I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of promotions which have recently been taking place in the Police Force and the adjustments in pay also announced recently. I would like, in the first place, to come back to a question which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), viz. the promotion of certain officers and the supersession of certain other officers, and I should like to refer to a reply given by the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for North-East Rand to a question on 17 March. The question was—

The Minister’s answer to that was that 30 had been promoted, that five of them have served with the Union Defence Force. He replied, further, that 35 officers with the rank of major were superseded, and that, of the 35, 15 hadserved in World War II. The hon. the Minister then added the following information gratuitously—

It is obvious that the promotion of those persons was a result of their experience and service in the army during the war, and it is also obvious that their appointment to commissioned rank which they had obtained had been justified for, having originally been appointed as lieutenants, they had been advanced to the rank of major since their original appointment.

The hon. the Minister, I submit, by that reply makes it quite clear that the reason that was taken into account in the fact that these officers were superseded, was the fact that they had been appointed lieutenants in 1946, having served in the war. The hon. the Minister must be frank with this House. If he had said that others had been promoted over their heads, that they had been superseded on merits, it would have been a different matter. But the hon. the Minister makes clear what the reason was for these officers being superseded, for he gives only one reason. I submit that that reason is not a justifiable reason. I do put it to the hon. the Minister that it is about time that we forget things to which we objected that happened in the war some 15 years ago. I do not think he did any service by dragging this matter into the question of these appointments.

I am only quoting a precedent.

That may be so, but it is about time that persons should not be prejudiced by their war service. I submit that the hon. the Minister in his reply made it clear that the reason they were prejudiced was not a matter of merit, but because of something which had happened some 16 years ago. Clearly these persons had been efficient, because they had been advanced from the rank of lieutenant to that of major.

That is not correct. It is on merit. I will reply to that.

I am attacking the Minister on the basis of his own reply to this hon. House. He is now thinking up other reasons, but he himself introduced this latter portion which I quoted, that they had been appointed lieutenants in 1945. That was not a direct answer to the question put by the hon. member; it was something which was dragged in quite gratuitously by the hon. the Minister.

It is very usual to quote precedents.

I now want to deal with other questions arising out of this. There have been a large number of promotions, and I assume, for the sake of argument, the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that those have all been on the basis of merit, and I have no information to the contrary. But I do wish to deal with one particular question, and that is in relation to sergeants. I would like to submit to the hon. the Minister that injustice appears to have been done, particularly to the 1st class sergeants. The position is that a number of these have been promoted to head-constable. It would appear that something over 350 of, them have been advanced to the rank of head-constable. But, of course, the hon. the Minister has done away with the rank of 2nd class sergeant. The difference, as I understand it, between a 1st class sergeant and a 2nd class sergeant was that a person could only become a 1st class sergeant after having passed two examinations. 2nd class sergeants who have been promoted—or at least some of them—have not passed those examinations. The result of this is that, in spite of the upgrading of pay in the Police Force, the 1st class sergeants who have not been promoted are, I understand, in the position that their increase in pay is a mere pittance—an amount of 8s. 10d. per month. At the same time they have had brought up to their rank persons who have not the same qualification.

There is a very clear onus on the hon. the Minister to justify that step to this House. I do submit that where there has been a general upgrading of pay, it seems utterly wrong that a particular class, namely, 1st class sergeants, has been discriminated against, as appears to be the position. The hon. the Minister will also know that a number of constables have been advanced from the rank of constable directly to that of 1st class sergeant. I should like to know what the policy of the hon. the Minister is; whether he is still going to require the examinations which were customary before a person was promoted to 1st class sergeant? On the face of it, it appears that an injustice has been done, and it appears to be an injustice which requires remedying. The position now is that persons who were 2nd class sergeants have been advanced very substantially, but many 1st class sergeants have not been advanced at all and have had only a minute increase in pay. That seems to be quite unjustified. There is apparently a difference of only some £60 between the pay for a sergeant and the pay of a head-constable. I do think that there is a case for the consideration of the advancement of all of those 1st class sergeants who were worthy of promotion to the rank of head-constable. It would make very little difference to the cost of establishment, and it would eliminate a grievance which, on the fact of it, appears to be very well justified.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to be quite frank with this House in regard to these promotions, because it is absolutely essential that we should have a satisfied Police Force. I would go further. I will tell the hon. the Minister—and I think he knows this himself—that a number of his recent promotions have caused a great deal of heartburning in the Police Force. At a time when this force is carrying a tremendously heavy responsibility, it is absolutely essential, not only that the force should be efficient, but also that there should be no justified grievances left behind. But on the face of the facts, as I know them, it appears that there are many. I believe that in the case of some majors at least and others who have been superseded, they have a real justified grievance. And certainly in regard to the 1st class sergeants, I can see no justification for the basis on which the hon. the Minister has dealt with those persons who were in that group and who have not had promotion.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my great appreciation of the excellent services rendered to the country by the South African Police. We all know that they are our first line of defence. We know that if trouble arises, or there are riots, they are on the spot, and then it is usually they who suffer the greatest loss of life, before further reinforcements arrive, because they are the men who are on the spot when trouble arises. To-day we have 12,516 White policemen and 13,789 non-Whites. But in expressing my appreciation for the work of our White police, as other hon. members have also done, I also want to express a special word of thanks and appreciation towards our non-White police. We who know the Bantu, and know that they still believe in magic and witchcraft and are still superstitious, do not always realize what it means to those Bantu constables to render these important services. They are continually suspected by their own people, and therefore I want to extend a special word of appreciation to them for what they do.

I also want to thank the Minister and the Commissioner of Police for the new arrangements and the new procedure now being followed when medals are given to the police for good service. In the past these medal parades were always held jointly at the police stations. A few years ago I was invited by the Captain of Police to attend a medal parade for Bantu constables which took place in the location at Bethlehem at the Municipal Offices. I thought it was a very good arrangement not to hold those parades jointly, because in the first place it distracts attention from the Bantu constables who deserve that honour, in view of the fact that attention is directed to the White constables—something which they of course deserve. But when these parades are held separately everyone individually gets the honour due to him. On that occasion the Colonel, the Chief of the Police in the Free State, could not be present. The Major in charge of the Bethlehem area was present, and then the Captain asked me whether I would issue the medals. Do you know, Sir, that I felt most affected when I learnt that I had to award a Native constable the Queen’s Medal for bravery. Do you know what the brave deed was which he had committed? He had pursued an escaping criminal. This escapee came to the Wilgerrivier which was in full flood and jumped into the water. After he had swum about 15 yards he was on the point of drowning. Then this Bantu constable jumped in and risked his life to save the life of this criminal. I really found that to be a very touching incident. The Queen then awarded him the highest honour any police official in South Africa can receive. He received the Queen’s Medal for bravery. This medal is equivalent to the V.C., which is the highest medal a soldier can earn in war-time. Now this medal is going to disappear, and therefore I want to make an appeal to the Minister this morning that instead of that medal, which is the highest award for bravery —there is also a second medal for distinguished service; there are two Queen’s Medals —to put some other medal in the place of this one which will now automatically disappear because we are now no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I want to suggest that the State should issue a President’s medal to these police.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the public always realizes to what extent the police risk their lives almost every day to protect us. I do not think that we as citizens of South Africa sufficiently appreciate the police, nor do we appreciate the non-White police enough. We farmers are in the habit—I do not know what the city-dwellers do—that when the police officer goes on patrol, usually accompanied by a non-White constable, when the peaches are ripe the White police officer is given a box of peaches, and it is also our custom to give the Bantu constable his box of peaches too. I want to make a special appeal to the city-dwellers to-day. I know that they no longer have that traditional hospitality which we farmers still have, but I just want to tell them that when a police official, White or non-White, comes to their homes they should invite him in and give him a cup of tea. He will appreciate it. I do not know whether the people in the cities do that, but on the farms we do it. I feel that we should show more appreciation for these people who render these important services.

May I say from this side of the House that we appreciate very much what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has just said. I like the way in which he put his plea in regard to police medals. I liked his approach, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will meet him with regard to this. It is a pity that we should have reached a stage where we will have to alter our medals, if that is to be done. But I agree with the hon. member that it is necessary to have these medals, and I particularly liked his references to the non-European members of the force. As regards the friendliness between the police and members of the public in the towns, I can tell the hon. member that he is on good grounds there too. Obviously if the police can become known and friendly with the population it will be a good thing. I can also tell the hon. member that I do know that in a great many houses in the cities, when the police call they are received in a friendly way and are given a cup of tea or whatever is on the go when they happen to be there. So the hon. member is quite correct when he says this good country tradition should also be followed in the towns.

Mr. Chairman, I rose in order to say a word about one aspect of the reorganization plans that the hon. the Minister announced during the recess. I refer to the question of street patrols. In his announcement the hon. the Minister said that more police were going to be released for street patrols. I hope that this will apply particularly to the suburban areas around the cities. The crime situation, particularly in regard to housebreaking, and even robberies, appears to be worsening in many of our suburban areas. In my own constituency particularly, there is mounting concern over this situation. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) who unfortunately cannot be here to-day has asked me to say that in the northern suburbs of Durban which he represents, there is also grave concern over this problem. The hon. member tells me that in one township there is a street in which every single house has been burgled in the last six months, some of them more than once. In my own constituency, particularly in the Greenside area, not only is there a great deal of housebreaking, but particularly bad is the constant raiding of the shopping centres. There are three shopping centres and the raiding became so bad that in one particular centre further burglary insurance was refused to many of the shopkeepers whose premises had been entered three, four or five times. There is no doubt about it, the only effective way to meet this situation so far as police action is concerned, is by means of the foot patrol. There is a growing demand all over the country from people who are interested in this subject for more and more intensive foot patrols. Policing an area by means of flying squads does not meet the situation. The only way to do it is to have foot patrols.

The hon. the Minister has told us—and it was a very welcome announcement—that he means to experiment with men and dogs. I hope that means that more men are going to be put on foot patrols. We welcome these experiments so far as the dogs are concerned, and we will watch them with great interest. But what is needed is very much more intensive foot patrols.

In regard to the Greenside area, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give consideration to the establishment of a local police station. There is great need for one there. The Government has a site, and this particular area which has been very extensively burgled in the past is very far from any police station. There is one at Parkview, but one is badly needed in the Greenside area which grew up very rapidly and has become densely settled over the past ten years. I ask the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to place a police station there.

I now want to come back to the question which I raised yesterday. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not a bit impressed with his show of indignation when replying to me yesterday in regard to the very legitimate question which I put to him. The request I made to the hon. the Minister was that he should give more personal attention to the activities of the Special Branch. The Special Branch is obviously a necessary branch of the Police Force for certain purposes, but it must not be allowed to get out of hand. It must not be allowed to harry people who should not be harried. And that is happening and the hon. the Minister cannot deny it. The Minister said I had not given him examples, but I gave him six examples in relation to the Press. And on previous occasions in this House I have given examples.

Those are prosecutions, are they not, the three you mentioned?

Cases are not brought to the court unless the Special Branch has acted previously. And it is a curious thing when a certain type of case which has not been previously thought worthwhile tackling is now suddenly brought before the courts. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to protest or to shelter behind the Attorney-General or the magistrate and say that only they can prosecute. What I object to even more than the cases that are now suddenly receiving attention and brought before the courts is the fact of the numerous instances where the Special Branch goes to completely innocent people and quizzes them, and so forth. I have given instances of this before. I have had many complaints made to me about this. And I am telling the hon. the Minister that this is going on and that he has to stop it. The Special Branch needs to be controlled. If they are politically minded and so on, they can take their cue and do this sort of thing. I want to quote a statement to the hon. the Minister. This was made by a Judge of the Supreme Court the other day. He said this—

So you will see, Mr. Chairman, this is causing grave concern. I have had a number of complaints brought to my attention about absolutely innocent people who are not only telephoned but visited in their houses and quizzed on activities that they know nothing about. And they have a very strong feeling that there is political bias behind the work of this branch. And all I am doing, in terms of what the hon. the Minister said yesterday, is to ask him to give attention to this matter and to make it absolutely clear to the Special Branch that he will not tolerate this kind of thing.

It is very interesting that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) now pleads for more police to go on beat. Has the hon. member forgotten that they were continually complaining year after year of the presence of the police? The police should never be seen. The presence of the police always fills them with abhorrence, and now the hon. member pleads for more police to go on beat. I do not object to his pleading for it, but I want to point out how inconsistent hon. members opposite are. I also want to tell the hon. member that most of the terrible crimes are committed in such a way that the man on foot can do nothing about it. The most effective manner of catching the modern criminal is by means of the patrol vans, which certainly is one of the most successful methods ever to have been evolved in the world. But I do not know what the poor policeman on foot can really do to stop modern methods of committing crime, housebreaking and that sort of thing. I say it is necessary, but the best method ever evolved is the use of patrol vans. If we were to ask for statistics and we saw how many criminals were arrested by the patrol vans, it would be almost unbelievable, and it would of course have been physically impossible for police on foot to have achieved such results.

But I did not really rise to speak about this. I rose to deal with what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said here yesterday in connection with Kgosana. I just want to tell the hon. member that, although he did not intend it that way, he should be careful that what he said in the House in regard to Kgosana’s arrest is not used in a different way. Although he did not intend it that way, his words will be interpreted differently overseas from the sense in which he used them—particularly in that place where Kgosana is to-day. If he takes the trouble to investigate it, he will find that that is so. We know how the newspapers carry on these days, and it will be interpreted there as if the hon. member now defends Kgosana and tries to exonerate him, although he never meant it that way. I want to appeal to hon. members to be careful when they mention the name of this glorified piccanin in this House. If the hon. member intended to say that the police should have done what he would have done and most of us would have done, viz. to take him and put his head between our legs and treat him with a cane until a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit was generated on his seat, that would have been very effective. If that is what he meant, he should have said so.

The real reason why I got up was to advocate something I have pleaded for before, namely this. The reason why I am doing so again is because I have never heard a single argument against it yet. The Minister to-day has much difficulty in regard to housing his police. No, I must put it the other way round. The police to-day have much difficulty when they are transferred from one district to another. What I cannot understand is that for the convenience of the public we can tell Mr. A that he is now being transferred from this place to that place without being responsible for ensuring that the man will get a house there when he is transferred from District I to District 10. That applies to practically all parts of South Africa. These officials must simply find their own housing. What do we find in every constituency? One policeman lives in one part of the town, and another lives in the opposite part of the town. The one has to use a bicycle and the other a motor car to get home from the police station. That is a very undesirable state of affairs. What I want to suggest is this. There should be a number of houses in every district—in every magisterial or police district—which fit in with that area. I am thinking, e.g., of my own constituency. A site has already been purchased for the magistrate’s residence; next to it that of the Commandant of Police and his second in command; and then the married staff, and then one can have the barracks for the unmarried staff. What I mean by standardized houses is this. If we then find that we have to transfer a certain official of a certain rank from one district to the other, then he can tell his wife: The furniture you take out here to-day will fit in 100 per cent in the house to which we are being transferred. It is not a question again of readapting the furniture, the curtains, etc., which always has to be done by the wife of this police official. My point is that it then makes, very little difference to the man and the only expenditure involved and the only inconvenience it causes is merely that he is transferred from one district to the other. But the standard house for that rank is the same in the district to which he is transferred. Can the Minister imagine of what great advantage this will be to him, because then he need no longer worry about the question as to whether he should transfer the man and about the inconvenience it may cause him? Then there will be the minimum of inconvenience when a man of any rank is transferred. I ask the Minister again to devote his attention to this. I know he will again ask whether we will be able to persuade the Minister of Finance. I think we can for the sake of the service of the whole and because of the injustice we are doing to-day by transferring a man from one district to another without being concerned about his domestic affairs, we shall be doing a good thing if we introduce such a system. I know that the Chief of Police does not transfer an official just for fun. He only does so when he has to. He also has to do so in the interest of the country. But if it is done in the interest of the country, the country should also pay for it. That is my point, that we should be prepared to pay for it. In addition to all the benefits the Minister and his predecessor have granted the police—their pensions and a hundred-and-one other things of which we can be very proud to-day—I think this is one more thing which can be done in order to give the police this further facility and to create satisfaction. That is what I want to advocate.

