matter has and is still receiving attention but I want to assure the hon. member that legislation will not be introduced unless the bodies concerned have been properly consulted.

I made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to Attorneys-General. The hon. the Minister has made a case out for the amendment of the existing legislation, and I would like to ask him, as a matter of policy, whether in view of his declared opinion that it would be utterly wrong for a Minister to interfere with the discretion of the Attorneys-General, whether it is not time that he should take steps to make that the law of the land? The hon. the Minister has said that in all the years since 1926 he knows of only one single instance of such interference. I can only say I believe it would give great satisfaction in this country if the hon. the Minister would take that step. I say to the hon. the Minister with respect for what he said, and accepting his word that it is widely believed by the public that the Minister of Justice directs the Attorneys-General in a large number of cases. That opinion is very widely held. If the hon. the Minister wants to do something of service to South Africa, then I suggest he should remedy that position.

The other point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: It happened that quite by chance at lunchtime I came across a paragraph in Look of 28 March which has just become available. I should like to quote this with approval to the hon. the Minister, because I believe he can do another service to this country if he will follow what Robert Kennedy, the new Attorney-General of the United States—who is, of course, the equivalent of the Minister of Justice—proposes in regard to a matter which has taken up some of the time of the Committee this afternoon. Among the questions which was put to Mr. Robert Kennedy who is, of course, a brother of the President of the United States, was the following—

And this is his answer—

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that constantly I find persons cutting into my telephone when I use it.

Ag!

My hon. friend says “ Ag! ” I give it as my honest opinion that that is the case.

What evidence have you?

I can hear it quite clearly, and I am told it is impossible to get a crossed line by accident under our system. As the hon. gentleman knows, it is apparently a very simple thing as you can even buy these tapping devices, I am told.

Where?

You can buy them quite cheaply from any electrician. Mr. Kennedy said further—

I believe that it is essential, in view of the disclosure which has been made that wire tapping is taking place, that it should be brought under control. It is essential that there should be legislation which can be considered by this House as to just what safeguards are required. I quote with approval this statement from the Attorney-General of the United States. There may be circumstances where it is justified, but I think there is a great deal to be said for the security which will arise from the fact that such wire tapping cannot be indiscriminate and can only take place in the same circumstances as apply to a search for which there must be a special warrant.

When I took part in the debate yesterday for a few minutes, I said that I had been struck by the fact that the Justice Vote was being discussed in a sombre, and I can almost say, ominous atmosphere. Since then, having listened to some of the speeches and particularly the speech which is the most important one, namely the reply of the Minister’s to the debate, I am compelled to say that nothing that has happened here has in the least eliminated that ominous feeling which I have.

I want to return immediately to the case which I raised yesterday and to which reference has again been made, namely the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan. When I raised this matter yesterday, I did not say what I did say on the strength of my own knowledge that Mr. Duncan was not a communist but that he was really a staunch anti-communist, but I asked the Minister that in view of the difficulty in defining Communism under the Act, to try to draw some line or other, to tell us under what circumstances he would take similar action and when not. In his reply the hon. the Minister explained to me that Mr. Duncan or any other person who has been banned, had the right to ask for the reasons. Mr. Duncan did so and the reasons were given to him. I did not have the relevant document with me at the time. I said that I was under the impression that the information given to Mr. Duncan was not of great assistance to us in the problem that I had and which the House ought to have, in determining what class of person could be banned under this legislation, other than communists. I have in the meantime obtained the necessary statement—the statement which the hon. the Minister read to the House this afternoon, as well as the letter which the Secretary of the Department wrote to Mr. Duncan. According to the report which appeared in the Cape Times the letter read as follows—

No reasonable person will believe that it is possible to gauge from that what exactly will be regarded as a contravention for these purposes and what not. It simply says that it is in the opinion of the Minister …

Mr. Duncan did not ask what the law says he must ask, namely information; he simply asked for the reasons.

I admit that—he merely asked for the reasons and not for information. The reason was given. But what was the reason? The reason is that in the opinion of the Minister Mr. Duncan had said something somewhere that may possibly serve one of the objects of Communism.

Could have furthered.

Yes, furthered. In that case you again have to turn to the Act on the Suppression of Communism. I think every member in this House knows more or less what the objects are of that legislation. Communism is defined inter alia as—

It happens every day in this House that members accuse each other across the floor of the House of making speeches that are aimed at helping our enemies. As a matter of fact, that was why there was so much opposition to this Act when it was introduced, the definition is too wide. We now find ourselves in the position that in this case Mr. Duncan is a person who is generally known not to be a communist. I think we should know where the line is to be drawn. Mr. Duncan is somebody who is against the Government and who adopts a far-reaching attitude and who expresses his opposition to the Government in strong and almost drastic language. If a person who falls into that category can be banned, who will be the next one and how far will it go? Mr. Duncan is a prominent member of the Liberal Party. Will all members of the Liberal Party now be banned? If not, what is the difference between Mr. Duncan and the other members? If all the members of that party are in danger of being banned, where will it end? It is with a view to this that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) asked for certain information in connection with this Committee which the Minister says exists to provide him with information. I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Salt River.

I said I would give the hon. member the names of the members of the committee.

I understood the Minister to say that he was prepared to tell the hon. member for Salt River confidentially who the members of that committee were and that he would consider giving those names to this Committee. I strongly associate myself with the plea by the hon. member for Salt River that those names should be made public because if there is one way in which a certain amount of confidence can be created that this Act will not be abused, it is to make those names public.

The chairman is a prominent magistrate.

I am pleased to hear that, but if the Minister is prepared to tell us that I ask him to give us the names of the other members as well.

I am also concerned about the renewal of the banning order against the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. The Minister told us this afternoon that he had information at his disposal which made it absolutely essential for him to extend the banning period. I accept his word, of course. The Minister, for reasons of his own, placed one portion of the evidence before the Committee namely a portion from the speech of Robert Sebukwe, and if it was correctly reported it reads like this: “ Briefly my organization aims at the complete overthrow of White domination.” Because of that the Minister now tells us that he will use the powers which he has to the utmost to ensure that that organization remains banned. Let us analyse this statement “ the complete overthrow of White domination ”. What I am about to say, I am not saying at all in the interests of my own party, but we go from platform to platform, and we say it in this House, that we believe the policy of White domination is wrong, and I do not think the Minister has any intention of taking action against us. In other words, that is either not the reason why the banning period has been extended, or the banning period has been extended because they differ in another respect from lawful political organizations which also strive for the overthrow of White domination. [Time limit.]

In view of the warning the Minister gave us that he expected further emergencies and drastic action on the part of the Government, I think it is incumbent on me to raise complaints about the administrative regulations which were framed last time when we had the unfortunate experience of undergoing emergency conditions. I want to refer to some of the hardships experienced by people who were detained under the emergency regulations last year, persons who were never charged or brought before the court and who were never convicted. I want to raise the emergency regulations themselves. At a later stage, under the Prisons Vote, I will raise some of the hardships suffered by these people while in detention. Some of the things which I hope the Minister will never under any circumstances reinstitute under the emergency regulations are things such as these: First of all, that no detainees under the emergency regulations last year were given any opportunity whatever to make arrangements for the welfare of their families or financial arrangements for the care of their dependants before they were taken to prison. Secondly, no safeguard was framed in the regulations to protect detainees against detention based on malicious or mistaken information or even mistaken identity. Thirdly, until some time had elapsed, detainees were not even given access to the emergency regulations under which they had been arrested. I raised this matter several times in the House last year and eventually the Minister gave instructions that the detainees were to be allowed to see those regulations, but several weeks elapsed before that was done and during that time the detainees had neither the knowledge of the regulations nor of any rights they might enjoy, nor indeed of any punishment they might suffer for infringing the regulations. Other matters are—the fact that legal advisers were not allowed to see the detainees and even when they subsequently were allowed to see them they were not allowed to discuss anything at all pertaining to the detention of the persons, but only as regards their personal affairs. Visitors were allowed only in the presence of warders, and detainees were allowed to see their visitors through wire screens. The allegation is made by Indian, Coloured and African families that their relatives were not notified when they were transferred from the one prison to the other, so that useless journeys were made by these relatives trying to visit their detainee relatives, but the families of White detainees were so notified. Some African women sought information from the Special Branch and when attempting to visit their relatives were told to produce their reference books, although at that time and even to-day the carrying of reference books by African women was not imperative. The same complaint was made by Africans asking for assistance from the Welfare Department. I know this was subsequently denied, but the evidence is that persons were asked for their reference books before they could get assistance. It is also alleged, and I hope the Minister will give us some information on this point because it is particularly unfair, that during the period of detention Special Branch officers visited the employers of the detainees to discourage them from re-employing these detainees when they were released. Some African detainees were actually re-arrested under the pass laws.

Have you got sworn statements to that effect?

I have information given to me by the relatives of some of the detainees, but they are not sworn statements, but I have a general statement which was sworn to by several detainees. This may be a far-reaching statement, but nevertheless it was made and I think it is most unfair if this was the case, that persons were detained and subsequently released, and it is most unfair that their employers were influenced not to re-employ them when they had served their punishment. Then there is also the allegation that many of the African detainees, on being released, were re-arrested under the pass laws, some of them because their reference books had not been signed by their employers during the four months they were in prison, because they obviously were not able to get to their employers to get these books signed. Then I would like the Minister to give us some information about the persons who were committed by administrative action by magistrates in the so-called “ special ” or “ secret ” courts set up in the prisons where detainees were being held. I refer particularly to the “ secret ” courts set up in terms of sec. 4bis (2) and (3) of the regulations, where magistrates sat in the prison and committed persons who had been detained under the regulations. These are the questions I would like to ask the Minister in this regard: First of all, I am told that among the thousands held at Modder B, which is the particular gaol where persons held in the Transvaal were detained under the section mentioned, there were many youths under the age of 18. I want to know whether charges were brought against these youths and all others who were tried at these secret courts in Modder B; whether the prisoners were asked to plead, whether evidence was given on oath and properly recorded, whether the prisoners were given the chance to cross-examine and whether they could call their own witnesses, and whether records were kept in such a form that any serious miscarriage of justice could be taken on review to the Supreme Court, and finally, whether convictions were recorded against these youths and what happened to them. [Interjection.] I will give the Minister a list of my questions in writing, and he can answer later. What happened to the youths of under 18 who were sent to reformatories, and what steps were taken against them if they were taken out of the urban area and on their return whether steps were taken to prevent them from returning to their homes in the urban areas by virtue of the fact that their period of residence in the urban area had been broken during the time they were in the reformatory? [Time limit.]

I feel very strongly about this question of the composition of the committee appointed by the Minister in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. I asked the Minister whether he would give this Committee details of the personnel of that committee, and he replied that he would tell me confidentially and that he would consider whether he could disclose the names to this Committee.

That is because the Act does not say I can do it.

I appreciate that the Minister offered to give me information confidentially. If he did do so, I would observe that confidence. But I do not propose to put myself in that position because I think it would be wrong. That information is not something which should be given to an individual member; it should be given to Parliament and to the country. Why the secrecy? Why is the Minister so reluctant to give this information? [Interjections.] I should have thought the answer is quite simple: I have a committee consisting of an experienced magistrate and a few others. But instead of that the Minister creates a cloak and dagger atmosphere. That, in itself, must cast doubts upon this whole system, in terms of which the freedom of the individual is being infringed by administrative action, by the rubber stamp. A secret committee, a sort of local Ogpu, whose names cannot be disclosed in this Committee! I hope the Minister will reconsider that and give us this information. I say that, because I am very much perturbed about the observation made by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser). The hon. member said that one need not be a communist in order to be hit by the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act. He was replying to the representations I made in regard to Mr. Patrick Duncan. The hon. member went so far as to say that certain speeches in this House—and he specifically referred to my speech—if made outside this House could make one liable to action by the Minister in terms of the Act.