I want to register my strong protest at the actions of the police when there was a protest meeting in Pietermaritzburg last month. This protest was not organized by any political party. There was a protest march to the City Hall to register protest against South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth which had come as a great shock to the public. There was no party-political factor in this demonstration whatever, but as these people met to go to the City Hall it is my information that several policemen with ciné cameras, at least eight of them, were taking photographs of the crowd. Because I felt it was only fair to give the Minister the opportunity to give us the facts, I tabled a question which I put to him this morning, but he refused to answer. Sir, why does the Minister wish to hide the fact from the public? Are the public now not allowed to make an open protest, which meeting was ultimately addressed by the Mayor of Pietermaritzburg to register the shock the citizens felt at our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The public is entitled to be taken into the confidence of the Minister in such a matter. He and the Government cannot complain, if he refuses to reply, when people say that we are becoming a police state. The Government is always protesting that there is no question of unnecessary pressure by the police on the public, but this has happened on top of the telephone tapping which we know took place in Durban and on which the Government has been hedging instead of saying openly what took place. Some of us know that it did take place, and here we know that films and photographs were taken by a number of policemen, and the Minister will not tell us why. Is this a threat to the public, intimidation, so that people will not dare to protest if they feel strongly about anything?

It has gone further since then. I understand that certain of these people have been identified from these pictures and have been questioned. Civil servants have been asked to identify other people and certain people have been asked to identify people who are civil servants and took part in the parade.

Is there anything new in that?

Well, in a public demonstration it is quite new as far as I know. I know of nothing like that which took place when we were in power.

Oh!

Now hon. members shout “ Oh! ”, but they took action against a state which was at war, and they gave information to the enemies of the State. Certain information was being broadcast from Zeesen, because information had come from this country, and certain ships carrying South African troops to this country were torpedoed off the East Coast. That is why the necessary security measures were taken against the enemies of South Africa, whether they were South Africans by birth or not. I say that if this Government takes action such as this and takes films and photographs of every public protest which is spontaneous, they cannot then complain if they get the name both inside and outside the Union of developing into a police state. I think the sooner the Ministers realize that they cannot take such actions against South African citizens, the better. They are there as Ministers of the Union. Are they not going to recognize the rights and freedoms of the citizens to register their protest at what they consider not to be in the interests of the country? They themselves are to blame if at some future date they are told that we are becoming a police state under this Government.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) wanted to link the protest march against our actions at the Commonwealth Conference with the actions of the police. I want to remind him of the result at Bethal-Middelburg yesterday, which led to quite a different reaction. Again to refer to a police state is of no avail either, and I will say why. It is because I now see quite a different spirit being revealed in this House in regard to the police from what we have had in past years. In 1951, 1952 and 1953 a certain technique was followed in regard to the police It is the old well-known communist technique. [Laughter.] I did not associate that with the actions of the Opposition at all, hence that ridiculous reaction. I am merely stating the fact that in all Western countries the undermining of authority and those who have to exercise it is a recognized communist method. The most important function of any well-ordered state is to main law and order. The well-known method of the communists is to undermine law and order, and how do they do it? They know that the Government of a country transfers the function of doing so to its police, and therefore the maintenance of law and order is the duty of the police. I tried to show that it is nice to see that such a good spirit is being revealed in the House, that we are acting differently from the communists, but now hon. members take exception to it. Why do they take it to heart? Not only is it stupid but it is a political crime. I wanted to extend congratulations and I thought there would be a good reaction to it, but just look at the pained expressions on the faces of hon. members. Let us honour the police. Do not let us do what was done in the past, to take exceptions as being the normal state of affairs in order to condemn the whole of the Police Force. For that reason I am glad that the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) and other hon. members opposite this time praised the police, and it is a pity that the hon. member has now put a fly into the apothecary’s ointment where before we had this splendid spirit towards the police. It is a pity that the hon. member revealed that spirit in regard to this march. I know that the Natalians always want to march, but we should not blame the police in that connection. We are living in a multi-racial country and the discipline of the Police Force is admired by friend and foe. If we just think of the many assaults committed on the police and how they are killed, why should we not ignore these little things and leave it to the Department to take action when a few policemen do something wrong? But in this House we should reveal the spirit which the Opposition is now revealing and we should not elaborate on a communist technique. I am not accusing hon. members of that. I particularly tried to find common ground this morning so that we as Whips could have good co-operation, but they have misunderstood me. I just want to say that there are people in South Africa who deliberately contribute to undermining the morale of the Police Force. The police are our first line of defence and they must carry out the task of maintaining law and order. We should encourage all people in South Africa to realize that the policeman should be treated with the greatest regard and respect, whether he is White or non-White.

The Chief Whip regretted that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) has linked the police with the protest march in Pietermaritzburg. Sir, just the reverse. The hon. member condemned the police for being linked with that march. He objected to the fact that the police went to this march and intimidated people, because the mere fact of taking photographs and movie reels is a form of intimidation, and that is what the hon. member objected to. He also objected to the questioning of some of the people who took part in the march. The hon. the Whip has said that we should be thankful that this Government does not behave as the communists do and that there should be a “ nice atmosphere ” in the House. Sir, the actions of the police in behaving as they did, if they did—I was not there—at that meeting is exactly the actions of the communist police. That is the attitude they adopt towards anti-Government activities. Had this been a protest march organized by the communists, to show approval of some Russian act, I can understand the Chief Whip taking the line he did and the police acting as they did, but this was a protest march against our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and it had nothing to do with Communism. Even Nationalist members say or pretend to say that they wanted to remain in the Commonwealth. Surely there can be no objection to the march with the object it had in view.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) gets worse and worse every time he enters a debate, and I think it is shocking that a front-bencher should behave as he did to-day. I only hope that his speeches like we heard this morning are not published overseas. I certainly did not mean, as he suggested, that Kgosana should have been caned. I objected to the method of his arrest and I still condemn it. I say that if we are to stop our criticism of the Government because of the fear that what we say may be published overseas and adversely affect South Africa, we can never take part in any debate in this House. Because of the actions of this Government which we are compelled to criticize the country is losing more and more friends overseas.

I want to ask the Minister for certain information about the mobile squad which is now being established in Umtata. Let me say at the outset that I welcome the re-establishment of that mobile squad. We had such a squad there before the last war and they were a fine body of men and they were highly respected by all sections. What I want to know is whether this new squad will perform the same functions as the old squad did? The Minister will know that the old squad did not do ordinary police duties. They were largely used to show the flag and were called upon at times to show force when disturbances threatened, not against the Government, but faction fights. The first report we had of this squad was that they were to be a mounted squad.

That is correct.

I saw a subsequent report that they would be mechanized. I quite appreciate that they will have to be mechanized as well, but I think they should be mounted. I hope that these men who will form this body will be picked. It is very important that this force be represented by responsible and well-trained men. It is important that all police in the Bantu areas be well trained and responsible men It is of course desirable that all policemen should be well-trained and responsible, no matter where they are stationed; but it becomes imperative when they are stationed in areas where they come into contact almost solely with the non-Whites. The Minister must know that all sorts of stories are being spread about the behaviour of the Mobile Watch while they were in the Transkei. They were brought into Pondoland towards the end of last year and the Minister will know that there are certain prosecutions pending against members of that watch. I do not wish to discuss those matters, because the cases are sub judice, and in any event it will probably be more proper to speak to the Minister of Defence about their behaviour, but this force left a very bad impression in that area amongst the Whites and the non-Whites, just the opposite of the impression created by the police force which was sent into Bizana. I am told that the behaviour of the police force stationed there was exemplary.

The present Commissioner of Police, when he took over, issued instructions to the police to be very careful in their handling of the non-Whites. I commend him for it and it came very timeously too. I am the first to admit that the police have a very difficult and distasteful task. The words of Gilbert that “ a policeman’s lot is not a happy one ” are probably truer to-day than when he wrote them. They have to see that unpopular laws are abided by, whether they agree with those laws or not, and they have our sympathy. Their task is often dangerous and I am sure that there is not one member of this House who envies the police in some of the duties they have to perform. Unfortunately, however, rumour has it, and the courts have proved it, that policemen do not always act legally. It is to the credit of the Police Force that it is through investigations by the police themselves that these cases were brought to light. I want to compliment our detectives on the effective manner in which they do trace the culprits in these cases. It is reprehensible when policemen use their authority or act illegally against any citizen, but where a White policeman acts in that manner towards a citizen of a different colour it is not only reprehensible but disastrous to race relations. At the present time of strained race relations when people are apt to be more sensitive about their rights and dignities than usual, any unlawful or inconsiderate act by any official of one race towards a member of another race is to be deprecated, but when that act is committed by an official to whom the public, irrespective of their race or colour, look for protection of their rights, it is all the more serious, and fatal to good relations. Luckily, with the reorganization of the force announced recently, with the insistence on higher educational qualifications and the doubling of the period of training, it is hoped that the new recruits will be better equipped to carry out their onerous duties. I know the Minister will not act on rumours or hearsay reports of criminal or unwise acts by policemen, but where the reports are numerous I hope that his Department will investigate and take note of these reports and see that the policemen in that area are warned of what is being said about them, and that the Department itself will take steps to see that there is no truth in those rumours. [Time limit.]

I would like to say a few words in regard to the vacation bonus paid to members of the Police Force. When this bonus was instituted all the members of the force welcomed it and they are still grateful for it, but I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to an anomaly. It concerns the definition of the term “ legally married ”, as defined in paragraph 7 (3) (b) of the orders issued to the force, No. 19 of 1959. What is the position to-day in regard to the granting of this bonus to certain members of the force? We find that as the result of the definition of this term “ legally married ”, some of the best men in the Police Force who are on a certain salary notch are in the position where they have lost their wives and therefore they do not qualify for this vacation bonus. Some of our best officials have already been deleteriously affected by this definition as it stands. The Minister may perhaps tell me to discuss the matter with the Treasury, but I want to tell him that the Police Force regard him as their father and we must come to him with our troubles.

As the result of this definition of “ legally married ”, and the fact that the wife of a police official may die, one gets the following position on the Rand and in the large cities. One finds a married official with no children and a pensionable salary of £2,850 per annum who qualifies for a bonus of £60. We do not begrudge him that, but now we find an officer whose wife is dead and who has six children whom he has to maintain and who receives an annual salary of £1,560, but he gets no bonus. At Marshall Square there are some of our best men who have been so unfortunate as to lose their wives. They have small children, and in that cold city, Johannesburg, where people have little love for their fellowmen and the cost of living is very high, they have to hire people to look after their children whilst they risk their lives day and night for our country, but they do not qualify for the bonus. One gets the further case of an unmarried officer who has no dependants and who earns a salary of £1,560, and he qualifies for a bonus of £30. As against that one finds an officer who is not married merely by reason of the fact that his wife has died, but who has six children and a salary of £1,560, who receives no bonus. I humbly submit, and this is felt by the public in general, as well as by the officials who have been so adversely affected, that this· anomaly was not deliberate. It sometimes happens that when laws and regulations are drafted with very good intentions something like that may be overlooked, and that a law adviser who can interpret every letter of the Act tells that police official that when his wife dies he is no longer legally married in terms of the Act. It may be true that when his wife dies he is no longer legally married, but he was legally married, and why must that man be penalized by not receiving any bonus when he has lost his wife? I want to make an urgent plea that those officials who have already been affected and who may still be affected should be assisted in this respect, even though the matter at this stage may not rest solely in the hands of the Minister of Justice—and without wishing to cast reflections I want to say that if one goes to the Treasury it is very difficult to persuade them; it seems to me that one can expect more sympathy from the father of the Police Force. I am pleading for these persons who have already been affected, particularly because the public sympathize with them and because their colleagues also feel that it is an anomaly which should be remedied, and I ask the Minister to devote his attention to the matter.

I welcome the efforts being made to carry out a recruiting drive in the Police Force and the statements which have been made from time to time in regard to the intentions of the police chiefs both to obtain the right type of recruit and to maintain a high standard in the Police Force, particularly in the light of our difficult circumstances in South Africa. I want to ask one or two questions in regard to the recruiting campaign of the Minister. I would be glad if the Minister would give us some details as to what the results have been so far. In answer to a question but by me on 7 February, the Minister told me that 650 European applicants had been enlisted since I October 1960 but that there were still 926 vacancies for Europeans. Is that still the position to-day, or has it improved since then? The Minister went on to say that 692 of those vacancies were filled by special constables and women assistants, and that there was no difficulty in filling the non-European vacancies. Is that correct, because I understand that appeals have been made quite recently to the Coloured Advisory Council to stimulate interest amongst the Coloureds?

We are about 100 Europeans short at the moment.

I would like the Minister to tell us what duties are carried out by these special constables, how they are recruited and what are their conditions of service; and I am particularly interested in the fact that women assistants are employed. It seems to me that the time has come for the Minister and his police chiefs to consider employing a special section of women police as such. They could be employed, it seems to me, on administrative duties in the large urban centres, and they might appropriately staff a section dealing with certain types of female crime. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the scope of women police in Britain, for instance, has been studied by our police. If not, I would like to suggest that that should be done. Sir, this whole subject of recruiting is bound up with a constant need for review of our Police Force and the necessity for reorganization from time to time. In connection with this drive it becomes important, if one wants to build up a higher standard, to know what the minimum qualifications are. I should be glad if the Minister can give us some details as to what the minimum qualifications are in respect of White, Coloured, Bantu and Indian police, and what the highest rank is they can attain. In respect of minimum qualifications there is the question of age and the question of educational qualifications. I stress that point, Sir, because it seems to me that there is a danger in introducing relatively immature young men into the Police Force and giving them duties which perhaps are beyond the capacity of their experience; and there certainly is some evidence to show that some members of the Police Force are inclined, to put it very mildly, to be trigger-happy. The hon. gentleman has given me figures of the number of deaths, for instance, in 1960, the number of persons who were killed in 1960 as the result of police action in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act to prevent the escape of suspected criminals. He told me that during that period 20 people were so killed; presumably they were shot. Their ages ranged from 14 to 40 years. It does seem to me to be lamentable that a child of 14 years—in this case a European boy—should be killed under the provisions of an Act of this sort. I do not know the circumstances. But it seems to me that it may very well be that there is a need to ensure that immature youths are not placed on duties where they may have difficulty in exercising a wise discretion. That brings me to a further point which I would like to make to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister that we have to beware very much of over-centralization of our Police Force. We have a national Police Force centred on Pretoria. But there are local divisions, and I would like to know whether the Minister could not consult his police chiefs to see whether it would not be possible to build up a more localized force in certain areas, a more stable force, which would not have to be moved from time to time to other centres. It seems to me it would have great advantages if the local Police Force in certain areas, Cape Town, for instance, could be stable. The members of the force would get to know the public.

The 11 divisions are being extended to 16 for that purpose.

Well, I am very glad to hear that, because it seems to me that what is so necessary is to re-establish confidence between the police and the public, and particularly between the police and the non-Europeans. Rightly or wrongly, there is no doubt about it that in many instances that confidence has been lost. Members of the Police Force have not, as they ought to have, been looked upon as friends by the ordinary citizen. That does not apply to every member of the police, but there have been these unfortunate cases where some member of the Police Force have let their down their side; and I am suggesting to the Minister that one of the ways of obviating that is by ensuring, first of all, that immature youths are not transplanted from a country environment into the entirely strange environment of a big city, where they are virtually lost and without the guidance of some semi-paternal, more experienced senior officer. I suggest that there should be a longer period of apprenticeship for these young men where they could be under the trained eye, the semi-paternal eye of older and more experienced officers, who could help them to get the feel of the force and become acquainted with the duties of a policeman before they are put onto the streets in the larger towns and subjected to all sorts of difficulties, particularly in this country where race clashes so often take place.

An extended period of training would help in that direction.

I think that would, but the point I am making is that to my mind it is dangerous to put a young man of 18 on the streets with a revolver, and to create the idea that he is in a position of such responsibility that he can virtually do what he likes.

We do it in the Defence Force.

There they are under discipline.

They are under discipline. The point I am trying to make is that I want to encourage young men to go into the Police Force, both Afrikaans and English speaking. But I suggest that in the interests of the Police Force and the reputation of the Police Force, and in the interests of these young men, out of fairness and equity, they should not be clothed with duties which are beyond the scope of their years, and that they should not be placed in these positions of great responsibility, great individual responsibility, until they have had adequate training. So I stress this point of greater decentralization. In many ways I believe it would be a good thing if there could be what might be called a local division of the Police Force for the Transkei, for the Eastern Province, for Natal, where persons are recruited for that particular area and you build up this local esprit de corps.

There will be two shortly outside the Transkei.

I am very glad to hear that. And I hope that in the light of the experience gained from that, the Minister will consider extending that experiment if it should prove successsful.

I am glad that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has just come in. A few moments ago he practically accused the police of not always acting lawfully and that that disturbed relations between White and non-White. I wonder whether the hon. member meant that allegation seriously.

But you cannot deny it. You need only to look at the cases coming before the courts.

One has to take into consideration the danger in which the police are practically every minute they are on duty.

They are not always in danger.

I say that the police official is in great danger for practically every minute he is on duty. The suspicion existing against the police to-day, particularly as far as the non-Whites are concerned, is shocking. The hon. member should realize that. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. Henwood) and also the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said last night that it was not necessary for the police to inquire into the protest parades because the parades took place as a result of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth and not to make communist propaganda. Can the hon. member tell me how the police knew about these protest processions in the first place? I can give hon. members the assurance that strange things are happening, even among the churches, under the guise of religion. Communist propaganda is being made under the pretext of religion. It happened on my own farm recently when a meeting of a certain denomination was held there. Part of the so-called minister’s sermon was: You non-Whites must stand together and you must eradicate the White man from South Africa. That was part of his sermon. Why should the police not have the right to intervene? I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that police should be present even at church meetings on suspicious occasions. They can then keep the hon. the Minister informed from time to time. If that happens one will never hear the end of it in this House, but it is necessary in certain cases. This was an incident which happened on my own farm. The advice of the so-called minister to the non-Whites was: You must eradicate the White man from South Africa; with your majority of numbers you must eventually overrun them. I only wish that a police official could have been present there to convey it to the hon. the Minister. The police should have the rights at all times to gather information in order to pass it on to the Department.

Then I just want to refer to a matter which has already been raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I also want to plead with the hon. the Minister in connection with housing for the police. I have already made representations in connection with this matter but I have not yet had any success. I am sure, however, that the hon. the Minister will in fact give attention to the matter. In Philipstown there are no police quarters. The old police station was an ordinary house which the Department hired for a number of years. The person from whom they rented it has now died and now there is no accommodation for them in Philips-town. Even the motor car with which they perform their duty has to be parked here to-night and there to-morrow. There is also no storage space for their petrol, and I ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the matter. As far as housing in general is concerned I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Krugers-dorp. I think the time has come to provide decent housing for the police, just as housing is provided for railway officials. At the moment the police have to take whatever houses they can get. It should be ensured that they get houses of which they can be proud. Housing is very scarce in most places to-day and I will appreciate it if the hon. the Minister can give serious consideration to this matter.

We have heard a great deal in the last day or two about the actions and the duties of the Police Force and we have heard quite a good deal about the shortcomings of the Police Force, and we have also been told of the shortage in the personnel in the Police Force. Sir, when it comes to the shortcomings of the Police Force, I think this must be bound up with the shortage of personnel. I can well imagine what has been happening in the past. Insufficient numbers of recruits have come forward, so in an effort to maintain law and order some people have been admitted to the force who should never have been in the force, and it is this small group which has given our police such a bad name. But, Sir, law and order must be maintained, and the question I want to put to the Committee to-day is why this has been left to one section of the population only. In recent years the number of English-speaking youths who have entered the Police Force has become smaller and smaller. The response to recruiting campaigns has been marked by a lack of interest on the part of English-speaking youths and adults, and I think it is high time that those of us who criticize the shortcomings of the police and who complain about the shortage of personnel, should say to ourselves: “ What have we done during the past ten or 12 years to improve the position?”

Hear, hear! Let them search their own hearts.

Sir, it is not altogether the fault of the English-speaking group, but to a great extent they are responsible for some of the shortcomings and for some of the things which have happened in the past years. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should go out of his way to do his very best to make the Police Force a force that is composed of elements of both sections of our population. English-speaking youths should come into the force in such numbers as to balance the language groups that we have in this country. The hon. member for Salt River said a moment ago that it is unfair for the platteland youth to be put into the streets of a large city like Johannesburg. I agree with him wholeheartedly. But why cannot the boys from the towns be trained and stationed in the cities? The platteland boys who are used to living in the country and who love the country so well, could be kept in their early years of training on the platteland if they so wish. But I would say to the Minister that he should start campaigning immediately for English-speaking recruits, and I believe that the place to get them is in the schools. I suggest that he should immediately bring about closer liaison between the schools and the Police Force; that lectures should be given to groups of school boys in the school-leaving ages; that pamphlets and brochures should be sent to the school children to make them interested in the Police Force. I think that displays on school prize-giving days should be arranged with the police. One of the biggest attractions that we had at the last and previous agricultural shows in Johannesburg was a display by the Police Force. It attracted thousands upon thousands of people. I should like to see those displays given at our schools. They can go to the English- and the Afrikaans-medium schools and let the children at those schools see that the men in the Police Force are quite human; that there are no bogey men in the police. The policeman must be given a chance to come into contact with the public. Sir, there are some who criticize the police and say that they are being trained like soldiers and like Gestapo members. Let us get away from that thought. The first thing that I am pleased about is to see that the uniforms of the police are going back to the old blue; and that we are getting away from the army type of uniform. Let us draw a distinction between the army and the police. Give the policeman an opportunity to get on friendly terms with the public and at the same time I say that the public must put out its hand to the police and make them feel at home. A great deal of the off-handedness that we see in the cities is due to the inability of the young recruit to speak the language properly, and many of the boys who come in from the platteland are unable to speak English properly so they become estranged from the English-speaking community. They are afraid really to speak to the people in the streets because of their shortcomings. I say therefore: Make them feel at home with the people in the streets of the towns, and let the people at the same time take the police in their hearts. Sir, it is not going to take a week or ten days; it will take time, but let us begin now. We have heard a great deal about unity in our country. Why should there be this lack of interest on the part of the English-speaking section in the public service, in the Police Force and in the Army? Our boys in the towns have gone into business and into commerce and they have had all these opportunities thrown onto their laps. What choice have the boys in the platteland had? They have had the choice of going into the teaching profession, into the public service or into the police, and to-day some of them are going into the Army. But I say that things must change. We have to make sure that these things change. We have to make sure that the boys in the platteland are given ample opportunity to go into commerce and industry, and the boys in the cities should be encouraged to go into the Police Force or into the Army. Too much time has been lost already. It is all very well for us here to say that we want more foot patrols and more mobile watches and more cars to roam in the streets. Where is the personnel to come from? We have only 3,500,000 White people here, who have to look after the Whites and after a great deal of the non-White population, and if we are going to leave it to one section of our population we are going to do a great injustice to our country. I think it is to the credit of the Afrikaans-speaking boys who have gone into the Police Force that they have done their job so well. I think also it is wrong for anyone to criticize them because of language difficulties. What we should do is to come here with suggestions to improve the position. [Time limit.]

I feel that it is my duty and privilege—and I believe that I will enjoy the support of the whole House here—heartily to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), who has just resumed his seat, on the splendid contribution he made to this debate by appealing to English-speaking citizens to join the police. We feel that along that way methods should be evolved to make our Police Force that splendid organization we all want, of which both English- and Afrikaans-speaking citizens can be proud.

I listened with interest to this debate and as a young member I expected that these discussions would reflect the feeling of the people outside and of the country in respect of the police, but unfortunately it appears that there is very little gratitude on the part of hon. members opposite. With few exceptions there was venomous criticism from hon. members opposite for the services rendered under extremely difficult conditions. It came as an unpleasant surprise to me to hear from the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) last night that he would like to see the hon. the Minister leaving the Commissioner of Police alone to carry on his work in the way he thought best. Sir, this is an unfair attitude to adopt towards the hon. the Minister and it cannot be left there. Whenever there is criticism it is directed at the Minister, but when there is praise for the excellent service rendered by the police the Commissioner is praised for it. We definitely cannot tolerate such unbridled criticism and the breaking down of good relations and discipline, and I am glad to see that other hon. members opposite did not associate themselves with the chief speaker in the debate, namely the hon. member for North-East Rand. The hon. members of the Opposition, with few exceptions, attempted to create the impression here as well as outside that the Minister was using the police as an instrument to protect the Government and to achieve certain objects which are alleged to be unethical. We on this side of course reject that with the contempt it deserves.

With reference to this—and here I respectfully want to exclude those hon. members who did not participate in this disparaging criticism we had here—I regard it as my duty on behalf of this side of the House to remind the people outside about who sat on the Government benches during the years 1939 to 1949. We also know where those hon. members who were then in power are sitting now. I want to remind the people of the fact that that Government at that time followed a policy in terms of which a member of the South African Police had to be linked up with party politics, and that special measures were adopted in view of that object. In those days a member of the Police Force was compelled to wear a certain identifying mark, namely a red flash on his shoulder, in order to prove that he was a supporter of the then Government. That was a crime committed towards the Police Force by the present Opposition, as a result of which the Force is still suffering to-day. It was a monstrous thing which was introduced at that time, to the great sorrow of the individual members of the force and to the force as a whole. During the course of this so-called purifying campaign the career of many a young, honest and conscientious official was ruined. That is what was done by that Government, and for that reason this Opposition has no right to allege to-day that the Government is committing an unethical act to-day, particularly because their own hands are not clean.

Sir, it is not our duty to-day to discuss the malpractices of that time; we are expected to make a positive contribution in order to show the people of South Africa that this House approves of what is being done by the police in order to safeguard our people and our country. Therefore I want to commence by dividing the main task of the police into two categories, viz. internal safety, i.e. the protection of human lives and property, in the first place, and secondly the investigation and combating of crime.

When we come to internal security, it is very clear—and the public accepts it as such—that the Police Force constitutes our first line of defence. Their main task is to safeguard human lives and property. I would like to sketch the present situation in the rural areas and in particular in the areas near the Bantu reserves near the constituency of Groblersdal. The farms are often far apart from each other and there is no telephonic communication between the various farms and towns. Usually there are only small police units in the rural areas, just big enough to cope with the immediate requirements of the area in regard to the investigation of crime. They are not properly equipped with firearms and ammunition in order to cope with unexpected and large-scale riots and other incidents. There are insufficient firearms and a limited number of persons who can handle them in order to cope with an emergency of any size, and therefore it is gratifying to hear from the hon. the Minister that there is the closest co-operation and consultation between the police and the Defence Force effectively to remove the concern and uncertainty in regard to possible incidents or riots which we hope will not take place but which we cannot entirely lose sight of.

The Minister of Justice briefly explained yesterday how the Government wants to bring civilian defence up to date by making available a senior police officer as well as a senior Defence Force officer to the Director of Civilian Defence. We are glad to hear about the complete reorganization of those services which are of such importance to our rural areas which find themselves in a particularly difficult position and are so situated in regard to possible dangers which may beset them in the future that they will have to rely on the protection of local commandos, police reserves under the leadership of the local police and even women’s shooting clubs. I can assure the House and the Minister that in the constituency of Groblersdal there was a spontaneous reaction by the local police, for which we want to thank them sincerely, in organizing women’s shooting clubs, and many members of the force have sacrificed their leisure to instruct the women in the use of firearms, and we want to give the assurance that these women’s shooting clubs are anxious to be linked up with the civilian protection services which are envisaged, and we trust that this will enjoy the attention of the Minister.

There is another matter which in my opinion needs special attention, namely the housing of the police. As has already been said by other hon. members, there is an acute shortage of police accommodation, offices as well as private dwellings. As hon. members are aware, there is an artisan unit in the Police Force. Year after year the reports of the Commissioner, which are tabled in this House, emphasize the fact that there is a lack of housing, and these reports continually emphasize the excellent services rendered to the country and to the Department by this unit. I want to make an appeal that in future more funds will be made available to the Minister for the expansion of that unit in order that it may be enabled to build more houses where such houses are urgently required.

We are aware of the fact that the Public Works Department does its best to keep pace with the tremendous expansion and requirements of the South African Police, but find it just impossible to do so. In 1941 already the Commissioner of Police said in his Annual Report, from which I quote—

In 1945 the Commissioner of Police again said in his report—

We are continually emphasizing the improved services the police should render, but if we study the reports we find that as long ago as 1941 the efficiency of the force was being hampered by the lack of housing. That was again repeated in the 1957 report, from which I quote—

That shows that these artisans did excellent and essential work for the Department. The 1959 report, which has just been published, says that the erection of new buildings is continuing. I quote from the 1959 report—

It should be noted that this backlog has existed since 1941. The report says, further—

I believe that this is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the Minister and also of the Treasury, because the public in the rural areas and the police there suffer most from the lack of accommodation. There is also a tremendous problem in respect of the housing of the members of the force and their families. It is a well-known fact that some senior members of the force in the Groblersdal constituency have to live from six to eight miles from the police station because no houses can be hired nearer to the police station, and sometimes they are in a neighbourhood which does not redound to the honour of the force. Sir, we are living in times and circumstances in which it is more necessary than ever before for the members of the force to be mobilized at the police station within the shortest possible time in order to be able to take action immediately. Hence my urgent plea that the housing of the members of the force should be seriously considered in future. [Time limit.]

Although the appointment made this morning was only a temporary one, may I be the first to congratulate you, Sir, on that appointment, and to assure you that we will do our best to give you all the support in the task you have undertaken.

Under what Vote is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the position of the Coloured policemen in the force. I would like to indicate to the hon. the Minister that according to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1958, and comparing the figures contained therein with the list which the Commissioner of Police was kind enough to lend me, it would appear that in 1958 on the fixed establishment there were two senior sergeants, and the number to-day is four; senior sergeants: 39 in 1958, to-day 29: second-class sergeants: 129, now 107; constables: 1,043 in 1958, now 983. There is no apparent explanation as to why there should have been a reduction in the number of Coloured people employed in the Police Force, or why the Government has reduced the fixed establishment as far as constables are concerned. It does not coincide with the request which was made a little while ago, according to a report in the Cape Times on 20 March by the Commissioner of Police when he addressed the Coloured Council and indicated that they would like to have more Coloured recruits for the Police Force. Now, Sir, if we are reducing the establishment and you want more police, then you are setting the wrong way about it. The establishment should be increased. I am very sorry indeed that the establishment has been reduced, because the Police Force is one of the avenues of employment open to the Coloured people. I do not know what the reasons are that the Coloured people will not join, but the hon. Minister must understand and realize that the Coloured man who joins the Police Force has a limited opportunity. He can only rise to a certain position in the Police Force. The Government has as yet not seen the wisdom of allowing Coloured people to become commissioned officers in the Police Force. Why should they not be? If there is to be this development for the Coloured people as envisaged by the Government (whether I agree with it or not) then surely the time has arrived that the Coloured people should be told that they will be in charge, and completely in charge, of police stations and police areas. When are you going to start training these people, and why should they have such limited rights in a force. The Coloured people deserve full encouragement. Only a little while ago, a previous Minister of Justice for no apparent reason took away the powers of arrest of the Coloured traffic constables in Cape Town. It was a blow to the Coloured people, because it indicated that the Government has no confidence in the Coloureds and the status of those people was lowered. Even to-day, although the law says that any person can arrest, the hon. the Minister must be aware of the fact that under Standing Rules and Order of the Police it says that a Coloured man should not arrest a European. The time has come, Sir, when we must recognize that a Coloured man is a full partner in the defence of our country, in the task of keeping law and order, and they should have full rights, not limited rights. Many of them have spoken to me and said: “ I am a policeman, but if I see a crime committed by a European, I am not allowed to arrest him.” The time has come when these men should have full powers in every respect, and they should have the right to be promoted higher than the rank of special sergeant. I believe the highest they can attain is the rank of senior sergeant. I don’t know whether there has been an improvement in that respect, but that I cannot gather from the 1958 report. By virtue of the profession which I entered, I have been in close association with the police for very many years. I believe that the Police Force is one of the most important parts of the administration of our country, and that they are far more important than the Army. But I am sorry to say that there has not been the attraction for the people to join. In fact rumour has it that the opening of the training centre had to be postponed this year for a lack of recruits. The hon. Minister must tell us whether that is so or not, because if it is so, it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. But if it is not so, the hon. Minister should scotch the rumour. But the impression is that the number of people who are coming into the Police Force is far less than is desired by the Government.