Quite so.

The hon. member for Heilbron says “ Quite so ”. I think it is time we should get a pied piper to lead that hon. member out of this House! It is a very serious allegation indeed that the hon. member made, that speeches by representatives of the people in this House under the Privilege of Parliament Act, if made outside the House, would render us liable to this action. I would like to know whether the Minister approves of that statement. If he does, he is only giving confirmation to my suggestion this afternoon and to the suspicion which lurks in the minds of many members of this House and many members of the public, namely, that the Government is abusing the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act in order to stifle the political opinions of persons whose political views they do not like. They are not communists, but they do not like their views. They are persons who are advocating adjustments to the realities of the situation, but because they express those views forcibly they are told that they are advocating or furthering the objects of Communism. That is a very dangerous doctrine and certainly one which shows totalitarian tendencies.

I hope that before this Vote is passed the Minister will give us some details in regard to the position in Pondoland at present. I would like to know how many White persons and Bantu are at present being detained in Pondoland under the emergency regulations; and how many communists are detained, because we have been told that it was White communists who started the trouble. How many White communists are being detained? How many additional members of the Police Force are now engaged in Pondoland in connection with the emergency, and have any persons detained in terms of the emergency regulations been permitted to consult their legal advisers? I think these questions are important, and I hope the Minister will give us the information.

Then there is one final point that I would like to make, following upon the observations of the hon. member for Houghton. In terms of regulation 4bis, large numbers of Bantu youths were arrested during the emergency and whisked away out of the urban areas. Some of them were brought before the secret courts. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many of these youths arrested last year are still in detention? How many have been convicted? And of those under detention, what intention has the Minister in regard to the future of these youths? How many have been returned to their homes in the urban areas from which they were removed? How many have been sent to other parts of the country to be divorced from their families? These things are important, because I come back to the sombre picture painted by the Minister yesterday. The Minister is contemplating the possibility of declaring another state of emergency, and I am trying to get to the root causes and the reasons why such an eventuality may take place. I want to see the Government remove those causes so that there will be no necessity to declare another state of emergency. I ask these questions in no spirit of defiance, and certainly with no object of furthering the ends of Communism. I ask them because I want to prevent the objects of Communism being furthered in this country by the foolishness and shortsightedness and intransigence of this Government, which has so muddled our race relations that we have this position.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I just want to say that the speech just made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) makes one wonder just how difficult a member of this House can be. The hon. member actually had the temerity to accuse the Government of creating the impression that they are making misuse of certain laws. If ever a serious accusation was made, it is this one, and why does the hon. member make it? He makes this accusation because they put a question to the Minister this afternoon which he had no time to consider, viz. publishing the names of this Committee over the floor of the House. The Minister was as reasonable as anybody could possibly be by offering to give these names to the hon. member for Salt River confidentially until such time as he had had the opportunity to consider whether it would be advisable to publish the names or not. But the hon. member for Salt River was not satisfied with that. His reply to the Minister, to this reasonable offer made to him, is this far-fetched accusation that the Government is creating the impression that it is making misuse of a law. I say that is absolutely scandalous, for the simple reason that I know that the hon. member for Salt River is more intelligent than he pretends to be. Not only is he more intelligent, but he also has more experience, and therefore I do not expect him to act in this manner. Surely he knows the difficult position one has to cope with and what methods are used by the communists. Does the hon. member not think that one of the matters the Minister, inter alia, wanted to consider when the question was put to him so suddenly is whether it could not perhaps endanger the safety of those people if it is stated that they are members of the Committee, as the result of the dirty methods adopted by the communists.

That is nonsense!

Order!

I think that in view of all the nonsense spoken here by the hon. member for Salt River, he should be the last one to talk about nonsense. He should not make me change my opinion about his intelligence. I blame the hon. member for adopting this attitude in the face of the very reasonable offer made by the Minister.

A few things have been said here this afternoon which rather disturb one. The Minister says nothing about it when these things are said. I regard these things in a much more serious light than some people seem to do. The hon. member for Heilbron has just reaffirmed that if the hon. member for Salt River had made the sort of speech outside this House that he made here, he would have made himself guilty under the Act, and it passes my comprehension that the Minister does not repudiate that statement. I want to tell the Minister and the Government that this sort of thing is going to result in ugly developments in this country. Hon. members will see what is going to happen between White and White. I should like to hear the Minister repudiating this type of statement. There are certain White people who are not point to put up with it, and if this sort of thing goes on they are going to resent it increasingly, and I should hate to prophesy what this might lead to. But the pattern that is being followed in this House and the remarks which are passed here and connived at by Ministers, are going to have tragic results. [Interjections.] I think every member of this House has the fullest right to put forward here what he regards as the true interests of the nation. There sit the democrats. Sir, the greatest tyranny is the tyranny of the majority. It is not democracy. There are certain basic principles of democracy that must be accepted and in the light of those principles the majority can then determine what the law should be; but as we see here, laws are made in this country which expose me and all of us who have the interest of the nation at heart to the accusation by members of this House that we are contravening the Communism Act when we make speeches here. I make an appeal to the Minister and to other Ministers not to connive at statements which lead to an untenable situation where White and White will be virtually at each other’s throats, not even to talk about White and non-White.

Because my name has been mentioned, I feel obliged to rise and to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. He has just given us a lecture on democracy, but I think the first rule of democracy is that one should obey the laws of one’s country. But apparently there are people here who believe that they can say whatever they like in a democracy and that they need not obey any law of the country. The hon. member made certain statements here this afternoon which would definitely have constituted a contravention of the suppression of Communism Act if he had made those statements outside this House.

On a point of order, the hon. member is charging me with having committed a crime.

No, not a crime.

Order! Will the hon. member repeat what he said?

I said that if he said these things outside the House, that would be the position. I did not accuse him; in this House he enjoys privilege. I do not accuse him of having committed a crime, because here he enjoys privilege; here he is allowed to say it.

On a point of order, if I were to commit murder in this House, I would enjoy no privilege. The hon. member has made the accusation against me that I have made allegations here which, if they were made outside this House, would be criminal, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether he is entitled to say that I am contravening the laws of this country by a speech made in this House.

Statements are frequently made in this House which it would not be possible to make outside the House. The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, the accusation is that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is abusing his privilege as a member. That is the implication of the hon. member’s remarks, because if he says that the hon. member says things here which would be a contravention outside this House, he is suggesting that the hon. member is abusing his privilege in order to say things here for which he would be punishable if he said them outside this House.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, there is freedom of speech in this House. The hon. member can say what he likes here. Here he enjoys privilege which he does not enjoy outside. To commit murder here would not be covered by privilege. He has no privilege to commit murder in this House. Not even the rules of this House would protect him there. Sir, I object to the tone of the speech made here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie). The plea has been put forward here to-day that we should reveal a sense of responsibility in our actions towards the nation. We must not defend people here who committed contraventions of the law outside this House. I protest most strongly against it. And that is what is being done constantly and what has been done in this House this afternoon. People who committed contraventions outside are represented here to the Minister of Justice almost as heroes.

And as martyrs.

That is the whole tone of the speeches on that side, and it is time we realized our responsibility towards our people and towards our fatherland and that we stopped representing as martyrs people who committed crimes outside, under the cloak of freedom of speech in this House.

This development in my view is very serious. The House now has to choose between the verdict of the political rabble and the verdict of the Minister, and I put my conduct to the verdict of the House …

Order! The hon. member should try to moderate his language.

I say that a very pertinent question arises.

On a point of order, the hon. member talks about “ political rabble” insinuating that I, amongst others, belong to that category. I take exception to it and I ask that the hon. member be ordered to withdraw that.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

I am drawing a distinction between irresponsibility and responsibility. I would like to know where I stand this afternoon, because the allegation that has been made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) affects not only me, but every member of this House, and more particularly every member of the Opposition, and therefore I am not prepared to leave it just where it stands. Before the hon. member for Heilbron sat down, he said quite clearly and unequivocally that the speech which I had made this afternoon was of such a character and of such content that, had I made it outside the House, I would have contravened the Suppression of Communism Act. In other words, I would then have been subject to banning by the Minister. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with that or not, because the whole question of free speech in this Parliament is now at stake as a result of what the hon. member has said. If the hon. member for Heilbron is correct, then only those who are intimidated dare get up in this House and speak in dulcet tones and express sentiments which cannot be taken exception to by members of the Government. I therefore put this crisp question to the Minister of Justice: Does he concur in the views of the hon. member for Heilbron or not? He must either repudiate the hon. member for Heilbron or he must repudiate me. He may repudiate the views which I express; I can understand that because we are arguing this matter on a political basis and we are approaching the matter from different political standpoints, but the hon. member for Heilbron has now brought this matter into a different plane. He has said quite unequivocally, without any reservation, that my speech would amount to a crime if made outside the House. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with that. If he does agree with that let him say so; if he does not agree, let him say so. But do not let him be silent. Do not let this House and this country be left under the impression that a certain section of the Nationalist Party can intimidate members of this House by suggesting that, if they speak fearlessly in this House, they are committing a crime.

There are a few matters that I would like to submit to the Minister’s attention. The first is the question of the supply of firearms to Coloured applicants for such firearms. I have had several cases in past years where such applications were summarily turned down. I am positive that had it been a White applicant, such an application might have been considered in the circumstances, and it is quite obvious that there is some form of discrimination in refusing applications for firearms where the applicants are Coloured, and I do not think it is fair, because in many cases it is merited and very necessary. At the opportune time I would like to submit further evidence on this score to the Minister. I had one case in point at a place called Harlem, which the Minister obviously knows, where a Coloured farmer has a White foreman, who has been working for them for many years, and who has a firearm licence. He has a shop on the farm right next to his residence and that shop has been broken into on several occasions. This man now has to face the problem of installing a private telephone line to his foreman’s house in order to be able to phone him at night should anything occur there, after all the thefts which have taken place there already. He has on several occasions applied for a firearm licence and his application has been refused every time, but his White foreman eventually applied and was granted a licence. I think that this is an injustice. I have more examples of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion here on the events of last March and specifically also on the way in which a young African student, Phillip Kgosana, was arrested. I wish to say at the outset that I unreservedly accept the Minister’s word when he says that he did not order that arrest. I also accept the word of Col. Terblanche to the effect that he was ordered by a senior authority to ensure that the arrest took place; so somewhere between the Minister and the colonel in charge of the situation there, that order was given by somebody. Sir, I was in Cape Town on that particular day. I saw that procession, or part of it, right from Klipfontein, and when I came to Cape Town I saw what happened here. It is quite obvious, whichever way one looks at it, that on that fateful day Col. Terblanche, in his negotiations with Phillip Kgosana, had the fate of Cape Town in his hands to some extent, if not the fate of South Africa. Nobody knows what could have happened there if anything had gone wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there who bleats occasionally does not seem to have any conception of the seriousness of the situation that existed that day. We know that there were over 30,000 Africans massed in the centre of Cape Town. If anything had gone wrong that day, damage and loss of life would have resulted on a worse scale than at Sharpeville, and we know what repercussions that incident had for South Africa right throughout the world. I feel that hardly at any time in the history of South Africa has so much responsibility rested on a police officer as rested on Col. Terblanche that day. I do not know who gave the order for the subsequent arrest but the fact remains that in his discussions Col. Terblanche gave the assurance to Kgosana that he and his deputation could put their grievances to the Minister.

That is not correct. He did not make that promise. He said he would do his best.

Sir, I accept that also. I am discussing this matter with a full realization of the seriousness of the situation that existed that day, but the fact remains that the senior police officer in command of the Cape Town area on that day had discussions with Kgosana and gave the undertaking that he would endeavour to arrange an interview with the Minister. I feel that the Minister would not have sacrificed too much had he agreed to meet that deputation personally. However that may be, something seriously went wrong in ordering the arrest of that young African, together with the others, when they came to see the Minister or came under the impression that they would see the Minister. It is perfectly clear from what I have heard and from the information that has reached me that a breach of faith was committed on that particular day. I do not say that it was a breach of faith intended by the officer concerned or by the Minister or by the person who ordered the arrest, the fact remains that that was the impression that was created, my information is that the impression of the Africans is that they can never again trust a Government official or accept the word of a police officer. But that is not my concern at the moment. What I am concerned with—and I can give the Minister the assurance that I am dealing with this matter with the utmost sincerity—is the effect that this event had on the minds of the Coloured people. That is a matter of very great importance too. I have been surprised on several occasions since then to find that Coloured people who were looked upon in the past as reasonable and moderate, openly stated in my presence at public meetings or gatherings where many hundreds of people were present on some occasions, that this was a breach of a promise made …

No promise was made. How can you make that deduction?

That is the impression that was created throughout.

It was the wrong impression.

The Minister has now told the Committee, and I accept that he personally had nothing to do with ordering the arrest of Kgosana but somewhere, somehow this order was given and it was given at a most inopportune moment and carried out at a worse time.

Someone let down Terblanche.

What I am concerned with is the effect that this had on the minds of the people, part of whom I represent here. Sir, this is a most serious thing.

Were there also Coloureds in the demonstration?

No, there were no Coloureds, but the fact that a young African aged 21, could lead 30,000 people into Cape Town in complete order, without committing any violence, has made an indelible impression on the minds of the Coloured people, and the fact that negotiations or discussions took place, and that subsequently when the undertaking was accepted and acted upon, an arrest was carried out at the worst possible time, has had a tremendous effect. [Time limit.]

There is one matter I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether his attention has been drawn to a report …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must stop making interjections.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared in the Sunday Express on 19 March of this year entitled “ Sick man is sent to cell to die ”. It would appear that a Native labourer was brought before the court on charges of armed robbery and theft. He sat in the dock in a half coma dying from a serious illness and his attorney asked that he be granted bail. The magistrate not only argued over a reduction in bail, which would have enabled him to leave prison and receive medical attention, but he actually increased the bail from R300 to R500, although the Crown had not asked for the man’s bail to be increased, but had simply opposed the reduction.

Must I interfere with the court’s judgment?

No, I am not asking the hon. the Minister to interfere, but what I am asking him to take steps about is a comment which the magistrate made during the course of the case. What the magistrate actually said was that “ it would be better for people under these serious charges not to be released at all as, when they go out they commit further robberies ”.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a report of this case which appeared in the Sunday Express. It appears that the magistrate therefore prejudged the issue, and I consider this to be a very serious matter as far as justice is concerned. I want to ask the Minister whether he will investigate this case, whether he will see whether this report is correct, since it is in quotation marks and whether he will take steps to see that magistrates do not make remarks of this kind in the courts and prejudge issues which come before them.

It looks as though the debate on this Vote is drawing to a close, and I should like to make use of this opportunity therefore to thank hon. members for the way in which this debate has been conducted. We have not at all times had the peaceful debate here this afternoon that I imagined we would have, but generally speaking I have heard debates on the Department of Justice in the past which have been more lively than this one, particularly when the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was Minister of Justice.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has referred here, amongst other things, to Robert Kennedy’s view, which he quoted here, in connection with the tapping of telephones. As the hon. member read it out, it gave me the impression that Robert Kennedy draws a great distinction between cases where tapping should not be allowed and those cases where it should be allowed. He does not want indiscriminate tapping, however. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that telephones are being tapped in South Africa. As a matter of fact, I must deny it because the Postal Act in this country forbids the tapping of telephones. According to what the hon. member has quoted here, Robert Kennedy says that there must not be indiscriminate tapping. I say that there must be no tapping. But it is not for me to decide what the security of South Africa may require under certain circumstances. If the security of this country calls for it, then there is nobody on the other side of the House who would suggest that it should not be done, because then they would not be fair; then they would want this Government to follow a course which the previous Government did not follow. The hon. member for Springs quite correctly raised this point. I just want to tell him that I shall look at the article. It will not help much if I do look at it because I should not like to follow what Robert Kennedy says, because not only do I think that there should be no indiscriminate tapping: I think that if the security of the country does not require it, there should be no tapping of telephones.

The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) has put a question to me to which I replied when he was not in the House. He wanted to know why the ban on the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. was extended again.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asked me about a dozen questions and she was kind enough to let me have them, because she will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to reply to them pat off. But what I can say is that in two instances the hon. member has the wrong information. The trials in the prisons were not secret. They were open to the Press and to the public. That is the first allegation made by the hon. member in respect of which she was supplied with wrong information. Her second allegation was that the security police went to employers and induced them not to re-employ people who had been detained. That is categorically denied by my Department, and I shall be very glad if the hon. member will furnish me with the information. I shall certainly go into that question.

She also drew my attention to a case mentioned in the Sunday Express of 19 March, where it is alleged that the magistrate made certain comments. She wants to know whether those comments were actually made by the magistrate. I cannot, of course, be expected to know the details of the case. I know the hon. member says that this person was found guilty and sentenced to gaol. That may be the information that the Press received, but it may not be correct. That is why I propose to investigate this and let the hon. member know the result. I cannot take the matter further.

Then the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) wanted to know how many persons were detained in Pondoland. Well, I gave the House that information a few days ago, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I said that the number was 524. Of these 524, 114 will be charged with murder; 121 will be charged with arson; 289 will be charged for multiferious breaches of the law. The hon. member also referred to regulations framed under Section 4bis. These regulations have been withdrawn, and no prisoners are still being detained under these regulations.

*The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has asked whether there is any discrimination at all in the granting of firearm licences to Whites and Coloureds. My reply to that iS that every case is treated by every Government on its merits. The hon. member went on to mention a few cases where shops had been burgled and where it is necessary for the shop owners to be provided with firearms. I shall have every case dealt with on its merits, according to the information given to me.

Then the hon. member again raised the case of Kgosana. I honestly wish that Kgosana was in South Africa to-day so that one could hear what he has to say, but what he stated before he fled was stated in a sworn affidavit, and that is that he and his three supporters wanted to see the Minister to ask him to release the Native leaders who had been arrested. I should like hon. members to understand the circumstances that prevailed on that particular day. The Minister was not idle. It was very difficult for me to see this young Bantu. One of the newspapers said this morning that I had sent my secretary to see him. No, I sent the Secretary for Justice to go and hear what they wanted, and when he arrived there he was told that the colonel had informed these people that he would try to get hold of the Minister. The Secretary for Justice then told them that the Minister was not available; that he simply could not see them, and that he had come on behalf of the Minister to hear what the complaint was and what they wanted to see the Minister about. Every one of them then made a sworn affidavit in which they said that the only thing that they wanted to see the Minister about was the release of the leaders. I think hon. members would have been entitled to hold it against me if I had met a deputation of that kind in my capacity as Minister, because for days we had been saying that these people would not be released, that they would have to undergo their punishment. And I think they would have been entitled to condemn me. But what I cannot understand is that certain hon. members are now taking this person under their protection. I have been sitting here since yesterday waiting to hear a single word of condemnation of this person’s action in fleeing from South Africa and failing to appear before the Court. But we do not hear a single word of condemnation. Have we lost all sense of proportion in this country?

They regard it as an act of heroism.

The hon. members for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) and Salt River have also asked me whether I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). But after the exchange of words here between these two hon. members I am not so sure any more that the hon. member for Heilbron meant that remark in the way the hon. member for Salt River interpreted it. Mr. Chairman, hon. members of this House have freedom of speech. A speech which is permissible here cannot always be made outside. I do not think it was really the intention of the hon. member for Heilbron to apply this to the hon. member for Salt River, because I want to tell the hon. member for Salt River now that although I did not like his speech, it was not the sort of speech for which a person would be arrested under the Suppression of Communism Act. I think that what the hon. member for Heilbron meant was that generally speaking people say things here for which it would be possible to prosecute them under the Act if they said them outside. I think he said it in that spirit and I want to interpret it in that spirit.

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

Evening Sitting

In regard to telephone tapping, I would just like to put this to the hon. the Minister: I have looked carefully at the proposition I made to him. It is quite clear that what Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney-General of the United States, proposes is a complete ban on telephone-tapping, under very heavy penalties, except in circumstances where it is necessary in the public interest, namely in respect of charges where there is a death penalty, and in those circumstances only on something which is equivalent to a search warrent.

It is not their law at the moment.

No, he is suggesting that he might change it some day, and I am putting that suggestion to the hon. the Minister for his own consideration.

Just before we allow this Vote to go through, I should like to touch upon a matter which I have also raised previously, namely the question of legal aid bureaux. Are other arrangements going to be made to replace them? The hon. the Minister is, of course, better acquainted with the history of this matter than I am. We had legal aid bureaux in the big cities of the Union. I am not sure whether this happened everywhere but here in the Cape at any rate the bureau was closed about two or three years ago.

I dealt with that matter yesterday.

In that case I apologize, and I shall look it up in Hansard.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22,—“ Prisons ”, R8,730,000,

I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the case of the prisoner Wanka, who had been previously sentenced I understand to 12 years’ imprisonment. He subsequently was released after three years. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister on this Vote can make a statement about that. But he was subsequently condemned to death and was in the death cell, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he is in a position to make a statement. We have seen in the Press that the warder was a young man of 20 years of age, in charge of a man who is obviously an extremely dangerous criminal.

Eighteen years.

According to to-night’s paper he was 20 years of age. In an earlier report the age of 18 was mentioned. I do submit to the hon. the Minister that it is most undesirable that a person of that tender age should be put in charge of a prisoner of this sort. We have seen the story in the Press that the warder was sentenced, but as a result of the fact that an inexperienced young man was in charge, we might very easily have had two other deaths on the soul of this person who is about to be executed. I sincerely hope that steps will be taken to see to it that in respect of prisoners of this type only older and experienced warders will be put in charge.

I also would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he is satisfied that there can be no recurrence of the epidemic which we had at the Johannesburg Fort last year, which apparently has subsided.

Finally, I make another plea to the hon. the Minister and that is that he should make a name for himself by dealing with a matter which has been under discussion over a very long period of years, namely the evacuation of the Johannesburg Fort and the transfer of that site to the City Council of Johannesburg, particularly in the circumstances that Johannesburg is establishing a very fine civic centre which will be of great value, not only to the city, but to the arts. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to do something about this. It is generally agreed that the present site, which is a very valuable one, is not the right site for the prison in Johannesburg.

There are two matters I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister under this Vote. The hon. member for Springs dealt with the conditions prevailing at the Fort. Sir, one also hears a good deal from those who are interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners, about the desirability of improvement in the conditions at the Roeland Street Prison in Cape Town, and also the Central Gaol in Durban. There are complaints about the unhygienic conditions that exist at these institutions and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give some indication as to whether he has any plans in mind for the improvement of the conditions existing at these three gaols. The other matter which I would like to raise is the question of the labour prisoners and the use that is made of their services and their remuneration. On Friday, 17 February, I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter of productivity and the utilization of the labour of long-term prisoners and also short-term prisoners, and the reply shows that White prisoners receive R1.50 per month and the Asiatic and Bantu and Coloured prisoners receive R1 per month. I feel that some effort should be made to bring about greater productivity in regard to the labour that is utilized at these prisons and that as an incentive the remuneration should be revised. The hon. Minister did not mention in his reply that certain submissions have been made for increases in pay, and I therefore would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could supply the Committee with further information in regard to these matters.