I do believe further, talking again about the Coloured people, that although there is a marked improvement compared with what the position was many years ago in regard to pay, even to-day, according to the Commissioner of Police, in his address to the Coloured Council, a Coloured constable earns R840. Now R840 is not an attractive salary for a man who wishes to make the police his career. It is a very small salary, and perhaps that is one of the main reasons why these people don’t want to join the Police Force. If we all admit, as we do, the importance of the police, then the pay should be higher and it should be more attractive so that more people will join. I venture to suggest that it is unfortunate that according to the records I have at my disposal, there has been a reduction in the fixed establishment as far as the Coloured people are concerned.

The salaries were increased at the beginning of this year.

I am dealing with the speech of the Commissioner of Police, and I say that R840 per annum is not sufficient to be attractive for Coloured people to join.

You are saying that the salaries are too low and I merely said that they were increased at the beginning of this year.

Can the hon. Minister tell me to what extent they were raised? I am reading from a report as recent as 31 March this year, and there it says that a Coloured constable is getting R840. I venture to suggest, even if that amount has been increased slightly, that that amount is not attractive enough. I want to end on this note that the Coloured people want to play their part in maintaining law and order, and if the hon. Minister will give them the opportunity on the basis of merit, not on the basis of colour alone, to do their duty to their country, they will not fail. [Time limit.]

Before coming to other points concerning the police I wish to break a lance for the ordinary man in uniform. I want to put it to the House in this way: Who is the policeman in the street, who is the policeman on the farm, who is the man who must maintain law and order in South Africa? They are the sons of South Africa and if they are weak then they come from a weak generation and then the fault lies more with us than with them. Therefore I particularly appreciate what has been said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). I want to say to him that if one were to count the number of people in the Police Force who are of Jewish origin, or of English origin, or of Greek origin then the number is pathetically small. The Afrikaans-speaking section must carry large Departments of State. Therefore I say to the hon. member that I particularly appreciated what he said. I hope that it will not remain at words but that it will also be extended to the cities, also by other hon. members opposite, because it is most unfair that one section of the population should handle all these matters.

Now I wish to reply to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). Many of the members of the Police Force who resign cannot be expected to remain there for all time. South Africa is a country of opportunities, “ the land of opportunities ”, and firms outside sit and watch for any conscientious man, one who knows his work and does it willingly and one who shows himself to be a steady worker and a man of character, one who has been trained at the Police College, and then they snap him up. They are eager to take him and offer him a far more attractive salary. That is the reason why a man leaves the force and goes to a better position. However much I regret it I also welcome it and in our democratic country I will not hold back and confine any man to one position for the rest of his life. For that reason I say our country is a land of opportunities and we should appreciate it.

But there are a few other matters which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. In the first instance there is too often a lot of unnecessary administrative work which has to be done by the Police Force, and where South Africa is at a stage where so much is expected of the Police Force I think that a great share of that work can be taken off the shoulders of the Police Force and much of the administrative work can be transferred to other State Departments. Permit me to sketch the picture. Recently an article written by the wife of a policeman appeared in a magazine. I read it with great interest. She says, inter alia, that when her husband goes on duty to-night she never knows whether she will see him again the next morning. Can that be said of any hon. member in this House? Do we realize what we have to be grateful for to the police? Do we realize what it means to maintain law and order? I ask that particularly of hon. members from the big cities, and more particularly of hon. members from the Witwatersrand, whether they realize what it means when the young boys, even 18-year-olds—some of them fresh from the platteland—are called out to one of the Native townships or compounds in Johannesburg. Do they realize that he takes his life in his hands? What the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) said was perfectly correct. Do we convey that appreciation to our Police Force? Every one of us, including the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) runs to the nearest telephone when there is trouble, or simply just shouts for help, and then the police have to come. But heaven help the poor policeman who comes along to any meeting. Then he should not be there. I have said before in this House that to me the uniform was the symbol of law and order but that it was not always regarded as such in South Africa. Therefore I ask hon. members opposite to search their own hearts. They saw fit in the past not to let their sons join the Police Force. It was too dangerous.

Oh no!

Wait a minute. It was too dangerous. Joining the police was too humiliating, there was not enough money in it. Those are a few of the reasons. The hon. member cannot deny that. That was why they did not want their sons to join the police. But to-day they very easily say this, that and the other thing about the Afrikaans-speaking policeman. I deplore that and those hon. member have no right to criticize. There are hon. members who agree with me. The hon. member for Salt River should just think of what some of the hon. members opposite said a little while ago to realize that he should not argue like that. If we in South Africa begin to realize these things and we realize what our internal security means then we will not adopt that attitude. Last year hon. members of this House took shelter behind the railings of Parliament but the police stood in the street to protect them and to protect South Africa. If one realizes that then one begins to realize the lot of the policeman in South Africa and also what it means to a man to go on duty when it gets dark in the streets of a country like South Africa. Whether one has any political views about it or not makes no difference, but everyone knows that in a country with mixed races where there is over-indulgence in dagga and liquor there are always dangers threatening on the streets and it happens that the policeman becomes the victim of such drunkenness and other evils. If one realizes this then one will also realize that the police deserve very good housing, that they deserve very good salaries, and that they deserve a place of honour in the community. And now I ask: Is it always granted to them? Mr. Chairman, when a Native constable comes to my farm he gets his coffee and his bread or he gets food from the table, and everyone knows that that is how a Native constable is treated on my farm, with respect—he wears a Uniform, he represents law and order and the non-Whites on my farm must see that I respect that man who wears the uniform, whether he is White or non-White. I am the last one to want to allege here to-day that everything the police do is right and good. I am the last one to do that. But I ask whether everything that hon. members opposite do is right and good. Are they all wonderful and good Members of Parliament? Are they all very good people outside this House? And just as we are fallible and weak people, so are the police. To criticize them year after year and to humiliate this one section of the population is not conducive to building up a better force. It is a pleasure to me to be able to break a lance for the police because I feel that if there is one section of the population which deserves it, it is those people who do not hesitate to do their duty to South Africa when necessary. These people take their lives in their hands for the defence of the country and of property while others sleep peacefully. We should always mention their services with appreciation in this House. [Time limit.]

I had not intended to introduce a discordant note into this debate, but I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw the hon. member for Pretoria (District)’s attention to one of the most shocking slurs I have heard any member of this House cast on English-speaking South Africans. Mr. Chairman, this hon. member said that one of the reasons why English-speaking South Africans did not join the Police Force was that the work was too dangerous. I believe that that is one of the most shocking things that has been said by any member on either side of this House. I hope that the hon. member, who otherwise made a reasonable and a moderate speech, if he thinks over what he has said, will rise later in this House and withdraw that accusation.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Chairman, may I say that that is actually what has been said to me on the Witwatersrand.

The hon. member did not say that he was merely repeating what has been said by somebody else. He was giving reasons why English-speaking people were not joining the Police Force, and I say that that is a slur on the contribution which English-speaking people have made to this country, through thick and thin, in the past 200 years. It is a slur on those people who were willing to give up their lives for South Africa in successive wars involving South Africa. I want to pay a tribute to English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. I don’t believe that either one group of people in South Africa can lay claim to greater bravery or to greater courage as far as South Africa is concerned. Unlike the hon. member I had the privilege as an English-speaking South African in serving in a war together with Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. I think it was a shocking thing the hon. member said and I hope he will stand up and apologize to the people against whom he made the accusation.

I want to deal with one or two points which arise out of questions put to the hon. the Minister earlier in this Session. The first was put by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), following up questions which had been put to the Minister of Justice in earlier years concerning the wearing of identification numbers by the police. In reply to questions in earlier years, the hon. the Minister indicated that there was to be no change in policy. In reply to a question this year he indicated that this matter was under consideration. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister when he replies could indicate to us how far these considerations have gone. I wish to support the plea which has been made by the hon. member for Houghton. Hon. members in the past seemed to suggest that when pleas are made for the wearing of identity numbers by the police, that it is an implied slur on policemen. No such thing is intended, but there are certain practical advantages in being able to identify any person, and in particular a policeman who has very difficult work to do. If we want good relationship between the public and the police, a policeman must not be seen as an automaton, as something that has lost his personality or individuality, merely a machine in uniform. He should be seen as a person, as an ordinary South African who is doing his duty in this particular branch of the Government. If that is to be done, I think it is necessary to give each policeman a personality, and in addition to wearing the uniform, to give him a badge by which he can be identified as an individual. I think it will go a long way towards encouraging people to treat policemen as individuals, as ordinary South Africans rather than treating a policeman as one of a large body of people who are required to maintain law and order. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this point.

Secondly, I want to come back to a matter which was raised by way of a question to the Minister towards the end of last session. In reply to a further question by the hon. member for Salt River, this year the hon. Minister indicated that the question of the payment of the legal expenses involved in the defence of Sergeant Arlow and one of his colleagues arising out of the panga case last year, was still under consideration. In June of last year, following a statement in the Pretoria Court, there was an indication that the Government was considering the payment of certain defence charges arising out of the prosecution and the conviction of Sergeant Arlow. On 7 January, this year, the Minister indicated that the matter was still under consideration. We believe that the time has come for finality being reached in regard to this matter. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether finality has been reached and what his decision has been.

I want to support the very strong plea made by the hon. member for Salt River for a greater measure of decentralization of the Police Force, and particularly in the placing of recruits in areas where they come into the force in an environment to which they have become accustomed. I should like to indicate the views of a man who I believe is respected by many South African policemen, namely, Colonel McCandles, who is head of the Southern Police Institute at Louisvale University in Kentucky, an institute which has trained police officers from all over the world. Two or three years ago he conducted a study tour of the Police Force in South Africa. I had the occasion of meeting him towards the end of last year, and discussed with him certain of the problems relating to our Police Force. This worthy gentleman had very good words indeed to say about the calibre of the officers in the South African Police; he had very good words indeed to say about the training methods and the training facilities in South Africa. He thought that it was necessary that the conditions of service should be considerably improved to attract the right kind of material to the lower ranks of the Police Force. But he indicated to me something, which I think has become abundantly apparent, and that is that one of the problems of the police in South Africa is to create the correct relationship between the police and the ordinary citizens of South Africa—the good public relations which should exist between the policeman on the beat and the citizens he has to protect. Because of the political situation, because of the racial situation, because of the climate in South Africa, this is becoming extremely difficult. But I think it will be helped to a great extent if the very young men who are brought into the Police Force serve in their early years as far as possible in an environment in which they have become accustomed to in their youth. I agree with the hon. member for Salt River that where youngsters of 18 years have gone through a training course, they should be appointed to posts in areas or regions in which they have grown up and to which they have become accustomed and in which they have lived with the people whom they now serve.

Does that apply to Natal too?

I think that is generally applicable. I think that that should apply generally as far as possible. I think the police in their early years should be allocated to areas from which they have been recruited and they should live and work in the environment to which they have become accustomed. Quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, there are difficulties, but I think that rather than just appointing them on an arbitrary basis to areas to which they are not accustomed, the hon. the Minister should do whatever he can to see that they are appointed in the way I suggest.

Finally, I want to raise a parochial matter, and that is the question of police protection in the municipal area of Pinelands. I want to say that I am in correspondence with the hon. the Minister on the question of improving the Police Force there, but I also want to draw his attention to something which rather disturbs me. In response to requests which have been made to him for improving the Police Force and the efficiency of that force in the Pinelands Municipality, discussions have been held with the Commandant of the Woodstock Police area under which the Municipality of Pinelands falls. It would appear that, emanating from the Commandant of this area has come the suggestion that the Pinelands Municipal Council should think in terms of applying a curfew. A siren should sound at a certain time of the night, and all Africans should be off the streets and out of Pinelands from that time. I want to say that I am very disturbed that that kind of suggestion should have come from a police officer in an urban area in the Cape Peninsula. I do not believe that this is the most effective way of dealing with the criminal element, and I am sure that if the figures of crime detection in the Peninsula, and particularly in Pinelands were investigated, it would become apparent that the people responsible for the vast bulk of the crimes are not the Africans operating between the hours of nine in the evening and five in the morning. I think that is the wrong way of approaching this matter. I would ask the hon. the Minister to see that a more positive approach is taken by his police officers, and that they do not think merely in terms of curfews and of getting certain classes or racial groups of people out of the towns at night. They should rather make suggestions for improvements, perhaps in the system of patrolling, perhaps in other aspects which would ameliorate the situation. I want to make it quite clear that I think the curfew is the worst possible form of crime protection, particularly in an area such as the Cape Peninsula. [Time limit.]

As a result of certain suggestions made in this debate in connection with the actions of the Police Force I thought it advisable to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to embark on a campaign of “ help to the police ”, in co-operation with the Departments of non-White affairs and with the initiative coming from the Police Force. I put this question as a result of personal experience in my own constituency where a protest meeting was held in connection with an assault on a White woman in the vicinity of Muldersdrift. On this occasion arguments like those we heard here to-day were used in connection with the inefficiency of the Police Force. My personal standpoint on that occasion was that the public did not always have the right on such occasions to throw stones at the nearest policeman. My arguments and contentions were, among others, the following. We have the position, particularly in the vicinity of the urban areas where there is a large concentration of Whites and non-Whites, that the Whites were to some extent responsible for the presence of the idle non-Whites on the small farms through their time not being occupied all day and without their work being done under the supervision of the Whites. It is this idleness that is responsible to a great extent for evils such as assaults, housebreaking, theft, etc. We also have the position that there is a total lack of any code of conduct among the non-Whites because the Whites are all too often guilty of employing workers without the former employer having discharged them properly. The Whites are often guilty of having rather too much than too little labour on their small farms or on their plots or in the town. They then made themselves guilty of this illegal deed. The result is often that contraventions of the law are committed by people who as the result of the lack of a code of conduct among the Whites, have not always learnt to respect discipline as it should be respected. There is also the position that where non-Whites have to work on farms or small holdings without White supervision they for example mind nothing of stealing a neighbour’s entire potato crop and replanting the plants after having removed the potatoes. I ask: Who is in the first instance responsible for this position? And once having examined one’s own conscience and one’s own heart, have we the moral right to point a finger at the police? No, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that very serious consideration be given to operation “ help the police ” and in particular to liaison work as far as the public is concerned, in order to get them to give greater assistance to the police in this regard, such as saving time and also giving guidance where offences are discovered or suspected. It is absolutely impossible for police on the platteland to be at points 25 and 30 miles apart at the same time. The public can ease the demands made on the police considerably by simply co-operating in combating crime or the violation of law and order in the country. When serious situations are observed it should be brought to the notice of the police immediately. When we employ workers illegally, when we take the law into our own hands, we cannot blame the police when we ourselves are guilty of cultivating a lack of discipline.

I am of opinion that such a campaign could be launched with good results, as was also shown in the reaction of those farmers who attended the meeting in an entirely negative spirit but left it with a different outlook in the sense that they accepted that they also had a responsibility in regard to rendering assistance to police officials.

Then I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that the police complements in the more concentrated areas in the big cities or on the outskirts of big cities should be strengthened. Seen from the strategic point of view as well as from the point of view of combating crime I believe that this matter has become real.

I also want to put a further question to the hon. the Minister, namely whether he does not think that the regulations and the implementation of the laws on the illegal brewing of beer in the platteland areas, and particularly on farms where non-Whites live, should be enforced more rigidly since there are again signs of it developing into an evil in the sense that workers on the farms are enticed away from the farms to idle away their employers’ time at such feasts or sprees. Proper attention should be given to this matter.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter), in replying to me a little while ago, asked me to bear in mind that when the police acted illegally it was always in time of danger. That, of course, is not so, and I was not referring to the actions of the police in times of danger. We know that they are only human and that they are as liable as anybody else is to make mistakes. Of course, the fact is that their training should be such that they are better able to resist panicking and to resist the temptation to act in an unreasonable or irresponsible manner. I was thinking for instance, of the type of occasion when two policemen locked a magistrate up. That was an unlawful act. I was thinking of Sergeant Arlow’s actions against non-Europeans, and that sort of thing. However, when I addressed the hon. the Minister, although I did not specifically refer to it, I was actually thinking of what has happened at Kentani recently. We know that a big force of police was sent into that district. I do not want to go into all the reports we have had of what is happening down there. I have taken certain of these matters up with the Commissioner of Police and I shall be taken some others up, and he will investigate them. My reports are hearsay and it would not be fair of me to take them up in the House until the Commissioner has had an opportunity of investigating them. That is my intention, and I have already approached him.