I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the erection of prisons in rural areas. I do not think the platteland is over-endowed with gaols. There are certain areas, which although in the platteland, cannot really be regarded as rural areas; they must be regarded as semi-urban areas, and the Vaalhartz settlement is such an area. There we have a very thickly populated area where there is not a single prison. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some time ago, during the term of office of his predecessor, a large piece of land was made available by the Department at Vaalhartz for the purpose of building a prison there. There is so much ground there that it would enable the prisoners to meet their own needs as far as vegetables, etc. are concerned. They might also be able to grow a little wheat there and groundnuts. But unfortunately the Department has not yet seen its way clear to establish a gaol at Vaalhartz. I am aware of the fact that it is not the intention that prisoners should serve as a source of labour for farmers but it is nevertheless customary for farmers to employ prison labour upon the payment of certain fees. Vaalhartz is a very thickly populated area and the farmers there are handicapped by a shortage of labour. One of the guilty parties contributing to this shortage of labour is the Transvaal, because during the maize harvesting season they entice all the casual labourers of Vaalhartz to the Transvaal to harvest mealies, and they then come back with a huge quantity of food. The farmers at Vaalhartz therefore find it difficult to obtain labour. If a gaol is established at Vaalhartz, there would immediately be 1,200 settlers who would use prison labour if it is available, and they are willing to pay the fees charged for prison labour. But to-day there is no prison. I would like the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that if a gaol were established at a place like Vaalhartz, it would probably be possible to place a considerable number of prisoners there. It adjoins a Native reserve, and I know that the gaol at Kimberley is too small for the prisoners who have to be accommodated there. If this were done, it would be possible for the settlers of Vaalhartz to make use of this prison labour. It would also be advantageous to the Government, because the provision of labour to the settlers would mean that it would be possible to recoup part of the cost of maintaining the prison and of feeding the prisoners properly from the income that the Government would derive from this Native labour. As I have already said, this piece of ground is so big that in all probability it would never be necessary for the Department to supply or to purchase food there. It is big enough to produce enough food on the spot for the prison’s requirements. I might just mention that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor practically promised that a prison would be erected at Vaalhartz, and I think the time fixed by him within which a start was to be made with the building of this prison expired some considerable time ago. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now to soften his heart and to see that a prison is erected at Vaalhartz, where it is absolutely essential.

How does one manage to soften the Treasury’s· heart?

I am so convinced of the persuasive powers of the Minister of Justice that I have not the slightest doubt that, if he sets out to do so, he will succeed, and that the Minister of Finance will put the necessary funds at his disposal. I leave it to him with the greatest confidence to make provision for what is an absolute necessity as far as that area is concerned.

I rise to bring to the hon. Minister’s notice the unhygienic and badly situated gaol that we have in Grahamstown. The hon. Minister’s predecessor did negotiate with the municipality and decided on a site outside the precincts of the town, but since then nothing has developed. The present gaol is in the centre of the town. It is undoubtedly in an area which the Government will require for future development, for offices and for the extension of the Supreme Court, which is suffering from congestion to-day. I think if a new gaol were built it would simplify the position for the Government as regards the availability of a property in a convenient part of Grahamstown. It seems quite wrong that we should have a gaol right in the centre of the town, with prisoners in evidence, especially as Grahamstown is an educational centre. I would urge the hon. Minister to kindly give this matter his special attention. I have no doubt that a new gaol in Grahamstown is low on the list of new buildings, but perhaps the hon. Minister could use his influence to have it moved up to a higher stage.

Many municipalities prefer to have these public buildings in the centre of the town.

Not a gaol. This gaol is of a type that one would relegate to the middle ages. I imagine that it must be one of the early type gaols, with its cells badly ventilated. It is actually a dreadful place, and it is a disgrace that there is a gaol like that in the country. I hope the hon. Minister will visit Grahamstown. There is much we should like to show him, and he would find much of interest there as regards developments which are necessary in respect of his particular Department.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has mentioned the case of Wanka here. I fully agree with him that a youthful person of 20 should not be placed in command of the death cell. I feel, however, that a few words should be said here by way of tribute to the two warders who re-arrested the condemned man and, in the process, nearly lost their lives. I think we are all grateful to them for the fact that the condemned Wanka was re-arrested before he could commit more murders. This leads me to the thought that these two warders must have been extremely fit, and I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister, since the necessary sports facilities are available at the Central Prison in Pretoria, that such sports facilities should also be made available elsewhere in the Transvaal and in the rest of the Union where they do not exist to-day. I am thinking of tennis courts. In one case, where there was a tennis court at a prison—a prison outside the town—it was not always possible for the warders to play tennis in town. Instructions then came from the Director of Prisons or from the Department of Public Works that that tennis court must be demolished. My personal opinion is that the warders need this relaxation, and they should also be enabled to remain fit. What happened in Pretoria was due entirely to the fitness of these warders. But for their fitness they would not have been able to re-arrest the prisoner, particularly after one of them had been shot through his shoulder. I should also like to ask the Minister whether the execution of condemned persons cannot be arranged sooner. In this particular case, the person concerned was sentenced to death as far back as last year; it is April now, and he is still in the death cell. One is inclined to say: “ Why prolong the agony? ” He knows that at some time or other he is going to be executed, and it takes months before the sentence is put into effect. I am thinking of cases in England, where persons who were condemned to death after Wanka, have been executed long ago. These executions are delayed too long in South Africa, and it only imposes an unnecessary hardship on persons awaiting execution to remain in the death cell for such a long time.

Just a word or two about our farm prisons in the Western Province. I am not pleading for additional gaols, but I know that new ones will, of course, have to be erected from time to time. But, however attractive the layout of some of these new prisons may be, there is one thing that rather disturbs me. Perhaps attention has not been drawn to this matter pertinently, but in the Western Province, with its beautiful scenery, one cannot ride in any direction without passing some prison or other along the road. Has the time not come, when planning new prisons, to site them a little further away from the main road? Of course, it makes it easy to transport the prisoners if the gaols are right next to the road. What does a traveller riding through this beautiful Western Province of ours see? In whichever direction he travels, he comes across at least four or five prisons right next to the road. They are nicely laid out, but the fact remains that one can still see that they are gaols. I think this gives an exaggerated impression to people travelling through our country that we are locking up people unnecessarily. As it is, we have not got a very good reputation, and, although I may be under the wrong impression, I feel that that is the impression that may be created in the minds of travellers. If it is possible to do so, I shall be glad if prisons can be sited some little distance from the road in the future instead of right next to the main road.

I think I would be failing in my duty if I allowed this Vote to be passed without expressing my appreciation to the Minister as well as to the Director of Prisons of the enlightened approach that is evident in the Department in connection with the detention and particularly the upliftment of prisoners. I am not an expert as far as punitive measures are concerned, but I think the elementary principle, after all, is that there must be a measure of retribution, and I think that principle is being observed; secondly, the punishment must have a deterrent effect, and that principle is also being observed; thirdly, there must be a certain amount of upliftment work, and that is also being done. It is perfectly clear to me that in recent years the accent has been placed on upliftment. I want to say, particularly in view of the hon. the Minister’s statement in respect of the upliftment of the youth, that this is a step in the right direction, and that we welcome it. I think that is where the emphasis should be placed. The hon. the Minister and the Director can be assured of the support of the whole House if that is the approach in detaining prisoners. In the case of women prisoners, however, I feel that there is one matter to which insufficient attention is being given. There are ladies amongst them. Such a case has come to my notice, and I am not so sure that the Department has succeeded in differentiating in those cases and ensuring that decent women, who happen to have overstepped the mark or who have made themselves guilty of a contravention for which they have been punished, do not come into contact in prison with hardened criminals. I am not convinced that the necessary facilities exist to segregate such women so that they will not come into contact with hardened women criminals. I should like to know what the Minister’s policy is in this connection and I shall be gratified to learn that in that case too, just as in the case of youthful offenders, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that decent women who succumb to temptation and make themselves guilty of contraventions do not find themselves in the company of the most hardened criminals.

Then there is another matter of local interest to my constituency, Klerksdorp, which is expanding very rapidly, and that is that the prison facilities there are very inadequate. I think the records of the hon. the Minister’s Department will show that the number of detainees are far in excess of the capacity of the gaol. Negotiations have been in progress for quite a number of years in connection with the acquisition of land and the building of a new prison, but it does not look as though any progress has been made up to the present moment. I want to ask the Department to give this matter its serious attention. I believe that the right site can be found by getting in touch with the right people. I realize that when a prison is planned in an area such as that, more than one factor must be taken into consideration. There is the consideration that the children of the prison staff must be within easy reach of schools; there is the problem of the availability of water; there is the question of transport facilities, electricity, sanitation, and this sort of problem becomes all the more difficult in a rapidly developing area such as Klerksdorp. I would urge upon the hon. the Minister therefore that steps be taken as soon as possible to purchase the necessary and the right sites in Klerksdorp before we reach a position where it becomes completely impossible to acquire a site for the Department in a suitable area, a site that will meet with all the requirements.

Mr. Chairman, in recent years a great deal of very necessary attention has been given to the question of penal reform, and the Penal Reform Association has done a great deal to bring to the notice of the Government matters which required the attention of the Prisons Department. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, and to the Minister himself, for the fact that that basic fact is realized by those who are responsible for the Prison Administration at the present time; and I should like to include in my tribute the name of the Commissioner of Prisons. We have made great strides in improving our general approach towards prisons and reformative treatment in South Africa. That is why I am very sad to-night to think that a man who has done a great deal to stimulate public opinion in favour of penal reform, namely, the Rev. Junod, has now found it necessary to resign his position as Prison Chaplain, and to leave this country. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why that has become necessary. The Rev. Junod, Sir, is a very saintly man, who has done an incalculable amount of good in our prisons, who has been a source of solace to condemned prisoners for years past. He has now found it necessary, because of some sort of departmental red-tape, to resign his position and leave the country. I should like the Minister, if he can, to give us some reassurance that that decision on the part of the Rev. Junod was not due to stupid red-tape and unnecessary difficulties.

That brings me to another matter, the question of amnesties, what I might call, a republican amnesty. It has always been appropriate and traditional on special occasions in the history of the country, to give amnesties to prisoners. On the occasion of the Royal Visit in 1947, all prisoners were given a special remission of one-quarter of their sentences. Last year on the 50th anniversary of Union only prisoners with sentences up to three years received some remission. The hon. the Minister in answer to a question I put to him the other day has told me that there will be certain remissions in connection with the establishment of the republic, but that the following types of offenders are excluded from the provisions of the proposed amnesties, namely, (a) those who are released on parole before 31 May 1961; (b) those who escaped from custody; (c) those convicted for the contravention of the Immorality, Dagga Control, Public Safety, Stock Theft and Riotous Assemblies Acts, as also the proclamations issued in terms of those Acts; and (d) all those serving sentences exceeding three years. Apparently the proposed amnesty will be limited to prisoners serving sentences up to three years. Those serving sentences up to three months, before 31 May, will be released unconditionally; all prisoners serving up to two years are to receive one-quarter remission in addition to the normal remission (there is a normal remission for good conduct, and I understand it is still one-quarter of a sentence); thirdly, only first offenders serving between two and three years will receive one-quarter remission, in addition to the normal remission.

There are two particular categories which are excluded from the remissions. First of all, there is to be no remission for prisoners who have been convicted in terms of matters arising out of the emergency of last year. Why? Why should that not be done? Why should there be special discrimination against those who have been convicted under the Immorality Act or the Stock Theft Act? Does the Minister now seek to have gradations of crime, or the extent of crime, by making these distinctions?

My information is that these exceptions have always been made.