In view of what has happened, however, I think it is essential that when our young policemen are sent out from the training depot, they do not go out with the idea that they are members of an army of occupation. It is so easy for them to develop that complex when going out on their duties, especially when sent as strangers to the Native reserves. I understand that there used to be an education officer at the training camp, but this post has been abolished. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the advisability of re-appointing an education officer, a man who can acquaint these young recruits with the conditions that they will meet in the country districts, with the history of the people of the country, with the economic positions of the different racial groups and that sort of thing in general, so that when they go out to a particular area they will know what to expect and what type of people they will have to deal with.

There have been resignations from the Police Force, and this has become a very serious matter because the trained men are leaving the force. This is a matter I ask the hon. the Minister to give very careful consideration to. The one aspect is the question of the work and the responsibility put on a station commander in a country district, especially in the Native reserves. The station commander is usually there with a young policeman who has just come out of the training camp, who has not had much experience and does not have proper educational qualifications. They have not been able to take down statements or reports correctly. The station commander is responsible for all the correspondence at the station, he has to investigate all the crime, he has to type all the charge sheets and, on top of it all, he has to prosecute. That is expecting far too much of a station commander. Unless they have trained men under them, they cannot possibly carry out their duties effectively. If they have trained men to carry out the investigations, to help them run the office and so on, they could manage, but to-day they are given only untrained men with very little experience, and they simply cannot carry on, and that is why many of these station commanders have resigned.

Another important point is that there should be a prosecutor’s allowance. These sergeants who prosecute have to spend time, not only in preparing cases, but they have to study the law. They have to pit their wits against attorneys and others who defend the accused, against the accused himself, and they have to spend a lot of time studying law.

The question is whether the police should be used for that kind of work at all.

I am coming to that point, Sir. I do not know what number of cases have to be heard before a court during a year before a civil prosecutor is appointed, but I understand from these station commanders that in practically every instance where they have to prosecute the number of cases is well over the minimum. I wanted to come to this; it is time that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to the appointment of civil prosecutors and take that onerous duty from the shoulders of the police. It is not fair on a policeman who has to investigate a case and then prosecute the same case afterwards; there is always suspicion by the accused and the defence as to what has happened during the course of that investigation.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Arising from what I have said prior to the lunch-hour adjournment, I find that a misunderstanding has arisen on the part of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) who thought that I had impugned the honour of the English-speaking section in so far as I had accused them of cowardice, etc. Sir, nothing could be further from my mind. I never said anything of the kind and, let me say it immediately, that sort of thing would be furthese from my mind and my thoughts. I think I am the last man who could be accused of racialism in any form, and had I said any such thing as the hon. member thought I had said, a charge of racialism could definitely have been laid against me. That would be something to which I would take serious objection, and I rise in order to correct this false impression of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, as you have just heard, the hon. member who has just sat down is a peace-loving man. I should like to start by dealing with one or two questions and remarks by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). In the first place, he has asked me about the methods of promotion and I should like to tell him that there are various ways in which promotions take place in the Police Force. From constable to lieutenant, promotion takes place as follows: By means of prescribed written examinations, a system which has already been in operation for many years and which is controlled by an examination board consisting of senior officers. Then in the second place, promotion from lieutenant to major—that is to say, to field rank—takes place under a merit system which is under the control of a merit committee consisting of senior police officers, with the Director of Training as chairman. This is a system which is generally accepted in the Public Service. Then from major to more senior rank, promotion is on the basis of selection by the Minister and the Commissioner of Police. The seniority factor is taken very much into account, but it is not necessarily the sole decisive factor. All sections of the force are fully familiar with this policy. That is the system of promotion.

Then the hon. member has said a few words about the actual promotions which have taken place. He considers that a number of officers have passed others or have gone over their heads and that that should not be done. Allow me to give the hon. member the background to the promotion of persons who have been appointed from outside the force and the promotion of persons in the force over the heads of others. Allow me to say in the first place, that it is nothing new to find persons being promoted over the heads of others in the field ranks and more senior posts, because these promotions are on the basis of selection; and when one has to build up a large force such as this, all Governments have found that one cannot do without selection. It is the position in life that some people are more capable than others, and because we want to build up a Police Force of which South Africa can be proud, we always have to ensure that we recruit the best brains. I therefore ask the hon. member not to ask me to abandon merit in making promotions, even if someone is by passed. Just look what has happened in the case of this reorganization which it seems to me the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Brig. Bronkhorst) does not like very much. As a result of this reorganization, not only have salaries and allowances been raised as from the beginning of the year. Hon. members will know that it has also resulted in our attracting a large number of recruits, or a considerable number, to join the force. And, Mr. Chairman, I can say with pride that the police college has not only raised the entrance standard to Standard VIII—we now start with Standard VIII and higher—but we have also extended the period of training which was previously from four to six months to a year. We have not only succeeded in filling the college for the course which started in January or February, but in fact it is overcrowded. This is a magnificent achievement. Hon. members also know, as I have said by way of an interjection, that as far as recruiting is concerned, we have succeeded beyond our expectations. I do not say that we have enough recruits, but we have succeeded beyond our expectations, so much so that with the assistance of the 500 women whom we are using in offices instead of men, there is a shortage of less than 100 White officers. I have already given the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) that information this morning. Of course, there is still a shortage. I admit that. But the increased salaries and improved allowances have improved the position. The fact that the Government has been so good as to allocate the Police Force 200 additional officers so that we can expand has enabled us to do certain things. In appointing officers we have first of all taken seniority into account, but ability as well. I shall be very sorry if hon. members want us to follow the policy of not discriminating at all, because that would represent a departure from the policy which South Africa has followed since the establishment of the Police Force in 1912.

No one asked for that.

Then we are agreed on that point.

The policy of merit is a very good one.

Yes, but then it must be applied sensibly. In reorganizing the structure of the force, matters were also so arranged that there are 366 posts for chief constables. I am only mentioning this fact, in addition to the 200 officers, in order to show that we have made progress of which we can be proud. We have not yet made sufficient progress, but we are moving ahead in that direction.

Then the hon. member has asked me about first-class and second-class sergeants. He thinks that an injustice has been done to the first-class sergeants as a result of this reorganization. Allow me to tell the hon. member that this change is quite popular amongst certainly the majority of the first-class sergeants because approximately 560 head-constable posts have been made available as a result of the reorganization. I therefore really cannot understand what the reason is for this dissatisfaction. There may be dissatisfaction because people consider that second-class sergeants should first pass examinations before becoming first-class sergeants. That is also the position, although they do not write three examinations, but only two. But I should like to tell the Committee more particularly that after a departmental committee representing the police and the Public Service Commission had instituted an investigation, the two ranks of first-class and second-class sergeant were amalgamated into the rank of sergeant. The maximum salary in the case of first-class sergeants was retained for both. In other words, the second-class sergeant is now placed on the higher grade. The hon. member says that there is dissatisfaction, and I therefore think that it is a good thing that I should give these facts. The reasons which have resulted in this amalgamation are inter alia the fact that by law no distinction is drawn between the duties and responsibilities of the first-class sergeant and the second-class sergeant. The Public Service has only two ranks between the salaries of R780 and R2,160, while in the police there are four ranks which require officers to pass no less than three promotion examinations before the notch of R2,160 can be reached. Because the examinations are comprehensive and difficult, only one out of five candidates pass on the average. The restrictive effect of these three examinations which had to be passed, together with the then existing post structure, resulted in it taking approximately 18 years to reach the rank of chief constable with a maximum salary of R2,160, while the public servant after only 16 to 18 years reaches a rank equivalent to that of captain with a maximum salary of R3,120. Amalgamation has had the result that second-class sergeants—all the old faithfuls who because of their advanced years no longer find it easy to study for examinations—can now advance to the maximum salary of a first-class sergeant, namely R2,040. His maximum salary has only been raised by one R100 notch. One restrictive examination has been abolished, but the ambitious, lesser paid officers can reach a higher salary more quickly. Ample provision has been made for the first-class sergeant who wants promotion as a result of the expansion which took effect at the beginning of the year. The expansion has resulted in the creation of no less than 563 vacancies for chief constables.

What is the total number of chief constable posts at the moment?

I shall give that figure presently. All first-class sergeants will be able to write examinations for promotion to chief constable in the near future. Second-class sergeants must first have three years’ service as sergeant before they can write examinations for promotion to chief constable. As a result of the amalgamation of the two sergeant ranks, the first-class sergeants have not been degraded; they retain their seniority just as they did prior to the amalgamation. Out of a total of 13,364 White posts, constables and second-class sergeants held more than 11,000 posts. The amalgamation has remedied a weakness in the case of these members. The amalgamation has given relief where it was most needed. The older second-class sergeant has quite rightly been helped. Ambitious younger members of the force have one less difficult examination to write, and this has undoubtedly made the police service more attractive to young men who want to make the police service their career. I thought that I would give these details to try to convince the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) that when one examines the facts, this is something regarding which one can perhaps convince oneself that this was the right thing to do. Hon. members may criticize this step, but fortunately it is now a fait accompli and therefore nothing can be done about it.

I must say that I was greatly impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) this morning. I think it contained a number of constructive suggestions and I am very pleased he drew our attention to an outstanding factor, namely that so many of our English-speaking men do not join the Police Force. It is, as one hon. member expressed it, left almost entirely to one section of the population. I have not been able to find out so far what the real reasons are. Whether it is that one section of the population is more interested in commercial life, I do not know. But there is a lack of interest and we must do something about it, and we have been trying our best, but our best has not been good enough.

Is it not due to a lack of prospects?

No, I do not think so, because from the beginning of this year the salaries have been increased almost to the general level of the Public Service, generally speaking, and in some cases, better. So it cannot be lack of attraction. Something else must be wrong, but I do not know what it is. The hon. member pointed out that especially boys from the towns do not come forward to join the police. It is more particularly the men from the platteland who join. He suggested that we should have closer liaison between the Police Force and our schools. I cannot agree with him more. But that is a plan we are following. We have been contacting the schools for the last few months extensively, but the results have not been very promising. He suggests that we should have more displays on prize-giving days and other occasions by the Police Force. I think he is correct and as far as possible that should be done, as far as it can fit in with the work of the police. This matter needs more consideration than it has received so far. If we could find out what the reasons are we might solve the problem.

But they join the Rhodesian Police.

That may be so, but the Afrikaans-speaking there are of course in the minority and they do not make out the whole of the Police Force. We can examine the patient in due course and see whether we can find a cure. A suggestion was made this morning by a colleague of the hon. member for Salt River, by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). I do not know that that is not the remedy. He suggested that those who join the police should more or less be confined to their own area. Well, that is something to be considered. My only difficulty is what will happen to Natal. They will be without police. I think the suggestion by the hon. member for Pinelands merits consideration, that each area should be asked to supply their own police. That is all I can say about the point raised by the hon. member, except to thank him for his constructive contribution.

*I am now replying to hon. members in the order in which they have participated in the debate. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) started with an unfortunate speech which I regret. It was an unfortunate speech. I am sorry that he has not rather left it to the Leader of the Opposition to set the tone for the debate on the police for the simple reason that the hon. member was not fair. The older members of the House will understand my point when I say that the test of a member is often his fairness. The hon. member has unfortunately referred to Mr. Barnard who has been promoted to Major. While he was discussing the case and had my reply in his hand which I had furnished him on 3 February, I said to him by way of interjection: Please tell the House what Mr. Barnard’s rank was before he was promoted to a major in the police. He then said: “ No, you can tell the House.” When I told the hon. member that it was in the reply which he had in his hand he did not give the information. How greatly one weakens one’s case in this House when one is unfair to an official who cannot defend himself. It is simply not done. He has raised the case and I therefore just want to give the facts and to remind the House again of what I have just told the hon. member for Springs, namely, that he must remember that 200 additional posts have been allocated to the police and secondly that we should like to attract brains to the Police Force. The force welcomes that. In the third place, there are certain posts in the Police Force which certain people can fill better than others. Here we are dealing with a particularly capable official, as I should know, because he was my private secretary for a number of years. He is an outstanding person who has already been offered the post of inspector in the public service. But he has also qualified himself to hold posts in the three services. He has held the rank of Captain in the Army, and that is what the hon. member did not want to say. Captain is the rank which is just below that of major, and the salary corresponds to that which Major Barnard drew, namely, that of a captain. For the reasons I have given, it is nothing new to bring a capable person from outside into the Police Force to help the force. In my reply to the hon. member I have given examples of a number of men whom previous Governments brought in from outside and that was a good thing. I have no objection to that. The men whose names which he read out were all capable men, particularly General Pierre de Villiers, a person whom the previous Government appointed from outside straight to the rank of Colonel, a little later to that of Brigadier and still later to that of Major-General. He deserved it and it was a good thing. Now hon. members want this practice to be stopped. They say: Do not look for brains outside the force. I am certain that the police have no objection if it is not done on a large scale, and it will not be done on a large scale. They will admit that they are not all equally capable. I just want to read the details which the question contained, because I think it should be placed on record seeing that the hon. member has once again raised the point. In passing he has adopted the strange attitude that Major Barnard is too capable for this post; he should rather have remained in the public service. But the hon. member will surely appreciate that we must select the best man for a post. That argument therefore does not hold water. He asked me whether my attention had been directed to a report in the Cape Times that Captain Barnard had been appointed as a major in the police. My reply was in the affirmative. He asked what post this official had held in the Department, whether he had had any previous police experience and what qualifications he had for the rank of major. The reply was that he had been a private secretary and that prior to his transfer, he had already been promoted in the public service to a post equivalent to that of major. He had served in South African Air Force and attained the substantive rank of Captain. He had passed his examinations at the South African Military College and in addition he had had many years of administrative experience in the public service, of which seven had been in the Defence Secretariat. The hon. member asked whether any police officers who were qualified for the post had been by-passed by this official and if so, how many? The answer was: No, not for the post for which his services are required. I can tell the House that his services are required in a certain direction which I should not mention at this stage. [Interjection.] After all, I am the one who must judge. Then the hon. member asked what the reason was for the transfer of this person from justice to the police. The reply was that he had achieved Grade I in the public service language tests in both official languages and after passing the necessary tests for a public service inspector, he had been offered the post of public service inspector by the Public Service Commission. With a view to the Public Service Commission’s offer and his military qualifications and administrative experience, I then approved on the recommendation of the Commissioner of the South African Police of his transfer to the police for the sake of improved administration in general and with a view particularly to the new policy which had been applied in the South African Police Force. I pointed out to the hon. member that in the past various persons even from outside the public service had been appointed to posts carrying the officer’s rank in the police, such as—and then I gave the names to which I have referred. One would have thought that the hon. member for North-East Rand did not have this reply in his hands when he spoke yesterday.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has asked me about the Mobile Watch which has been established in the Transkei. The details are that it will fulfil the same functions as the former Mobile Watch did in the Transkei. The new Mobile Watch will be partly mounted, but will be also partly mobilized. I appreciate greatly what the hon. member has said, namely that the police have behaved very well in Pondoland, and I shall convey what he has said to the police because I think it is of great value to us coming as it has from the hon. member who represents that area, and we are very proud of this achievement. He has asked who will take command. It will be a senior officer. The hon. member has said that here and there there are people—I think he should rather raise this matter on the Defence Vote—who are doing certain things in that area. I am also familiar with the Defence Force and I say that he can make the same remarks in their case as he has in respect of the police because one finds black sheep everywhere. We shall always have such people and we shall reduce their numbers as far as possible, but in general we are very proud of the force. I am certain that the Minister of Defence will also be able to assure the hon. member that his men have behaved themselves well in that area.

The hon. member has once again raised the case of Kgosana. I am sorry that it has been raised at all for the simple reason which I gave yesterday, namely that the case is sub judice. But what has been said, has been said. Whether it will harm his case or not, it has been said. I am now in this difficulty, and I have been considering all morning what I should do. Accusations have been made against the Government and hon. members are asking for the facts; charges are being made; and statements are being made which will prejudice the case of this young Bantu, if he should return, and if he returns he will have to stand trial. But after consideration I have now decided that I shall give the facts because they have already been given, and if Kgosana comes back he will have to be told that it was as a result of the facts which the Opposition have mentioned that the facts have been given. The facts do not differ greatly from the facts which we have already given one another, except that I think it will be a good thing that we should have the report given by the officer in command of the Security Branch in Cape Town. On 28 June he submitted a report to the Commissioner in Pretoria. I think I should read it because this report was by a very capable officer, who at that time still held the rank of captain. He commenced by saying—

I do not think I should give further details because I do not know what Kgosana’s defence will be. Now that I have given the facts, namely that he was arrested and then released and that the police could not find him, I think we should leave the matter there.

Must I infer from the hon. the Minister’s reply that General Rademeyer gave the instruction that he should be arrested?

Yes, it appears so from the report.

Who drew up that report?

The report was submitted to the Commissioner of Police by the officer in command, Security Branch, Cape Town, namely Major van der Westhuizen, a very capable and reliable officer. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has also asked me whether we shall use older police in places where the police should act with greater responsibility. I think that there is a great deal to be said for the speeches which have been made on this point on both sides of the House and I shall ask my Department to investigate the matter. The new arrangement is that the young men will come back to the college for refresher courses from time to time. My Department will follow up the suggestions which have been made here. I agree that it depends on circumstances where one can use a young police officer of 18 or 19 years of age. In some instances he will be very useful and in other instances he will not be so useful if a snap decision has to be taken. That is the position with young people in all spheres of life. The point which the hon. member has raised, together with hon. members on this side, can therefore be investigated. We can go into the matter to see whether it is not possible to use somewhat older men—men who are a little older than the young men just out of college—for certain types of work. Then the hon. member touched on a point which the Government has already been investigating for some considerable time. He has made the point that the police should not be used as prosecutors in the courts because it is precisely the police who collect the evidence against the accused and then they also act as prosecutors. But why has this been done since 1912? [Interjections.] No, I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member; I agree with him. Why has it been done? Ever since 1912 the system has been that the police are used to act as prosecutors for the simple reason that there are not sufficient people on the Attorney-General’s staff and particularly on the staff of the State Attorney to act as prosecutors. That has always been the difficulty and it is still the position to-day. However, as the Public Service grows, so it may to an ever-increasing extent be possible to reduce the number of police who have to act as prosecutors because they do not like it themselves. That is my reply to the hon. member and hon. members on this side who have raised the matter.

Then the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) has said a few words in defence of the police. I should like to agree with him and to thank him. He has spoken in glowing terms about the important work which the police are doing. I am most thankful that we have been able to discuss this matter during the past two days in the spirit in which we have discussed it because I think that as far as the police in particular are concerned, they deserve all the sympathy and cooperation of the entire country because, as the hon. member has rightly said, they are doing dangerous work, work which requires great sacrifices. It is once and for all the position that when someone makes a mistake, then the police are held responsible, often wrongly so, but they are nevertheless held responsible. The police are the people who stand guard over the country’s security. Under the 1955 Act the primary task of the Police Force is to maintain security in South Africa. But in preserving the security of the country, the police have to take a great deal and also have to swallow a great deal, if I may put it like that. In the old colonial days a governor invited a prominent person to have a meal with him. He then asked someone else whether he should go. When the person asked him why he asked, he replied: “ Yes, I know that I will eat (eet) very well at the Governor-General’s house, but I shall also have to swallow (opvreet) a great deal.” That is the position in which the police find themselves and I therefore want to thank the hon. member and other hon. members who have spoken with appreciation of the services rendered by the police. No one has risen here without having a good wood for the police. They have to work long hours away from their homes. When we rest at the week-ends, they are on duty. In times of trouble they have to be continually at their posts. I therefore think that in any country in the world, and particularly in South Africa with our population constituted as it is, we can never be thankful enough that we have a Police Force of the calibre we have, with very few exceptions. These are people who are on duty when we are on holiday; and when we sleep peacefully at night, they are guarding our families and our property. Every day they take their lives into their hands, as the hon. member has said.

Then the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) has also paid a tribute to the police, for which we are grateful. He has asked for details about the influx of Natives to the cities and he has also directed our attention to robberies in the cities. He has raised a number of other points, but the main point which he has discussed has been the question of robberies. As a result of our industrial development which has resulted in an influx of Natives into the cities, we cannot always succeed in preventing such robberies.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has urged this morning that we should spread the police across the country. That of course depends on circumstances. We cannot, for example, have the same number of police in Namaqualand, because the population is not as dense in that area, as we have in Eloff Street in Johannesburg. It therefore depends on circumstances where the police should be stationed, but as far as possible the police are spread across the country. We are doing everything in our power to enable the police to prevent robbery and other crimes on the streets. We are trying to have more police patrolling in vans and by other means in the cities. Hon. members have pleaded this morning for “ the policeman on the beat”. In the old days he was almost a member of the family; he knew all the people on the street and all the people in his block. But now that things are so mobile it is almost impossible to leave everything to the foot police. They have to be motorized and they have to be able to move rapidly. We have to act in the light of circumstances, but I have already mentioned yesterday all the steps which we are taking at the moment to release additional police for work of this nature. This matter receives attention from time to time and we are doing our best to counter these difficulties.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has discussed the Basutoland borders and has said that he was glad to learn from me that as far as stock theft and smuggling are concerned, we intended establishing police posts on the Basutoland border. He has also asked that we should take similar action in respect of Bechuanaland. Well, Bechuanaland is a vast area and what the hon. member asks will not be so easy to carry out. All I can tell him to-day is that the Government is investigating the whole border position, from the point of view of smuggling and stock theft and from the point of view of foot and mouth disease. The Government is carrying out a survey to see to what extent we can guard the borders more effectively.

The hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) has made a fine plea on behalf of the police this morning. He spoke with a great deal of knowledge of the position and we listened to him with interest. I shall convey his thanks to the police. He has referred particularly to the improvements which have been effected in the force.

Now, it is a case of “ thank the member ” instead of “ thank the Minister ”.

I do so in the full expectation of what might come.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has made a very interesting speech. He has raised one or two points, such as the improved treatment of the police, both White and non-White. I think that that is in fact being done. I think that even in the cities it is the position that when police officers visit the homes of people, they are given refreshments, and if non-White police come they are given refreshments in a suitable place, outside or wherever it may be, because they may just have finished a long journey. I am glad the hon. member has raised the point. I think that it is the custom on the platteland. When a member of the Police Force visits a farm, he is given refreshments. White police are invited into the lounge or the dining room and the non-White police are given refreshments in a place which is set aside for them. This is a good old tradition on the platteland, a tradition which I hope will be applied to an ever-increasing extent in the cities. The hon. member has urged that we should introduce a President’s medal, seeing that the Queen’s medal will now disappear. The whole question of the consequences of establishing a republic in this country is being considered at the moment by the Cabinet with the assistance of all the various Departments. We shall know in the near future what the consequences are, and the Government will give proper attention to the matter. But at the appropriate time I shall convey to my colleagues the hon. member’s suggestion that a President’s medal should be issued to the police instead of the Queen’s medal. I can appreciate that each of the three services will be only too anxious to have the name “ President’s medal ” given to their medal. I cannot give the hon. member any assurance on this point, but I shall convey his suggestion to my colleagues.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) made a speech this morning in which he repeated his allegation of “ political pressure ” which he made yesterday. He therefore does not deserve it that I should tell him what I am now going to tell him, namely, that my Department has already been instructed to give consideration to the part of his constituency where there is a shortage of police stations and other facilities. In fact I am sorry that I must give the hon. member this assurance because he really does not deserve it after what he has said here, namely, that the police supposedly do certain things under “ political pressure I deny that most emphatically, as I did yesterday as well. I have asked the hon. member to give examples, but it seems to me that the examples which he has given are both ex parte and hearsay. He must forgive me, but it is not a very praiseworthy remark which the hon. member has made here. After reconsideration I hope that he will not make such a remark again about the police because after all they are merely carrying out their instructions.

To protect him.

Under the circumstances facing South Africa, Africa and the world to-day, no one should regard himself as being so important as to refuse to answer a question put to him by the police. He should help them. A question is often asked because the police have information which obliges them to ask the question.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has made representations regarding housing. While he was speaking I hoped that we would be able to find the funds to comply with the hon. member’s request, because he went a little further this morning than hon. members usually do. Usually the request is that we should provide housing to the police, but the hon. member has gone further. He has now said that these houses should be furnished.

No, you have misunderstood me. I was referring to standard houses, so that if Mr. A is transferred from District I to District 5, his furniture will fit that house equally as well as his former house and he will not have to buy new curtains and different furniture.

I thank the hon. member for his explanation. He wants standard houses. But some people have 12 children, some have six and some have only one. Consequently we must also have different types of houses, but I shall convey his request to the Department.

Where is there a police officer with 12 children?

Well, I hope they will have 12 children.

You should set the example.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) made an unfortunate speech this morning. He has criticized the behaviour of the police in connection with the non-White conference which has been held in Pietermaritzburg. I think that he has only expressed that criticism because he probably does not have the facts.

I was referring to a White procession, not a non-White procession.

Yes, there were not only non-Whites; there were Whites as well. The conference was held, but it was the duty of the police to ensure that everything went as it should because the Press had already announced in advance what the aim in having that conference was and what was to be discussed at that conference. The conference was not prohibited, but a careful watch was kept on all the proceedings, and I cannot understand why the hon. member resents this. He has said himself that the police took photographs, but this is surely not the first time in the history of South Africa that photographs have been taken of a procession.

Not by the police.

How does the hon. member who did not attend the conference, know who attended the conference? In the second place, how does he know that there were people who had to be watched? The police had to do their duty and now he resents the fact that the police did their duty in respect of the procession as well as in the hall. Mr. Chairman, we have our Riotous Assemblies Act, and when the police act in terms of that legislation it does not mean that the meeting is “ riotous ”, but the police must keep a close watch on the position and ensure that no difficulties arise. I want to repeat the old saying: Prevention is better than cure. Mr. Chairman, if I had prohibited the meeting, then the hon. member could have complained, but the meeting was not prohibited and I am surprised that he is now complaining because the police were present and did their duty. Under the Riotous Assemblies Act it is clear that the police must exercise supervision. At certain times a close watch must be kept, particularly when the Press prophesy what is to be discussed at such a meeting. The hon. member knows what the Press prophesied would be discussed. I could not judge whether that prophecy was correct or not, but the Press prophesied that those present would discuss what they were going to do on 31 May. I think it is a good thing that the police were present so that they could keep the Government informed of the position. The hon. member perhaps meant well by his speech but it surprised me somewhat.

Is it customary to have eight policemen taking photographs of an ordinary procession?

Whether there was one or eight taking photographs, we admit that photographs were taken. If eight were required, then there had to be eight.

Intimidation.

No, the hon. member is wrong; it is not intimidation; it is the prevention of intimidation.

Do you also send them to Nationalist Party meetings?

We have not gone quite as far as the hon. member for Salt River did in this regard, namely to send them to National Party meetings, but circumstances may arise when they will also go to such meetings; I do not know; they must judge that for themselves.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member cannot deny that such people were present at National Party meetings when he held that portfolio.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) said something which struck me during his plea this morning for recognition of the good work done by the police, namely that South Africa should realize that there must be people to maintain law and order, and that it is the duty of the police to maintain law and order. I shall convey his fine sentiments to the police. I agree entirely with what he has said. Criticize them if you wish, but I think that in most instances their actions call for our admiration.

The hon. member for Brakpan has referred to the question of the holiday bonus, and the point he has made is this: If one of the marriage partners dies, then the surviving one is not entitled to the bonus. But that is of course not confined to the police, as the hon. member knows; the same position applies in the Public Service. The same interpretation is also given to the Act in the Public Service. But because the hon. member has raised the matter, I shall go into the matter in consultation also with the Public Service to see whether a change should not be made in that regard because judging from what the hon. member has said this morning, it seems to me that there is a case for such a change.

I think that I have already replied during my speech to most of the points raised by the hon. member for Salt River. He has also urged that younger policemen should not be used for responsible work. I want to tell him that I was pleased to reply to his question at the beginning of the year regarding recruiting because at that time there were already indications that the recruiting was going well. That position still holds good, and the large numbers at the college are an indication of what is happening.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la Rey Venter) has also spoken in defence of the police and has also pointed out that the police deserve the sympathy of South Africa because they in fact do their work in the face of continuous danger and that we can only have respect for them. The hon. member has said that meetings are being held under the guise of church services. I remember that years ago, before I took over this portfolio, the police went to a religious meeting near Johannesburg at which the preacher happened to be sitting on a keg. Eventually, after the service, the police found that he was sitting on a keg of beer—the beer which my hon. friend, the Minister of Bantu Administration, wants to make the national drink. I shall inform my Department of the case to which the hon. member has mentioned, and I think the Department should go into the matter and that this type of activity should be kept under supervision. Then he has also made representations in respect of police housing. He has also urged that improved housing should be provided. We are engaged on this matter, but I do not know whether the State can afford to erect housing for everyone. There are limits to the financial capacity of any country. The hon. member has mentioned the fact that there is a shortage of housing at Phillipstown for example and that there is no storage accommodation for fuel. I shall have the matter investigated.

The hon. member for Groblersdal has had another opportunity to speak, and he once again criticized those people who are critical of the police. I am glad that the hon. member has raised the matter regarding which I have made a statement in this House, namely the establishment of shooting clubs for women. I think that I have already stated on that occasion that there will be a person at all the police stations in the country—there are approximately 1,100—who will be prepared to teach our women to shoot. I have appointed a senior officer who under the Adjutant-General will exercise special supervision over the ladies’ shooting clubs throughout the country.

What is the position regarding women police?

In reply to a question I said this morning that the Government was considering using women on a limited scale in the Police Force.

The complaint of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) was in effect that the Coloured police did not have the same powers of arrest as White police. He is not quite correct. The position is that in most serious cases, where the police come across a murder for example and there is no White police officer in the immediate vicinity, they can make the arrest. That is that in this instance they cannot make arrests if a White policeman is available. Then the hon. member has discussed the reduction in the number of Coloureds in the Police Force. I just want to tell the hon. member that there are still a number of posts open for Coloured police. Our recruiting has unfortunately not been all that successful, but we are continuing with it. There are a number of vacant posts. The hon. member can therefore tell these people whenever he goes that they should apply.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) has raised the question of the wearing of identity numbers by the police. The investigation into this matter has now been completed and the police will now have to wear identity numbers again. We are going further and because we want the public to be able to see where the police are if they require assistance, we have now decided that police vehicles should have the word “ Police ” on them so that they are recognizable day and night. The hon. member will concede that this is also a sound step.

The hon. member has asked what is being done in the Arlow case. I can only tell the hon. member that an ex gratia payment is being considered. As regards the curfew in his constituency to which the hon. member has referred, I can only say that I cannot judge on the matter. If the position in Pine-lands should be such that it becomes necessary, then I am afraid that he will simply have to change his opinion.

The import of the fine speech by the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) is in effect that he wants us to make an appeal to the public to help the police. I have already discussed this point. The hon. member also wants us to take more active steps as regards the misuse of Bantu beer. Before replying to that, I should like to give proper consideration to the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Vote No. 27 (Social Welfare and Pensions).

On Vote No 27,—“ Social Welfare and Pensions ”, R76,546,000,

I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. I wish to deal with matters concerning social pensioners and potential pensioners. I also wish to deal with certain concessions which have been announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. At the outset I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare for those concessions. I may say they are concessions which we have asked for over the years, and the first and most important to my way of thinking is the question of residential qualification. This is a question that has worried us on the Select Committee on Pensions over the years, and I want to point out exactly what the position is, and I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will tell us exactly what the position is for the future.