I am not able to say, Sir, whether that is so in respect of all these cases. But quite obviously it cannot apply to cases under the Emergency Act. When I was Minister of Justice I did not have to administer the Immorality Act. I did not have an Emergency Act when I was Minister of Justice and when I was responsible for remissions at the time of the visit of His Majesty the King in 1947. So I ask the hon. the Minister why these distinctions are made. In the first place there is the distinction in respect of those serving sentences arising from offences connected with the emergency. Secondly, you have the case of persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more. Why that? The Minister is prepared to open the doors of the prisons to all those who have been sentenced to a term of up to three months, and we know what happens so often. You open the doors and many of these short-term prisoners come back. But what is the purpose of imprisonment? The main purpose is that one hopes to rehabilitate these people, one hopes that a person with a long term of imprisonment will learn his lesson. I think it is the experience—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that—I think it is the experience of prison officials and administrators that, for the most part, prisoners with a long term of imprisonment do not normally come back. The recidivists are not to be found usually in cases of first offenders with a long term of imprisonment. I have had a letter from the wife of a man who has had a sentence imposed on him of more than three years, in which she says—

I must say Mr. Chairman, that having listened to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) this afternoon, I am beginning to feel that anyone can get into prison a first time.

Seriously, I do now plead with the hon. the Minister to reconsider this system of remissions and to have some regard to those who have been sentenced to long terms, particular first offenders who have to serve over three years. I ask him to consider whether it would not be in the interests of justice, and in the interest of the rehabilitation of those persons, to give them some sort of concession at the present time. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to reply to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) because one does not know when he is serious and when he is not. But there is a matter of far greater importance that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with the prison building at Germiston. The prison building in Germiston is situated in the Germiston (District) constituency but there are four constituencies situated around Germiston, namely, Germiston itself, Germiston (District), Alberton and Edenvale. Four-fifths of the Edenvale constituency falls within the Germiston municipal area and the majority of my constituents therefore live in the city of Germiston. In view of that fact I consider it to be my duty to raise a case which for 40 years has been worrying the residents of Germiston, and that is that the prison buildings are situated in one of the most select areas of Germiston, between the Lake, the Delville and the suburbs Germiston (South). This is one of the best sites in Germiston. It consists of several morgen of land on which gardens are laid out. The complaint of many people there is that the prisoners employed on gardening watch their movements so as to establish exactly when these people are away from home with a view to robbery and other crimes when they are subsequently released from prison. That is a matter of minor importance, but what I really want to plead for is this, and here the hon. the Minister may tell me to refer the matter to the Department of Public Works or the Department of Education. Representations have been made in those quarters and I feel I must raise the matter here and ask the hon. the Minister for assistance. For that reason I raise it under this Vote. I want to urge that the prison be moved to another site where ground has been offered for this purpose, very near to Germiston. It is well situated, so a decent prison could be erected there at a reasonable cost. Gardening and other activities could also be practiced there. The ground at present occupied by the prison building could then be used for some other purpose such as a technical college for Germiston. Sport fields and other facilities could be provided there. I will not go into that now because that aspect falls under another Department. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister this. For 40 years now this prison building has been standing in the centre of Germiston, in the heart of one of the best residential suburbs. It is absolutely a sore in the eye of the entire city. Because Germiston is the fifth largest city in the Union I feel that this matter should definitely be tackled by the Government. If the Department of Prisons is prepared to move the gaol then I am convinced that the Department of Public Works will agree to it and that the Department of Education will gladly take over the ground.

Then there is a further matter. The mortuary is situated in this building. Its entrance is in one of the main thoroughfares to one of those suburbs. There are two schools there, On the one side there is the English-medium school and on the other side there is an Afrikaans-medium school to which small children go. When accidents occur and bodies are brought to the mortuary the small children who happen to be passing stand there staring open-mouthed. I have seen it with my own eyes. About six months ago there was the case of a person who committed suicide with a knife. While the hearse which brought the body to the mortuary was being washed out about 20 small children stood there watching the horrible process. I feel that the mortuary should also be moved from there. It is situated right in the midst of the most thickly populated area in the best suburbs of Germiston and it is in full view of the residents. That site could be put to far better use. I feel that the residents of Germiston, of all four constituencies, would be most grateful to the Government and in particular to the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Education if they would do something about this matter. We know that the prison has been there for more than 40 years. At the time of the planning of the prison Germiston was still a very small town, and the centre of the town and the residential areas were about a mile away from the spot where the prison stands to-day. But to-day it is surrounded by some of the most beautiful suburbs of Germiston. There are Delville and Germiston (South). To the west there is the Lake. Only the train line lies between. There is the beautiful Victoria Lake Club, one of the best yacht clubs in South Africa. Hundeds of people come there annually from all over the world, from Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and all over the place to compete against the local yacht club. They are accommodated all over Germiston and they gather at the club. When they look out of the club premises they look on to the prison. I think it is an eye-sore that should be removed. The Germiston pleasure resort is adjacent to the Lake. Thousands of people frequent it. It is a very bad advertisement for Germiston as a city. We have this pleasure resort and this beautiful club there. On the other side are the houses and in the midst of it all stands this eye-sore. I therefore make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister. He will be doing a great service to the inhabitants of Germiston and of the four constituencies of, in collaboration with the two other departments, we can remove the gaol from the present site.

There are two small matters that I should like to deal with here this evening. The first is this. We in the rural areas are in this position to-day that when our servants are arrested and found guilty in a place like Porterville, for example, which forms part of the constituency of the hon. the Minister, those prisoners, because there are no prison facilities at Porterville, are sent through to Paarl. The local farmers are then in a position to hire these prisoners at a reasonably low rate. The result is that the fruitgrowers in the Porterville district find during the busy season that there is an increase in the number of arrests of Coloured labourers, who are then engaged in Paarl and in the neighbouring area. I understand that the same thing occurs in the main town of the Minister’s constituency, namely Moorreesburg.

Surely you would not suggest that they are deliberately arrested?

No, I simply say that when there is a shortage of labour in those wine-growing districts, our Coloured labourers are arrested for drunkenness, and then they go and work in those districts to make more wine. That is the truth. I wonder whether, on behalf of the Moorreesburg constituency, which the hon. the Minister has the privilege to represent. I cannot put forward a plea to him that he should also give us prisons in those towns so that we will be able to hire back our own Coloured labourers.

Talk about Sea Point.

In Sea Point we have no criminals and therefore no prisoners either. Then there is a second point I should like to raise. Unfortunately I cannot discuss the question of policy at the moment but there is one small matter here which rather disturbs me. Under Vote 22 we have Head F, (Supplies and Services), which is being increased by R319,200. That is a great deal of money. Last year we had an exceptional year; it was a year of uprisings and trouble. Huge numbers of people were thrown into prison and naturally the expenses were high. I should like the Minister to tell me what the reason is for this increase this year. What does he expect? Does he expect a big increase in the number of prisoners this year, or is the cost per unit going up? At the moment it looks very bad. When we talk about an increase of R319.000 for services and supplies, it looks as though the Minister is expecting something to happen. Surely he is not going to give the prisoners more food this year than last year. There must be another reason therefore, and I think the hon. the Minister should tell us why this increase is expected this year. What does he expect to happen during this year of peace and love—the first year of the republic? Moreover, the Minister has stated that he is going to release certain prisoners, with the result that there will be a decrease in the prison population. He is going to reduce the numbers but the costs are going up. Is he going to provide better rations to these people in this first year of the republic or does the Government expect to have more prisoners in the gaols in spite of the release of so many prisoners, as indicated by the Minister? Let me say at once that the hon. the Minister will get every support from this side of the House in imprisoning criminals if it is necessary to throw them into gaol. I say this in all seriousness but I think the Minister should explain the reasons for this increase under this subhead.

It has come to my notice that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst the older warders. They feel that the new method by which promotion is determined excludes them altogether because promotions are now being made on academic qualifications only. They feel that in years gone by they did not have the opportunity to qualify academically, and to-day, after having had 15 or 20 years’ experience in the service, young men who have the necessary academic qualifications but perhaps not the experience are promoted over their heads. I am informed that some of these young men are promoted over their heads after only 18 months’ or two years’ service. They have had no experience of office routine or administration, and they then expect the older men to come to their rescue. I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible also to take these older men into consideration for promotion on the strength of their experience and efficiency? If that cannot be done, I want to ask that these young men, without proper office experience, should not be appointed to responsible positions over the heads of these older men in the service because it leads to friction and dissatisfaction on the part of the older men.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister some questions about the conditions of detainees during the emergency last year. I want to say at the outset that what I am about to say is no reflection whatever on the Director of Prisons. Throughout the emergency period the Director of Prisons was accessible and helpful and did everything within his power to assist when matters were brought to his attention and required remedial measures. I therefore repeat that anything I now say is no reflection on that gentleman or on his senior officials, many of whom, I am sure, were unaware of the conditions obtaining in the gaols during the emergency period. I want to say, too, that the senior officials themselves were in many cases placed in an impossible position because at a moment’s notice they found themselves faced with the necessity of accommodating thousands of political prisoners who, of course, fall into a category of prisoners not generally dealt with by the Prisons Department.

I would also like to say that I personally was permitted to visit the White detainees in the Pretoria Gaol, and the conditions that I found there were generally very favourable indeed. On the general conditions, however, I do want to make some criticisms and observations.

First of all, the places that were used to accommodate these people who were detained during the emergency were, in many cases, highly unsuitable. Some of the gaols were at least 50 years old and quite unsuitable for accommodating large numbers of prisoners. Of course, the conditions of European detainees generally, were very much better than the conditions that were to be found for the detainees who were Africans, Indians, or Coloureds. The Fort itself is, of course, an appalling old prison. Everybody has long been aware of the fact that this prison should have been razed to the ground. Not only is it in a highly unsuitable position right in the centre of Johannesburg, but it is very old and very insanitary. All of us know that there was a dangerous outbreak of typhoid last year at the Fort, and conditions certainly need rectifying in that particular prison.

Generally speaking, over-crowding was the complaint as far as the detainees were concerned, among the non-Whites. For instance, at the Newlands Prison in Johannesburg, 38 Africans were accommodated in a cell 24 ft. by 14 ft. In Boksburg there were 16 Africans in a cell 18 ft. by 14 ft. In Pretoria there were six Africans in a cell 17 ft. by 14 ft. Generally speaking, the bedding provided for the prisoners, as far as the non-Whites were concerned, was inadequate; thin sleeping mats were provided for the concrete floors. And sanitary conditions were most unsatisfactory. A bucket system was in use throughout these gaols, and the buckets in the cells were apparently alongside the drinking water containers and, in some gaols, the persons who handled the sanitary buckets also handled and served food to the prisoners. There also seemed to be no routine in these prisons for washing by prisoners handling these buckets.

African detainees in Pretoria were apparently provided with three small sanitation buckets in their cell, which were emptied three times a day. During the period from 3 p.m. to 6.30 a.m., when detainees were locked in their cells, they were unable to empty these buckets. Morning and evening meals were eaten in the cells, and since supplementary food purchases were delivered only once a week, food in open containers was in close proximity to sanitation buckets for long periods. There were also many complaints about the washing facilities that were provided in the cells, and in many cases only the lids of the water buckets were provided as washing facilities. There was no hot water and no towels were provided for the Africans in any of the prisons certainly not in the commencing stages of the emergency. African prisoners apparently had to dry themselves by jumping up and down on the concrete floors after having taken showers. At a later stage of the emergency towels were provided for these prisoners.

I want to point out that this emergency period took place during the commencement of winter and went on right through the midwinter period in the Transvaal. And incidentally, the comments I am making apply to the Transvaal gaols where these detainees were accommodated. And the Transvaal winter, as you know, Sir, is very severe indeed.

Apparently in the Pretoria Gaol, as far as African detainees were concerned, 30 persons had to use three sinks for washing at one time; two cold showers and only two water borne sewerages are available. No toilet paper was at first supplied to the non-Europeans, later it was. Clothes had to be washed in the showers because there were no facilities for the washing of clothes in the Pretoria Gaol for the non-Whites.

There were particular complaints as far as medical attention for the detainees was concerned. Despite Sections 6 (1) and (2) of the Prisons Act of 1959, and Section 93 of the Prisons Regulations, which lay down certain conditions, it appears that there was no adequate medical, dental or ophthalmic screening on admission to the prisons. Detainees complain that during the period of detention they were permitted to see the prison doctor in his office, but only in the most exceptional cases were they examined and treated and visited by the prison doctor. Non-European detainees alleged that in the Pretoria Gaol, no matter how seriously ill they were, the doctor would not visit them in their cells nor, despite frequent requests, did he examine the unhygienic conditions of their detention. Nor, unless the prisoners were admitted to the prison hospital, did they receive any special diet. Among the non-European detainees in Boksburg and Pretoria it appears there were sufferers from open tuberculosis who were not isolated from the other prisoners; there were diabetics, chronic asthma and ulcer sufferers to be found among the detainees. I personally received a pathetic letter from the wife of one of the detainees who complained that her husband was a chronic asthma sufferer, and despite repeated appeals he had been unable to obtain any medical attention in the gaol.

As far as the food was concerned, all the detainees complained about the quality of the food, the unpalatable way in which it was cooked and the manner in which it was served. Apparently the Johannesburg Fort was particularly bad. The food was served in galvanized iron containers by filthy prisoners who were given no opportunity to wash themselves. It was dished into chipped enamel bowls which afterwards had to be washed in still water as there was no running water provided for the washing of these bowls; without soap and close to the sanitation buckets. Apparently the times of the serving of meals was also a particular complaint of the detainees. Lunch was served at 11.30 a.m. on Sundays and public holidays, and supper at 2.30 p.m., after which time no food or liquid, other than mugs of water, was provided, until the following morning when breakfast was served.

Now these are uncommitted detainees. I referred to them as prisoners but I should have called them detainees all the way through because not one of the persons had been committed or even charged. And certainly, the few who ultimately were charged were never convicted. These were simply detainees who, in many cases, were under conditions very much worse than awaiting trial prisoners. The non-Europeans complained that they were not even provided, originally, with spoons with which to eat their food. Later they were. They say that until the middle of May in Pretoria the food was particularly bad, but it improved after that.

I mentioned earlier, when we were discussing the Justice Vote, the question of the Modder B Gaol at which prisoners were confined under Section 4bis of the Emergency Regulations. I mentioned that the conditions at Modder B were particularly bad. It appears that the cells were greatly over-crowded and that the prisoners slept on tiers of concrete bunks; that there were not enough blankets to go around, no warm clothes, cold showers and no towels. And, as I mentioned before, this was in a period of mid-winter. We know that during last winter while the detainees were at Modder B, 18 pneumonia deaths occurred. I want to mention that in these days of penicillin and antibiotics it is very unusual indeed to find people dying of pneumonia. Modder B is a very old mine compound which was simply converted into a prison to house the thousands of detainees who were arrested under Section 4bis of the Emergency Regulations. Apart from that, these detainees were allowed no privileges during the first four months of their detention. They were not allowed visits by relatives, they were not allowed extra food, cigarettes or any of the other privileges that were allowed the other detainees. Allegations were made that their relatives were not notified when their menfolk were picked up under these regulations and taken off to Modder B. [Time limit.]

I should just like to reply to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) referred to the question of the policy of de-centralizing penal institutions, especially in the Rand area. I can say that de-centralization has been carried out to a large extent. New buildings have been completed at Vereeniging and others are under construction at Heidelberg and Sasolburg. All short term prisoners are now housed at Modder B and provision is being made at Stoffberg, some 12 miles outside Vereeniging, for 2,000 male non-White prisoners. Sentenced prisoners of all classes are transferred from the Fort as soon as this can possibly be arranged in order to avoid over-crowding. Plans for the separation of awaiting trial prisoners in respect of the various groups will be commenced as soon as possible and it will eventually be possible to surrender the Fort for penal purposes in terms of the undertaking given to the Johannesburg Municipality. But it must be realized that a considerable time will elapse before all this can be finalized.

The hon. member also asked me certain questions about the escape of this prisoner Wanka. Because the old condemned section situated within the Central Prison was overcrowded and lacked adequate facilities for visits by relatives and legal representatives, as also for religious services, a temporary building was erected adjoining the main prison building. Even though this did not provide the same security measures, those condemned to death were transferred there, largely on humanitarian grounds. The facts about the Wanka case are the following. On 25 March this year Wanka shot and seriously wounded Warder Crous, 19 years of age who was on duty in his section. After gaining possession of the keys he made good his escape outside the institution. The alarm was sounded and Wanka was challenged by Captain Fourie whilst running past his house. Despite the fact that Captain Fourie was off duty and totally unarmed, he persisted in his pursuit when fired on at close quarters by Wanka, and ultimately overpowered and arrested him. During the course of the struggle Fourie was unfortunately shot in the shoulder. This officer deserves special mention for his bravery and devotion to duty. Emergency operations were performed on both Crous and Fourie, and I am pleased to say both are now out of danger.

Investigations were immediately instituted by the police and are still being undertaken, and a departmental inquiry was instituted. I sincerely regret to report that one White warder of 18 years of age was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, of which 18 months was suspended, for providing Wanka with a revolver and cartridges.

How does a young man like that come to be in charge of a death cell?

A second White warder of 20 has since been arrested and charged with conveying letters written by Wanka, and supplying him with ammunition. He will be tried on 19 April. Since then a Malay woman and her brother have also been arrested as alleged accomplices in the smuggling of the revolver and the ammunition. Because these cases are pending it is not considered advisable to disclose the findings of the departmental inquiry at this stage. All possible steps have been taken to prevent further escapes by prisoners awaiting execution. The employment of young warders is one of the subjects of the inquiry by this committee. The necessary assurance can be given that more senior men will be employed in future, I think that that covers the points made by the hon. members in that particular case.

In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo). (Mr. Oldfield) let me say this. He has asked me whether the remuneration or gratuities for prisoners cannot be increased. All I can say is that our rate of gratuities and remuneration compares very favourably with the rates paid overseas. We must riot forget that these prisoners are undergoing punishment and cannot be paid anything approximating the normal wages.

The hon. member also asked me about the removal of the Roeland Street Gaol. Here, too, the department has embarked upon a policy of de-centralization, as I mentioned in connection with the Witwatersrand. New buildings conforming with all modern standards have been completed at George, Worcester, Robertson, Bien Donne and at 14 outposts. New institutions are now in the planning stage for Pollsmoor and Westlake. They will serve the Wynberg and Simonstown Courts. As soon as suitable building sites are acquired separate institutions will be planned for the Bellville, Somerset West and Strand Courts. On completion of these new awaiting trial institutions, all sentenced prisoners will be transferred to outside stations. Only then will it be possible to demolish the existing Roeland Street buildings.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has put a question to me with regard to a prison at Vaalhartz. He says that there are 1,200 settlers who would use these prisoners if a gaol were erected there. But Vaalhartz is such a peaceful place that I do not know whether the hon. member’s prophecy would prove correct. I can tell him—and he knows this himself—that the Department has given particular attention to the erection of this prison. It is on the list, as he knows, and the matter is being considered. I cannot take the matter further at this stage because there are many circumstances which have to be borne in mind in connection with the erection of a prison. As I have said to the hon. member before, the question of a gaol at Vaalhartz is receiving attention.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has pleaded for a better prison building than the old one which exists in Grahamstown at the moment. At Grahamstown the difficulty is the same as at most of these places where we have these old prison buildings. There is not really a large number of criminals in these places but nevertheless the local people feel that the question of these old prison buildings should be reviewed. I am sorry to have to say this to the hon. member, but the Department informs me that Grahamstown is not one of the places that will receive immediate attention as far as a new gaol is concerned. The position may change later on perhaps, when they produce more criminals, which they would not like to do, of course. But at the present moment I think the hon. member will agree with me that in areas where there is particularly great industrial development, as in the northern Free State, the Government is being inundated with requests to provide accommodation for prisoners. We cannot keep pace with the demand.

I just want to come back for a moment to Vaalhartz. One of the difficulties in connection with a prison there is the question of water for domestic consumption. That is a difficulty which the Department still has to overcome there. How it is to be overcome, we still do not know.

May I ask a question which may save time perhaps? Can the hon. the Minister tell us something about the Roeland Street Gaol in Cape Town?

I have already explained the position. The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) has pleaded for the gaol in Germiston to be shifted. He complains that the gaol is within full view of the public because it is situated near the centre of the city. I wonder whether that is an adequate reason. I shall ask my Department to go into his request but I wonder whether that reason is an adequate one. I want to repeat what I said a little while ago by way of interjection, and that is that people are under the impression that when a prison is erected, it should be as far removed from the town as possible. But with the fine prison buildings which have been erected in recent times we find that it is not necessary for gaols to be situated far away from the towns. As far as Germiston is concerned I think the complaint that it is within full view of the public is not one which will tip the scale in favour of the erection of a new prison. I just want to tell the hon. member that this matter is receiving attention, but he must remember that if the prison is shifted, the police morgue will also have to be shifted.

Does the Minister not think, since this prison is being used mainly for Natives and there is such a small percentage of Whites there, that I am entitled to ask for this? Secondly, since there are hospital facilities there, I should like to hear whether the police morgue cannot be situated at the hospital.

The hon. member must appreciate that my Department is being inundated with requests from people who say that the local prison building is old and that it ought to be changed. It is perfectly natural for such requests to be put forward, but we shall have to exercise patience. The hon. member says that this prison should be erected elsewhere; practically every other town says the same thing. The hon. member says that his town is the fifth largest city in the Union. I can quite understand that they want this, but I do not know where the money is to come from to erect these buildings for which the various towns are asking. However, I shall give my attention to this matter. A few years ago I saw an advertisement which said that within a few years people would no longer say that Germiston is close to Johannesburg but that Johannesburg is close to Germiston. When that time comes the hon. member will probably get his gaol.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) for his friendly words. It is a great encouragement to me and my Department. As far as prisons for women are concerned, I can re-assure the hon. member that the Department has adequate modern prisons for women and that rehabilitative training is also being provided there—at George and Nylstroom for example. I agree that the Klerksdorp prison does not comply with modern requirements, and as soon as the necessary site can be acquired, the question of the erection of a gaol there will be favourably considered.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has raised a few points, the most important of which is that executions should be expedited. My reply is this. I agree. I wish we could expedite capital cases and arrange for executions to take place sooner. It is not human to allow people to sit and wait, frequently for months, for the death penalty to be put into effect. But there are a great many practical difficulties. One of the difficulties which the public often does not bear in mind when they hear of a great delay, is that the condemned person has appealed to the Appellate Division and that his case has to be placed on the roll and heard. The hon. member will realize that this is a matter of considerable difficulty, although not in every case. I shall again ask my Department to see whether it cannot be expedited in some way. Once the case comes to my Department, there is no delay really. But I shall give my attention to this matter because I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member.

Then I come to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux). I did not follow the hon. member very clearly. He wants us to shift these fine prisons that we have built in the Western Province to sites away from the road.

Those to be built in the future.