Sir, at present when a person applies for a pension, he must comply with the residential qualification, and it says that an applicant must be resident and domiciled in the Union at the time of making application for a pension. Any person who is a South African citizen, or a citizen of a Commonwealth country, or the Republic of Ireland, and who has been such a citizen for five years, must have been resident in the Union for 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of application, and then it says—

Now the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech had this to say amongst other things—

Then it goes on to say—

What I want to find out is what the position is of a citizen of a Commonwealth country in view of the position to-day. I take it that when the amending Bill is passed it will read something like this “ any person who is a South African citizen and who has resided in the Union for five out of the last ten years immediately preceding the date of his application, may now apply for a pension ”. Of course provided he or she is not barred by the means test and as long as they are domiciled in the Union at the time of making the application. Does that also apply to war veterans? Does the same period apply? I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to these points. Then I want to ask whether any alteration has been made in regard to aliens. In the past the qualification was “ 25 out of 30 years ”.

Then I come to the question of the blind people. To-day, as the Minister knows, a blind person has to be resident in the Union, must be a South African citizen, or if he is not a South African citizen, must have been ordinarily resident in the Union for ten out of 15 years. Has that been changed?

That remains the same.

Then we go on to the question of disability grants. There an applicant must have been a South African citizen for five years, and been ordinarily resident in the Union for 15 out of 20 years immediately preceding the date of application. If he is an alien he must have been an ordinary resident in the Union for 25 out of 30 years. Has that been changed?

As the period is being reduced to five out of ten years, there must be quite a number of old people who have applied in the past, their applications having been refused. I take it that they will have to re-apply, and I think it is up to us to advertise the fact that these people if they are in this position can now re-apply. Which is the easiest way for them to re-apply? Might I suggest that perhaps we could do it this way, by that particular person, whoever he may be, writing to the Commissioner and stating something to the effect that the law has been altered, and can the case be reviewed? I don’t know whether it is possible for the Department to go through the files to see who will be allowed to re-apply? The easiest way I think would be for the parties concerned to make application by letter for a review of their case, and then I take it all the Department will require will be the red form to see if their assets have changed at all. I do not think it will be necessary to submit the white form with the birth certificate and all that.

Another concession has been made to those old-age pensioners who are blind and disabled and who require an attendant. At present an attendant’s allowance is made at the rate of £18 a year, or £1 10s. a month. That in terms of the Budget speech has now been increased by 10s. per month, making it £2 per month. As the hon. Minister knows when an application is submitted for such an allowance, a doctor’s certificate has to be obtained. Here again there is the question of how these people must make application for the increase. Will it be up to the parties concerned to write a letter to the Commissioner?

Those who are receiving the allowance, get the increase automatically.

I thank the Minister. A further concession, I understand, has been made to the Coloureds and Indians. I understand the bonus has been increased for the Coloureds by R2.26 and to the Indians by R1.34.

Then there is another concession to non-state homes for aged White people. In the Budget speech it has also been mentioned that it has been decided to pay a pension from the first day on which the application is made. If I make an application on 15 April, I will be paid from I April, and that payment will continue to the last day of the month. I do not know why this was done. I don’t think it will help the pensioners very much, although it may gain them a pound or two when they may first make application, or a pound or two when they die. The estate will receive one or two pounds extra, or has it been done in the interest of the Department?

And to prevent over-payment.

I take it that will also apply to maintenance grants and allowances payable under the Children’s Act?

Yes.

While we are on this question of payments, I must say that I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has not provided for the case I quoted two or three sessions back. That was a case where, briefly, I put in an application for an individual for a war veteran’s pension at the end of July. The Department was evidently busy at the time and the application was not dealt with until about September. A cheque was sent to this party, but he died two days before the cheque was received. His wife received the cheque and she went along to the executor of the estate, and they cashed it and paid the doctor’s and chemist’s bills. Three days, after that the Commissioner asked for a refund of this money. I just want to quote what the position is in Australia. It simply seems a matter of using the word “ accrued ”: “ Any amount of pensions, allowances, endowments or benefits under this Act which has accrued and is unpaid.” I feel that if that had been contained in our Act, they could have kept that money. I think the hon. Minister will admit that it was pretty tough at the time to have to send back the cheque. This is what the then Minister of Finance (I think it was Mr. Havenga) had to say—

As I say, in my humble opinion if the word “ accrued ” is inserted, they can keep the money in such a case.

For the actual concessions I want to express appreciation, but I must say that I personally am very, very disappointed, particularly as the hon. the Minister of Finance started off in his Budget speech with these remarks—

Now, Sir, this Budget does nothing for our pensioners, except in the few minor respects which I have mentioned.

You might get something more from me.

I hope so, because we must not forget that a surplus of R38,000,000 is anticipated, and surely something could have been granted to the old-age pensioners. I want to emphasize again that when we come to think of people trying to live on £11 10s. a month, they don’t really live, they just exist.

I want to get on to the policy of the Government in regard to pensions in general. Earlier on in the Session I put this question on the Order Paper—

The reply was—

Now, Sir, the hon. Minister in the Other Place had this to say, and I want to read this out because I think it is time that the Government told us exactly what they intend doing—

Then in another statement made by the hon. the Minister about pensions he said more or less the same, and then the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) made a statement in this House about pensions—

The position of our old-age people is becoming very, very serious. I have tried to get certain figures. I understand that the total number of our old-age pensioners to-day is round about 460,000, and in Durban, as far as I can find out, we have about 127,000 European pensioners, and these people are in pretty bad circumstances. I believe that to-day it is becoming one of South Africa’s major social problems. Something will have to be done.

The question that is cropping up right throughout the country is the valuation of property in connection with old-age pensions. The hon. the Minister will know that a man is allowed £1,200 of property. Now the cost of owning a property is going up and up. Valuations of property have increased practically throughout the Union. Recently there was a revaluation in Cape Town, and to show you what can happen: Here I have the municipal valuation of a property in Cape Town, and the old valuation was £970, that property has been revalued recently and the value placed on it is £1,910. I understand that once a pensioner applies for a pension and the value of his property is accepted, that is accepted for all times.

Yes.

What is the position if a couple are getting a pension and one of them dies? The estate of the person who has died is dealt with. Is the valuation then altered, or does it remain as it was before the death of the person? You see, Sir, this question of increased valuations may not affect the pensioners at the moment so much, but it does affect potential pensioners; the people who, in the ordinary way may apply for pensions, say next month. They may suddenly find that this happens to them. You may have a case like the one which I quoted where you have a valuation increased from £970 to £1,910. I know that we cannot stop properties being revalued but I do think that the Government should go into this question of the £1,200 limit. To-day that figure is absolutely absurd. I am not the only one who has mentioned this question, we have had it raised from all sides of the House. Only last year we had the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) saying—

That is the position, Sir. We want these people to own houses but we are making it difficult for them. It is not our fault, it is a result of the cost of living and the conditions in which we live. With these increased valuations and the extra rates that a man has to pay and extra insurance—because now his property has gone up in value—it becomes very difficult for them. Let me give a case in point: Here we have an increase of £1,000 which means an increase in rates and insurance and everything else. It is quite possible that something like this can put a man completely out so far as his old age pension is concerned.

It cannot put him out.

It does not put him out if he has a pension at the moment, but if he is a potential pensioner it will. If a man applies for a pension in six months’ time, he does not have the same opportunity as he had when his house was valued at £970. I therefore think this question of the £1,200 limit should be looked into by the Government as soon as possible. Evidently Cape Town has revalued. Durban has done the same and I take it that this will happen throughout the country.

You have a revaluation every three years.

That may be so. If it is so then we must keep up with the times.

I have not very much time left to me so I would like to mention one particular case. I do not know whether I am quite correct in what I am going to put to the hon. the Minister but I would like to give this as an example. A war disabled and/or railway pensioner who receives a small pension also receives a cost-of-living allowance. In many cases that lifts his income above the Means Test. I think I am right in saying that it has been the practice, when application has been made for an old-age pension, to grant a little of the allowance to bring that person within the Means and to give him whichever is the bigger amount. If I am wrong I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me so but I believe that that procedure has now been altered. I have a particular case in point and I would like to give these figures briefly. This particular individual receives a military pension and a railway pension. He is married and between the two of them they draw £316. As the hon. the Minister knows the maximum for the Means is £156. That gives them £158 Os. 6d. each. They are therefore £2 Os. 6d. over the Means. If we brought them down that £2 or £3 we could give them £6 each. That is the point I want to make. I believe that that position has now been altered. I raise this because these people have been refused a pension. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring one or two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. The first relates to an announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech, namely, that in future social pensions will be paid on the first day of the month during which the application was made, and will terminate at the end of the month in which the pension terminates, whether through the death of the pensioner or other circumstances. I want to say that it is clear to me that to a large extent this has been done for the Department’s convenience but it also entails benefits which are not to be disparaged for the pensioner. In the first instance, if the pensioner applies in the middle of the month, he will benefit by already getting a few pounds extra at the end of that month. But what I find rather strange is this. Assuming that the pensioner’s pension terminates as a result of his death, then I cannot understand how the pensioner or his dependant will benefit. Assuming that he dies on the 15th of the month, the amount will normally first be paid to his executor when his estate is wound up. I hope, Mr. Chairman, without advocating the amendment of legislation, that the hon. the Minister will nevertheless be able to arrange the scheme in such a way that when the pension terminates as a result of the death of a pensioner—the death of one of two old people—this pension will immediately be paid to the surviving spouse at the end of that month. Because that is precisely the difficult period for the people concerned. Money is not plentiful. They have funeral expenses and other expenses as well, and if these few pounds can be paid to the surviving spouse at that stage, it would help such persons greatly and would be of great benefit to them. I want to make a suggestion, namely, that each pensioner should be able to nominate someone who will be entitled to his last month’s payment, if his pension terminates as a result of death. I merely make the suggestion to the hon. the Minister; I do not know how he will arrange matters, but I do want to advocate such a step.

The second matter relates to what I always regard as the most pathetic case, namely when two old people have lived together in their house and one of them dies, there is additional expenditure and the life companion has died. The next thing the surviving spouse learns is that his (or her) pension is now frozen. They both received pensions. The next thing he hears is that because the one partner has died, there must be a revaluation. The matter must be reconsidered and his pension is frozen. This is added to his own sorrow. Usually the position is that after some time the surviving spouse is informed that the matter has now been reconsidered and because the property, which he owns and which is usually just a house, was valued at a certain amount and was divided between two persons, for example an amount of £1,200, and because this must now be applied to one person only, he is now only entitled to make a deduction of £600. He is told: You are now single and the remainder represents assets which must be brought into account. He then finds that as a result his pension is slightly reduced—usually by 10s. or some such amount. I want to say to the Minister that if there is something which saddens the hearts of our old people at the very time when they have lost their life’s companion, at this very time when their lives have been disrupted and such a person must go on alone, then it is this which hurts them greatly. This links up with what the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. J. Lewis) has said about the question of valuations. But I do urge that in this regard something should be done to see whether as far as the small pension they receive is concerned, we cannot make these things easier for such people at the very time when the world is difficult and dark.

If I have another minute or so then I should like to submit a third thought to the hon. the Minister. One encounters so many cases where two people have lived carefully and have brought up their children but have now reached the retirement age, own too much to die and too little to live on. These are the difficult cases. I know that we find difficult cases under all legislation and that we cannot provide for every eventuality. But one idea did cross my mind. I do not have the details but I do want to make the suggestion and ask that the Minister’s Department should think along those lines in order to see whether they cannot devise some scheme or other. It is that in the case of this type of person assistance should be granted by using the capital which such a person has, to buy an annuity for him—a scheme whereby annuities are bought. I do not have clarity on this point. I have not had time to consider the matter fully but I do feel that this is the type of case where these people have just too much to die and just too little to live on, and where the State should assist such a person to buy an annuity which would enable him to live within certain limits for the rest of his life without fear of the future.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. J. Lewis). I shall reply to him at a later stage. I am only rising because I may be able to give information at this stage which may eliminate a great deal of discussion as a result of the speech by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser). He has raised the question of an old couple who are living in a house; it is their only asset; they are both receiving a pension. The one then dies, and that pension falls away. I readily agree with the hon. member that this is the type of case which we should try to prevent as far as possible, for the reasons he has given. Hon. members will remember that they have raised this matter in the past, and that I and the Department undertook to go into the matter. I can now inform hon. members, and the hon. member for Durban (North) will also be interested in this, that we have now decided to adopt a basis of calculations whereby in future, if one of the two marriage partners dies the pension will be paid to the surviving spouse as though nothing had happened. This complaint which hon. members have had against this position in the past, will therefore fall away in the future. The pension of the surviving spouse will continue as a result of the changed calculation basis as though nothing had changed.

In the second place, hon. members have raised the difficulty, and this links up with what I have just said, that a person receives a pension and then he dies. The Department is then faced with the difficulty that they do not know what the surviving spouse who should receive a pension, will receive from the estate. The pension is then often stopped pending the winding up of the estate. This has caused a great deal of difficulty, and hon. members have had good reason for complaint. I have gone into this matter very carefully with the Department, and it has now been decided that, in order to eliminate all difficulties, the pension will not be stopped in future until such time as the estate has finally been wound up. Hon. members know that it often takes months and sometimes longer to wind up an estate. In the meantime the pension is stopped and the person has to live on the expectation of what he will receive, but he only receives it in the far-distant future. It is now being laid down that in the future the pensions of pensioners will not be cancelled, but the position will only be reviewed when the final accounts are available, that is to say when the estate has been wound up. I think hon. members will welcome this step and I am mentioning this with reference to what the hon. member for Klerksdorp has said in order to save further discussion in this regard. I am convinced, particularly as regards the first group, that we have eliminated a very great source of friction which has caused our old people particular difficulties. Unfortunately I cannot tell hon. members at this stage what these concessions will cost. We could not make an estimate. We must leave that to the future. But I think hon. members will agree with me that although we cannot estimate the cost at this stage, it represents a considerable concession to our pensioners, and not only a concession in cash, but as regards the elimination of the difficulties and sorrow which these people have had to suffer in the past in this respect. This just answers in passing the some what reproachful statement by the hon. member for Durban (North) that we have not given sufficient attention to our old people in this Budget.

When will these concessions take effect?

The commencement date will be I April, the date on which all concessions take effect.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the last two items he has mentioned. They are certainly things that have caused a great deal of stress in the past, and I must pay my tribute to him. I was going to debate this in my speech but, once again, he has proved that he has the interests of his very large family at heart. We will still fight with him, but we do know that when we fight with him he is giving reasonable consideration to our requests.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is responsible for a very large and not very rich family. I have just paid him tribute for the way he handles his job, but I am going to ask him in fairly general terms please to fight a little longer for something more. According to the report of the Department of Social Welfare which was recently issued, there were the following number of pensioners in 1958: Old Age, European 87,307; non-European (Coloured and Indian) 50,824. War Veteran Pensioners, White, 29,393; non-White 1,184. Disability Grants, White, 10,590 and non-Whites 9,942. Blind persons, White, 1,122 and non-White 1,656. One therefore realizes what a responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister as a result of those figures. African pensioners are not his job, and I have not included the number of military pensioners in these figures, but we all know how large that number is. The total number of pensioners must therefore run into several hundreds of thousands throughout the country.

280,000.

Does that include the Bantu?

No.

Further interesting figures come out of this report. The average old-age pension for all, excluding Africans, was, in 1958, £88 9s. 9d. per annum, roughly £7 odd a month. In 1959 the average for Europeans only was £115 4s. 7d. per annum, which has slightly increased since. And for non-Whites — again excluding Africans — it was £41 6s. lid. per annum. That has also increased slightly since then. I am now coming to my point. The hon. the Prime Minister, after the meeting of the new Economic Council said—

Then he went on to say—

I want to point out that Social Welfare Pensioners are the lowest paid group of all, as the figures I have quoted show. I put this to the hon. the Deputy Minister who has always said to us when we have appealed for higher pensions—and in fairness to him I do not know what else he could have said— “ where is the money coming from?” I want to ask him to consider an increase from the economic point of view raised by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech. I suggest that if the Minister would investigate the matter, and would use his great influence and talents to obtain, after due investigation, from the Cabinet, a reasonable increase for all pensioners, this would be the most obvious, certain and quickest way of pump priming our total economy, and surely a better way than embarking on the perilous course of forcing increases to lower paid workers without compensatory productivity. I think this is a very sound argument for the Minister to use in his further battles. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, if the investigation produced, finally, an extra amount of £3 per month for the old-age pensioners for the last years of their lives, just imagine what it would mean not only to them but to the country! Every penny is bound to be spent. It would fan out in the economy in a balanced way, increasing the demands for the staple needs of life, broadening the basis of our industry—I am more or less quoting the Prime Minister’s words. But it is true. It would mean giving a tremendous number of people a small increase that is going to be spent, and it is an economic fact that money distributed in that manner is of very great importance to the economic set-up of the country.