This suggestion can be conveyed to the Department but the hon. member knows what the position is in the Western Province in certain centres. These are the places where the local people congregate to take part in sport and to have a game on the tennis court. They become a sort of community centre and I do not know whether that is such a bad thing. If the hon. member’s request were acceded to, it would mean that in the future we would have to build these prisons far away from the roads, and this two-fold object would then not be achieved. Quite a number of officials have to live there; they have their houses there and they have sports facilities there. What happens to-day in that members of the local public come along and take part in sport there. It might not be such a good idea therefore to hide these places by shifting them away from the road. As a matter of fact, the prison buildings at Bien Donne and these other places are so attractive that one is reluctant to hide them. We prefer to let the outside world see how well South Africa treats her prisoners.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has put a question to me in connection with the position at Porterville, where the police apparently have to transfer their prisoners to Paarl, where they are then hired by the local farmers. He would prefer to see such a prison in the neighbourhood of Porterville. But just a short distance from Poterville, as the hon. member knows, there is a farm gaol at Riebeeck. I do not know whether it will be possible—it will have to be investigated—to build an additional gaol at Porterville also because these two places are in such close proximity. The hon. member said by way of interjection that there were no criminals in the Moorreesburg constituency— not as many as in Sea Point. I want to put a question mark behind the comparison made by the hon. member between my constituency and his. He wants to know what the reason is for the increase under sub-head 11 of my Vote. I should like to give him the information. This increase is accounted for by the increased price of commodities, the cost of improved medical services, clothing, equipment and machinery for the rehabilitation centres. It has nothing to do with the conclusions drawn by the hon. member in connection with his own constituency.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) has also raised the question of younger persons who are promoted over the heads of older warders. Let me say that this is a matter which must be viewed, of course, in the light of what is happening in other departments. It is true that the older warders are unable to pass the prescribed examinations. The younger ones pass the examinations and they are then promoted. I have asked my Department to give serious consideration to the question as to whether a percentage of the older warders who have discharged their duties satisfactorily and who do not find it easy to pass the examinations, cannot be promoted every year in spite of not having passed the examination.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has asked a number of questions and make certain observations with regard to the position in the gaols. She mentioned the Fort as an example and said that the treatment there was so bad. She referred particularly to the people who were detained there under the emergency regulations. Well, we must remember that no gaol in the world is a first-class hotel. I want to read out to the hon. member a statement with regard to investigations which were instituted in connection with some of these prisons and the improvements effected there; perhaps it will interest her—

Is not the difficulty today that a large number of people had to be detained during the emergency regulations, for whom they were not able to make adequate provision?

That may be so, but these improvements will of course help to accommodate more of them—

I think that is the reply to the hon. member for Houghton who created the impression that conditions were very bad.

I would like to ask the Minister when the inspections took place by the Medical Association and the other bodies.

At the end of last year and the beginning of this year.

May I point out that I referred to conditions during the emergency last year.

The conditions were inspected at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. That was after that period. It may be that the hon. member found conditions worse at that time. I do not know. But I am glad to be able to inform the House about the conditions prevailing there at present.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23—“ Police ”, R38,396,000,

It is a great pleasure for me to express appreciation on behalf of this side of the House of the way in which the South African Police have performed their duties under very difficult circumstances during the past year. In the nature of things we have a number of young men in the Police Force to-day whose qualifications are fairly low and whose training was of short duration and it is only to be expected that many of those young men will overstep the mark in certain cases. They are not adults; in many cases they are still mere children. One can understand that there are also black sheep among the police and I do not think one need be unduly worried about it. These persons are properly punished, departmentally and in the circumstances the public is quite satisfied. We must not take too much notice of it therefore.

As I have said before, we can be very proud of the way in which the police act under these difficult conditions in this multiracial country, where they are sometimes in very great danger and provoked. We can be glad that more serious incidents do not occur. But having said that, it does not mean that we have no criticism of the police.

I want to refer to the great reorganization which took place last year. I am not in a position to criticize that reorganization because I am not a policeman, but I cannot help thinking of all the reorganization which the hon. the Minister did in his previous Department. Hardly a year passed without his having organized and reorganized, and he always said that this reorganization was aimed at bringing about greater efficiency, greater striking power and greater mobility. I must say in all honesty that much of this reorganization that took place was like the reorganization that we saw a little while ago in the Broadcasting Corporation … [Interjections.] Much of the reorganization in his previous Department was of such a nature that good men were kicked out of their posts and posts were created for others, and that is something that we cannot tolerate in the police to-day. We are living in difficult and dangerous times and we must make sure that our police organization is of the best quality so that the police will be able to cope with every situation. I hope the hon. the Minister learned his lesson with all the fruitless reorganization in his previous Department and that his reorganization of the police is more efficient.

Then I should like to say a few words about the hon. the Minister’s private secretary as a major in the Police Force. I am the last person who would want to harm or prejudice the hon. the Minister’s private secretary, neither do I wish to cast any reflection on his capabilities, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes what such an appointment means to other police officers.

Surely this is no new phenomenon.

I shall come to that. A person who has reached the rank of major in the Police Force has had years of service and he is fully acquainted with police duties. I think every person who has reached the rank of major in the police is jealous of that rank. Here we find that the hon. the Minister appoints his private secretary as a major in the Police Force, and he says that the reason for that appointment is that this person is very capable, which we do not doubt; that he had attained senior rank in the Public Service, and that the hon. the Minister could not hold him back by retaining him as his private secretary. We fully agree with that, but is it not a waste of manpower to keep such a senior man in that post? Are there no younger men in the Public Service who can fill that post and thus release this capable senior man for the Public Service? It does not seem to me that it is necessary to have such a senior and capable official occupying the post of private secretary.

The hon. the Minister says that this is not the first time that this has happened, and in reply to a question some time ago he mentioned the name of Major-General de Villiers, who was appointed in General Hertzog’s days. That is quite correct, but we must remember that at that time General Hertzog decided that new blood should be introduced into the Police Force, and whom did he appoint? He appointed a person who had rendered excellent service as a soldier in the war and a person of outstanding personality as well as a lawyer. There is no doubt that this person made a great success of his post as Commissioner. I do not think it is quite fair, therefore, to compare that appointment with that of the hon. the Minister’s private secretary.

Then the hon. the Minister also referred to previous appointments and mentioned the names of Messrs. Kelly-Patterson, Murdock, Lovemore and Meintjies. Well, we all know that at that time the public was becoming perturbed about the large number of motor-car accidents, and there were not many people with the necessary technical background to investigate these cases, and it was for that reason that these men were appointed. They were all people with military experience and with a technical background. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can rely on those appointments to justify this particular appointment.

Will you tell us what the private secretary’s rank was previously?

I do not know what his rank was.

It is set out in the reply to the question which you have before you. Would it not be fair to disclose that to the Committee?

I have already said that I believe there are many other capable young men in the Public Service who can hold down this position and that it should not be occupied by such a senior person. [Interjections.] I did not say that this man was not capable.

But there is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the promotion of officers in the Police Force. In reply to a question some time ago the hon. the Minister stated that since June 1960 30 majors had been promoted to the rank of commandant. He went on to say that these 30 had superseded 35 other majors. I cannot imagine that there are 35 majors in the Police Force who deserve to be treated in this fashion. Does the hon. the Minister realize that in promoting these 30 majors he made 35 majors in the force dissatisfied? Can the police afford to make those men, who all occupy very responsible posts, dissatisfied?

Is that unknown in the history of the police?

By way of excuse the hon. the Minister tells us that of the 35 who were superseded, 15 were promoted to Lieutenant just after the war without having written the promotion examination. [Time limit.]

I should like to pay a tribute to our Police Force for the excellent work that they have done particularly in the past year under very difficult circumstances. I would like this evening to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister as well as to the notice of this House.

I want to confine myself to the East Rand and say that the police there are performing a duty which would seem to be almost impossible to the man in the street who is acquainted with the circumstances. I can assure you that the public of the East Rand very greatly appreciate what the police are doing there. But we continually receive complaints, particularly from the Chambers of Commerce, that there is insufficient police protection, particularly against the ever-increasing number of armed robberies which are taking place even in broad daylight on the Witwatersrand, as well as against the type of burglary which is known as “ smash and grab ”. I made careful inquiries on the East Rand and I discovered that it was practically impossible for the Police Force, with the men at their disposal, to cover the whole of the area. However, I want to express my appreciation to the present Minister and those responsible for the administration of the Police Force of the improved conditions which have been created as far as pay and other privileges are concerned. But I want to point out with all due respect that while there has been enormous industrial progress on the East Rand since the last world war, the Police Department has not been able to keep pace with that development as far as police stations and personnel are concerned. During this period huge Native townships have come into existence on the East Rand. I have in mind one on the East Rand, for example, which serves Springs, Brakpan and other towns, namely Kwatema which houses approximately 90,000 to 100,000 Natives. I also have in mind Daveyton, the model Native township in South Africa, which houses thousands upon thousands of Natives. Mr. Chairman, this unparalled progress in the industrial sphere, this huge influx of Natives into those Native townships, has increased the work of the police, and we find to-day that there are some police stations which are understaffed to the extent of 20, 30 and sometimes even more men. They cannot cope with all the work. The police on the East Rand are working themselves almost to a standstill. Although a great deal has been done for the police—I and all those who are interested in them appreciate this—there are two factors which have greatly disturbed me lately. The first is that we continually see advertisements in the newspapers, in which the Rhodesias ask for young men to serve as policemen and in which they offer very attractive rates of pay. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the recruiting which is taking place to-day by the Rhodesias. I am wondering whether they are not going to make the rates of pay that they offer so attractive that we are going to have an even greater shortage of staff in our Police Force. The last point that I want to raise and that I find very disturbing, as someone who has something to do with the administration of justice, is the fact that on the Witwatersrand one finds an unduly large number of names of policemen in the monthly list of civil judgments, which is available to lawyers and business men. I made inquiries and found that policemen on the Witwatersrand who are married and who have a few children are struggling to-day to keep body and soul together. These are not people who are living royally; they are not people who are spending money unnecessarily, but I respectfully submit that with the abnormally high cost of living, which is constantly rising, the police on the Witwatersrand are practically unable to make ends meet on their salaries. I want to plead in particular for the police in the urban areas like the Witwatersrand and the big cities where the cost of living is almost abnormally high. Consideration should be given in the near future to the question as to whether further assistance cannot be given to those people. In the first place it is not a good thing for the policeman and his family that he has to appear almost regularly in a civil court; this sort of thing does not command the respect of people like traders and other businessmen whose properties he has to protect. Mr. Chairman, I do not raise this matter by way of criticism. I have gone into it personally; I have spoken to officers in charge and in most cases they have told me that the policemen who are in financial difficulties are people who are well known to them, but it is simply impossible for those men, humanly speaking, with the food and the clothing that they have to buy for their families, to stay out of the civil court. Their names appear in Dunn’s Gazette and in the list of civil judgments. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and those who are in control of the police very much for what has already been done to improve their position and to make it possible for them to be able to live better, but I say that they are discharging such an important task in South Africa to-day and they are of such vital importance to us as ordinary citizens, that we cannot simply sit back and say that a great deal has already been done for them and that we can leave it at that.

When my time expired I was referring to the 35 majors over whose heads other people were promoted. I do not know whether the Minister realizes what a serious matter it is to pass over such senior and efficient officers. I cannot believe that there are 35 majors in the police who deserve that. I wonder whether it is not another case such as we have previously had in the Defence Force, where another Minister in future will have to remedy this matter. The Minister gave the excuse that 15 of these 35 majors who were passed over were men who were given commissioned rank and promoted to lieutenants just after the last war. I am sure they are men who rendered good service, but why should they now be penalized 15 years later? Surely that is not right. Is this not just a method by which the Minister wants to squeeze out the Smuts men? [Interjection.] This same Minister who now objects to the fact that at that time 15 men were given commissioned rank without passing examinations is the same man who promoted men in the Defence Force who passed no examinations, and now after 15 years these men are to be penalized. That seems quite wrong to me.

I want to come back to the announcement we saw in the Press a little while ago to the effect that recruits who join the Police Force in future must have a higher standard of education and that their period of training will be longer. I think that is a move in the right direction and an improvement. I think it will result in us getting a better class of recruit than in the past, and that consequently we will have less difficulty in connection with the younger police officials. The fact that the training is extended will also have sound results.

This is one good bit of reorganization?

I am very glad to be able to say that it is a good improvement. It is what we all looked forward to. We want to give credit where credit is due.

We always do that.

I have already said that the police have a very difficult task to perform and I would like to associate myself with what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), and also express my appreciation for the appointment of the new Commissioner. That is another feather in the cap of the Minister. As far as we can see, that Commissioner is bringing about big improvements in the Police Force, and it seems as if he will acquit himself of his task very well. We just hope that the Minister will leave him alone so that he will do his work on his own, and then we will be able to expect good results.

With reference to what has just been said by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) when he referred to the officers who were passed over and eliminated because they were Smuts men, I just want to know from him what sort of man he is,—a Smuts man or a Graaff de Villiers man, and whether those men are still Smuts men or whether they are Graaff de Villiers men. It is very interesting to learn that the hon. the Minister is still passing over Smuts men instead of men who are followers of the new leader of the party. However, I just mention that in passing. The hon. member should tell us whether he is still a Smuts man or a de Villiers Graaff man.

With reference to the reply given by the Minister yesterday to a question which was put to him in regard to the better protection of the borders of Basutoland against stock theft, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to another border. The Minister said that the possible extension of police stations along the relevant borders would be investigated. The long border between my constituency and the Bechuanaland Protectorate also requires close attention. That border stretches from Ramatlabama in the west to the constituency of Waterberg, right to the Matlabas River, almost 200 miles further north. I would like to know from the Minister to what extent he has already devoted attention to the better protection of that important border. There it is not merely a question of stock theft, but also a matter of cattle which are continually crossing and recrossing the border, constituting the threat of spreading foot and mouth disease. We know that the borders are guarded when control measures are applied during an outbreak of this disease. However, that is not enough. An increase in the number of police posts along this border would greatly reduce this threat. Thirdly, we also know how undesirable persons can enter the Union from the Protectorates by crossing this border. We also know that undesirable persons who get into trouble in the Union flee across the borders of Bechuanaland and then find their way to Europe, where they get into the limelight and are regarded as great heroes and then they attack the Union from there. We have had the case of Segal, Reeves, Tambo and others. Better control of that border will therefore have threefold importance, viz. better control of stock theft, better control of foot and mouth disease and better control in order to stop these undesirable persons who slip across the border. I realize that it is practically impossible to guard this border thoroughly because it is bushy and very difficult terrain, but in view of the fact that the enemy is watching us from the north and that the hopes of subversive organizations in the Union are directed towards receiving assistance from the north, it is our duty to guard these borders more vigilantly.

I also want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for North-East Rand in his first speech to-night. I am sorry he is not here now. He said that he had the greatest respect for the Police Force and that they were doing their duty very well. Now I just want to know from him and from hon. members opposite how they reconcile that with what was said by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) yesterday, when he said, inter alia, as it appeared in the Burger …

Order! The hon. member may not refer to a newspaper report of a speech made during this Session.

Then I shall refer to what he said without quoting the newspaper report. The hon. member for Sea Point said that the police under Col. Terblanche had arrested Kgosana under false pretences. That was a direct accusation against Col. Terblanche, and he considered it to be so serious that he compared it with the incident when Dingaan lured people into a trap under false pretences and murdered them. [Interjections.] The rules prohibit me from quoting his words from the newspaper, but you can refer to Hansard and you will see that he referred to Col. Terblanche and used those very words. He also quoted from the Huisgenoot, from a description given by Col. Terblanche. He directly accused Col. Terblanche and also said that he hoped that the Minister was not a party to that action. It is a direct accusation against the police officials in charge. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) made the same accusation against the Minister, so much so that it is painful to have to listen to the details the Minister had to give to explain that the police had already looked for Kgosana that morning, and that he, as the Minister, had given no instructions, but that he would find out who had given the instructions. How can the hon. member for North-East Rand now tell us that they have confidence in the police? The police have to show the country that we can have confidence in them in such crises as we had on 30 March last year. If doubt is cast on that, it proves that there is no confidence in them. And if veiled attacks are made on the Minister and on high-ranking officers, it proves that there is no confidence in them because a police officer must prove on a day such as that that he can act tactfully and that he is worth his salt.

In so far as I am concerned, Sir, I believe that no questions should be put in regard to how and why and when and the manner in which a person was arrested. When we received a caning at school as children, we dared not complain to our father. He simply did not listen to us. My father said that the teacher had enough intelligence to know why he punished us. I think in that attitude adopted by my father towards us as children lies a lesson to be learnt by the Opposition in regard to the higher officers of the Police Force. We must have confidence and not ask in this House: Why was Kghosana arrested at that very moment and under those circumstances, and we should definitely not compare it with the treachery of Dingaan towards the Voortrekkers. It is a serious insult to the police, who on that day really handled that mass of people tactfully. The fact that they arrested Kgosana that day perhaps obviated further trouble. If they had not done so he would have gone back to Langa and we could have expected further developments. He could have made himself scarce and he could have given further orders from a distance. His motives were serious and he was arrested at the right moment. [Time limit.]

The last speaker has once again referred to the Kgosana case and the allegations made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). The case made by the hon. member for Sea Point was simply this that on this particular day when about 20,000 Bantu had come to Cape Town led by Kgosana when there was a state of crisis in the town, the head of the Security Branch was in a quandary as to what he had to do. He himself said in the article which he wrote in the Huisgenoot that he had gone on his knees and prayed for guidance. That proves how dangerous the position was. Somebody then told him that there was a young Bantu, Kgosana, whom he thought would be able to control the crowds. Colonel Terblanche then sent for Kgosana. He came in and was asked what he wanted. His reply was that he wanted to see the Minister. Colonel Terblanche told him that he could not see the Minister with 20,000 people and asked him what he wanted to see the Minister about. According to the Minister and according to Colonel Terblanche he wanted the release of certain prisoners who had been gaoled. Colonel Terblanche then said: All right you take your people home and I will see if I can arrange a meeting. You come back at 5 o’clock with three or four people and I will see what I can do. Kgosana then took his people home. When Kgosana returned that afternoon at 5 o’clock he was told that he could not see the Minister, and the Minister has told us why, but apparently he saw the Secretary for Justice. According to the Minister he told the Secretary the same story as to why he wanted to see the Minister. He was then arrested.

[Inaudible.]

He was arrested that afternoon when he came to see Colonel Terblanche.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that! The whole point is this. The Minister excused the arrest, if I understood him correctly, by saying that he (Kgosana) was never promised that he could see the Minister. All the police officer said was that he would try to arrange a meeting. The point simply is this that he was asked to take the 20,000 people home—you can call them a bodyguard—and he took them home. He was told to come back. The Minister says that the police were in any case looking for him in order to arrest him but that they did not know where to find him. They wanted to arrest him on some charge or other. What we complain about is this, that the police should either have arrested him straight away, if they wanted to arrest him as the Minister said they wanted to, or waited for an appropriate occasion. When they did find him they should have arrested him straight away.

They had been looking for him that morning.

The Minister said that they did not arrest him because they could not find him.

They could have arrested him that day.

That would have been a dangerous thing to do, Sir, and very wisely they did not arrest him. But then they should not have got him to come in without his supporters, thinking that he was going to see the Minister or some other official, and then arrested him. That is the gravamen of the charge against the Minister as to what happened on that day. They arrested this man when he came to Cape Town without his followers, thinking he was coming on a peaceful mission. Had they wanted to arrest him they could have gone out and arrested him where he was. But they should not have used that occasion to arrest him. The Minister says he was not responsible. The Minister says he did not order the arrest. I accept that, but somebody else did. Then it must be a senior police officer, nobody else could have done it. We want to know who ordered the arrest. The hon. member for Sea Point quite rightly contended that it was a breach of faith to do a thing like that, to arrest a man when he had come to Cape Town in the hope that he would see some high official to air his grievances and to ask for the release of those people in gaol. I do not accept the excuse which the Minister has given, namely that they wanted to arrest him in any event. They would not have dared to arrest him when he was there with all those people, that crowd of 20,000. Quite rightly so, had they done so they would have been looking for trouble. But then they should not have got him to come back in the hope that he would see the Minister. That was what the hon. member for Sea Point complained about, not that the Minister did not see him on a promise to see him. The Minister said no promise was given to see him. Colonel Terblanche also says that no promise was given. We do not know what Kgosana says; he is not here at the moment. The accusation at the time was that he had understood that he was going to see the Minister.

As far as South Africa is concerned Kgosana’s case is sub judice.

I accept that, and I have said that I accept the facts as set out by the hon. the Minister. But even accepting those facts it was a blunder to arrest that man under those circumstances, and none of the interjections from that side of the House have helped the case at all. Not one hon. member opposite has justified the arrest under those particular circumstances. We must realize what damage has been done to race relations. [Interjections.] It is no good shouting. Damage has been done. Kgosana and the other Bantu leaders have told their people that they cannot accept the word of the White man. They come to parley and they are arrested. That was the complaint of the hon. member for Sea Point that damage had been done in this particular instance. As much as members opposite may shout and as much as they may interject they cannot get away from the fact that damage has been done. There is a distrust now on the part of the Bantu of the White man, and unfortunately senior police officers are involved in it. The Bantu must at all costs be kept on friendly terms with the police force.

At all costs?

Don’t you agree? Surely, Sir, the Government and the police must do all they can to see that they are kept on friendly terms with the Bantu. Actions of this type will not create confidence amongst the Bantu in the White man; certainly not. [Time limit.]

With reference to what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has just said, I want to ask him how he suggests Kgosana should be arrested? Should he, according to the hon. member, be notified in some way that the police want to arrest him, thereby giving him a chance to escape? Should he have been given more time in which to do what he has now done, namely, to flee the country and go overseas? If Kgosana had committed no crime there would have been no reason for him to flee the country and go overseas. I just want to state that the Minister has effectively replied in regard to the Kgosana case, and it is quite clear that the Opposition does not want to accept his explanation. Therefore I do not see the necessity for clarifying the position, any further. I will leave the matter there.

With reference to the example given this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), I want to say that it is also my duty, in the same way in which he protected the language closest to his heart, to protect the language closest to mine, hence the fact that I want to come back to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). This hon. member referred to how the senior members of the Police Force should set an example to the younger members. It is therefore quite clear to me why that hon. member feels so uneasy as far as the hon. the Minister and the Department of Defence are concerned, because when he was a junior officer in the army instead of setting an example to the younger men, he did just the opposite.

Sneering and reproachful reference was made to the reorganization with which the Minister is busy in this Department and the greater efficiency which would result from it. I want to prove that the necessary measures have been adopted by the hon. the Minister and that there is indeed greater efficiency at present than there was in the Police Force before under the United Party Government. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1948, there was 1.73 policemen for every 1,000 inhabitants of the country, and on the other hand there were 92 convictions per 1,000 inhabitants. At the moment, according to the 1959 report, it is 1.74, only .01 more police per 1,000 inhabitants and there are 118 prosecutions per 1,000 inhabitants—an increase of 26 convictions per 1,000. That is ample proof that the South African Police Force has been more effectively used in the interest of South Africa, and its people and that can only be done by way of better methods and reorganization of the Department, as envisaged by the Minister.

The hon. member also referred to the appointment of Maj. Barnard, the private secretary of the hon. the Minister. He mentioned the four persons who in the early days were transferred to the police and insinuated that that was done because at that time there were not men in the Police Force capable of performing that particular duty. I want to say, with respect, that the hon. member’s information is not accurate. It was for other reasons because there are still some of those persons who serve in the Police Force to-day, by performing ordinary police duties and not in regard to accidents as alleged by the hon. member. Now he talks about Smuts men, to wit, 30 majors who were overlooked in the recent promotions. He knows as well as any hon. member of this hon. House does that members of the Police Force in those ranks are mainly promoted on merit, and nobody in this House or in the country would like to see a weak member of the force being promoted solely on seniority whilst somebody who is better equipped than him is not promoted. We must respect the merit system and it must be carefully extended further and in this more effective organization of the Minister which we welcome, the best brains must be utilized for the benefit of the force and in the interest of South Africa.

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