I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister with his nimble mind will not attack me and say this is an inflationary proposal, because it is no such thing.

Thank heaven I am not an economist!

Well, I thought somebody might have warned him. But I would like to prove this in words that the Minister, even if he is not an economist, with his mind will follow. It is no such thing. The small sums received by pensioners—if the Minister will fight for these additional sums—will be spent on the very necessities of life. Our primary producers, the farmers, will be the first to benefit. There is no shadow of doubt about that. I hope the hon. the Minister will throw his weight behind this request for better pensions. The cost will not be prohibitive, as I will proceed to show. In 1960-1—and again I am quoting from this report—social welfare pensioners were granted a further increase of 5 per cent. This was estimated to cost £1,200,000. There was another increase to the war pensioners, another £200,000. I am working on the £1,200,000, and if the Minister would battle for, say, an increase of 20 per cent on the pensions, it could not possibly cost more than £5,000,000. Let us say another £1,000,000. We have a lot of money in this country and that is not an unreasonable amount when you consider that the Government has transferred no less than £125,000,000 to Loan Account ex-Revenue over the last six years, an average of over £20,000,000 a year. Why cannot a portion of that be used for a cause like this? Think of the happiness it would bring. Think of the businesses it would assist. What a shot in the arm it would be to the country’s economy. Mr. Chairman, I want to put it again: such a sum distributed among so many people would give not only help to them but to the country as a whole. In conclusion may I assure the Minister that if he can bring this off—and he should be able to if he plays his cards correctly—he will be regarded as a public benefactor.

I am thankful that I was in the House to-day to hear the hon. member who has just sat down, say that there is a great deal of money in the country. Particularly in view of the fact that he has pleaded for increased pensions, that is in the nature of things something which will have to be done in the future. In other words, he too has great confidence in our future financial position. I share that confidence with him and I certainly also share his view that we should do as much as possible, within limits and within reason, for our pensioners and our old people. In the light of what the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Department have told us this afternoon, I think it is necessary that we should say in this House that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is the one Department which does not only deal with matters which lie very close to our hearts, but also deal with these matters in such a way that the greatest possible satisfaction is achieved. We should like to say that here.

I think it was last year that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this Department received 2,600 postal items daily, that they had to post 1,600 postal items daily and that they received 100 new applications daily. I think that when one takes those facts into account, we can only testify this afternoon that this is a really efficient Department which does its work exceptionally well. Seeing that the hon. the Minister has made the announcement this afternoon regarding houses and the new arrangements which have been made, I also regard this as an indication that the hon. the Minister and the Department really have the interests of our old people and our needy people at heart and that they are considering every possible aspect to see whether relief cannot be granted. Seeing that the hon. member has urged so strongly that pensions should be increased, I think that it is necessary that I should at least point out that over the past 10 or 12 years larger pension increases have been granted than during any previous period. I have just looked up the figures: In 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1959 increases and improvements were granted. Nor must we forget that these funds have to come from taxation. Consequently the Government can only grant these pensions within reasonable limits. I want to point out that this Budget has also once again made certain concessions. When one examines the number of pensioners, we find that not only has the number increased, but the benefits which are paid to each pensioner have increased tremendously. In 1948 old-age pensioners received £50 15s. per annum, while this figure had risen to £123 3s. 1d. by 1959. When we take the increase in the number of pensioners into account, then the amount which is provided on the Estimates has tripled in the case of old-age pensions alone. I should like to express my thanks for the arrangement which has been made in respect of over-payments. I think that this will eliminate a great deal of inconvenience and hardship as regards payments to our old people. The allowance in the case of attendants has been increased from R36 to R38. We are grateful for this, though I think that this is a matter which should receive the further consideration of the Minister during the year because as things stand and in the light of the experience which I have had of certain cases, the question of attendants is a very great problem and one which involves considerable expenditure. It does not only prevent people from earning a reasonable income, but it costs a great deal to provide such an attendant.

Another concession for which I really want to thank the Minister is this considerable increase, i.e. from £15 to £45, in respect of the purchase of furniture for homes. In the past the figure was R30 and now it is R90. I think that this increase is far greater than the ordinary increase which we have in such cases. I regard this as an indication that it is realized that such provision must be made for our old people and that the facilities and furniture which they require in these homes should be of a good quality because this is after all where they must spend the last days of their lives, and R90 per person is a reasonable amount to allow in respect of the purchase of furniture.

Then there is a further matter, namely the allowance which is granted on the subsidy of R10 in cases where infirm or old people are accommodated in a home and where this additional R10 is granted in respect of their care. As regards pensions, I just want to add that while the hon. member has advocated increases, I have referred to the increases in the old-age pension, but I also want to refer to disability pensions. Here we find that in 1948 the amount provided in this regard was £560,000, and by 1959 it had risen to £1,466,000. This represents an increase from £54 to £127 per annum in the case of the individual. One can say the same about oudstryders’ pensions, which over the period 1948 to 1959 rose from £107 14s. to £173 per person. I am merely mentioning these figures in passing because the impression can so easily be created that improvements have not been effected and that the needs of our old people are not being considered.

Now I want to mention two other matters. The one is that various authorities, inter alia a Minister in this House, have expressed concern that South Africa is moving in the direction of a welfare state. Some people are perhaps wary of using the words “ socialist state ”. I think that if we want South Africa to be regarded as a genuinely democratic country, we must take care that we do not eventually acquire the atmosphere and the character of a socialistic state. I must say that when one examines the figures relating to pension increases in conjunction with the developments in respect of insurance funds, group insurance and pension schemes, that fear disappears to a large extent. As I see this development, it seems to me that the number of pensioners should quite probably decrease in the future. I want to say that I feel very pleased that Iscor for example has introduced a group insurance scheme which offers every worker the opportunity to make provision for the time when he will have to retire or for the possibility that he may die suddenly and leave dependants for whom the State will have to provide. I think it is appropriate that we should once again point out that employers should regard it as a very sound business principle to establish pension schemes for their workers. South Africa with all her wealth and opportunities offers an opportunity which few other countries can equal, that there should really be no people who are dependent on the State in their old age. I think the State and everyone else is only too willing to assist people when they are suffering hardship, but in the first place we should like to see these old people and dependants being able to have the satisfaction that they have provided for their own needs and that they can stand on their own feet when they are old or require care. I think that if we were to give guidance and encouragement in that direction, we shall not only create a far better attitude towards our old people, but that it will certainly also bring relief to the State. In this regard I think that those children who can afford to do so and who are still willing to look after their parents deserve our highest appreciation and that we should express our thanks to them. [Time limit.]

I wish to express appreciation to the Minister for the concessions made to the old-age pensioners as now announced to the House. I want to suggest that the means test as now applied for the old-age pension and disability grants call for immediate review. As now applied, it is not actuarially sound and it offers inducement for exploitation.

Why now?

I mean as it has hitherto been applied. I say it is not actuarially sound and it gives inducements for exploitation, as I will explain. It militates against savings and discourages the lower income groups from providing for their old age. The means test is unfair and I would like to quote an example to prove it, of a single man who applies for the old-age pension. If he possesses capital to the value of £1,800 invested at 51 per cent he is not eligible for the old-age pension. His income from £1,800 at 51 per cent amounts to £99 per annum, whereas if he had nothing he would be eligible for a pension with bonuses amounting to £11 10s. a month or £138 per annum. Applicants for old-age pension with capital are actually advised to spend their capital before applying, and that is often done. I was told of a couple who went overseas and had a long trip and spent all their savings outside this country and came back and qualified for a joint old-age pension of £276 per annum. Old-age pensions are part of our social system, but it should not be allowed in a way so as to discourage thrift. We as a Government have to encourage the lower income groups to save, but as regards the allocation of old-age pensions and disability grants we discourage this. If the Minister is disposed to accept any suggestion that I may venture to make, I think that interest should only be used in the calculation of the assessment as regards capital, and not the abatement they earn. I feel that if this is not favourable to the Minister, then perhaps he could consider the alternative, of doubling the exemption of £600 for the means test. At present an individual has an exemption of £600 capital and a married couple have an exemption of £1,200. I will ask the Minister to consider doubling this exemption. There are other reasons for granting this exemption, apart from those I have mentioned, and that is that when the Old-Age Pensions and Disability Act was introduced, an exemption of £600 was provided to allow people of moderate means who possessed a home to have the value of that home exempted from the means test. Now, as we all know, with the new system of municipal valuations, humble homes that were valued at £600 are now valued at three times as much. Houses I know that were valued at £600 are now valued at £1,800 to £2,000. I know that doubling the exemption of £600 would cover all my criticism and I would not then ask that the abatement should not be calculated in the assessment of old-age pensions. In calculating old-age pensions, not only the interest the person receives but an abatement is added also and charged against that capital, and that is the reason why it comes about that a person with £1,800 capital does not qualify for old-age pension, though his income does not amount to what he would have received if he had no money at all.

There is another point I want the Minister to consider. I wonder, if my earlier suggestions are unfavourable, whether the Minister could consider granting exemptions to old-age pensioners on money invested in a savings bank or in Union Loan Certificates, in the same way that this concession is granted to income tax payers. That is a concession to the wealthy, and I think that the same kind of concession should be made to the poor income group to encourage them to save their money. To me it seems an unheard of proposition and quite unreasonable that people without any money should receive more in old-age pensions than those who have gone out of their way to save a little money. I appeal to the Minister to give this proposition some consideration. I think that he should find one or other of the suggestions I have made acceptable. When the Minister rises to reply, I would be pleased if he would give a statement as regards the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund. There is always an idea that when the last Cape widow dies, the Government will inherit a fortune from the fund. Unless we have a statement from the Minister to assure us that this is not the case, the criticism as regards the administration of the fund increases like a snowball. We know that when this fund was first established the Government agreed to contribute 5 per cent per annum as interest on the capital. At that time the Government was able to borrow money at per cent or 3 per cent, so it was a particular contribution to the Cape widows that the Government gave and increased this capital. We know that the actuaries, as the widows die, increase the allocation to remaining widows, and I believe that the actuaries have calculated it in such a way that when the last widow dies there will be no balance at all. Perhaps the Minister can give us this assurance. We know, of course, that in all actuarial calculations there must be a balance and I would like the Minister’s assurance that this balance will not be material. I can assure him that if the Minister gives a statement in regard to this fund, on which may poor widows are dependent, it will assure them. They enjoy very small privileges. I hope the Minister will give us a statement to convey assurance to these widows.

It seems to me that this is a very satisfactory Friday afternoon and if we go on like this we may adjourn early. The Deputy Minister is most sympathetically disposed towards the representations which have been submitted to him regarding relief for pensioners. He has probably come to realize the truth of the words that it is more blessed to give than to receive and it is also in this spirit that I want to raise a matter which is of great importance to our old people in the homes and particularly in the social welfare settlements. The Minister has visited the Sonop Settlement. There were certain weaknesses and shortcomings. The Minister listened to them very sympathetically and has effected many improvements for which we thank him. But then the settlers were filled with dismay. At a certain stage it came to their knowledge that when such old people were taken to the provincial hospital as out-or as in-patients, they found that certain accounts were sent to them. At that time I submitted representations to the Minister and I asked whether relief could be afforded in this regard. This is very important because on these settlements we have people who are disabled, and particularly in the case of chronic diseases it is essential that we should take the state of mind of these people into account. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not approach the Director of Provincial Hospitals in the Transvaal and ask him to grant relief in this regard because these people only receive a meagre allowance and then in addition they have to pay these hospital accounts. I think it will be of great assistance to our old people if the Minister can make this concession. I ask the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter because here we are dealing with old and infirm people who are only receiving very small allowances, and seeing that the hon. the Minister is in such a sympathetic mood to-day, we hope that this plea will not fall on deaf ears.

I want to carry on where I left off and say that the whole trouble is not so much the means test as the out-dated pension scheme we have to-day. There have been motions at different times from both sides of the House asking for a contributory scheme. I favour such a scheme because I have seen the Unemployment Insurance Act working and that is of great benefit to contributors. But nevertheless I understand from a statement made in the Other Place by the Minister that for the last two or three years missions have gone overseas to try to find out which is the best scheme we can adopt. In the answer the Minister gave me earlier on he said that a further statement would be made. Now I do not know whether that statement is ready, because that would give the House an idea of how the Government is thinking on this question. It is something which will have to be dealt with, and dealt with almost immediately. I leave it to the Minister because that statement has been promised and the Minister said we must learn that when they have schemes which are a success and which are suitable for us we must take the best of them, but our experience after the mission which was sent overseas two years ago was that under no circumstances should such a scheme be made applicable to South Africa because it is extremely expensive. I do not know why it should be so expensive. It is just an ordinary contributory scheme. However, the Minister said that we are not leaving the matter there. He said—

There is another question I want to raise, and which I have raised before in this House. Here again I want to tell the Minister that if this was put into effect it would save us endless trouble on the Pensions Select Committee, when we deal with the position of a person who comes from a Commonwealth country and has been here 12 or 13 years. According to the Act they cannot claim a pension on account of the residential qualifications. I take it that in future they will have to become South African citizens and I am not sure, but as a layman I believe it takes a person five years to become a South African citizen. So it means that a person coming from a Commonwealth country will have to be here ten years if they take out citizenship papers when they first arrive, before they can qualify for a pension. In 1957 I brought up the question of reciprocity. Now if this is put into effect as it has been done between other Commonwealth countries, it would get us over all our troubles. It was evidently thought of way back in 1931, because there is provision in the Pensions Act for this. The particular section reads as follows—

Those hon. members who are on the Pensions Select Committee with me will know what effect this will have if we could apply it. I raised this matter in 1957 and this was the reply I got—

Whether that was ever done, I do not know.

I think I should attend the next conference.

That is a good idea, but take me along. To follow that up, New Zealand has an arrangement with the United Kingdom; Australia with New Zealand; and the United Kingdom and British immigrants can collect old-age, invalid or widows’ pensions on the same basis as if they had lived in Australia all their lives under this agreement. So those agreements have been put into effect. It means that if a person arrives in this country and has been here ten years, he would collect a pension for ten years from South Africa and ten years from the other country. I think that when any new suggestion is made about going over to some other pension scheme, that point should be remembered, and I hope the Minister will put it to his colleagues in the Cabinet and see whether we cannot get a statement telling us just how the Government feels about such a scheme, because we cannot go on like this. Every year we point out that the means test should be abolished, etc., and yet we tell the Minister that we sympathize with him, because we do not know what effect it will have. If a pension is increased by only a few shillings, we do not know what effect that will eventually have and how other pensions will have to be altered. So I hope that the Minister will get his colleagues to work out something and give us an idea of just what is likely to happen.

I wish once again to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the disparity in old-age pensions for Coloureds and Europeans. Before going deeply into the matter, I would like to say that I was happy to have noticed from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance that there is going to be some contributions by way of bonuses to the Coloured people. The Minister said in his Budget speech—

He then goes on to say-—

I believe that the amount referred to would amount to about R2.25 per month. I would like to thank the Government for this little concession, and I want to thank the Department of Coloured Affairs and whoever was responsible for this small increase. The hon. the Minister will remember that ever since I have entered this House I have pleaded the cause of the Coloured old-age pensioner and I have drawn attention to the large disparity between the pensions for Coloureds and Whites. Sir, it is quite wrong for us to perpetuate an archaic system, introduced into the life of South Africans that because a man has not got a White skin, he must live at a lower economic level. It is because we continue on that false basis, that we refuse to recognize the right of the old Coloured persons to live decently and well and on the same basis as anybody else. I think the Government owes a duty to the aged Coloureds of this country to remove that disparity. Sir, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) did refer to some figures and so did the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). I have the figures here which were given in reply to a question dated 31 January 1961. I am not going to weary the Committee with the details, but I merely wish to point out that whilst the number of Europeans receiving old-age pension is 86,883, the Coloureds and Indians, who were grouped together for the purpose of this answer, number 50,990. The ratio is roughly 9 to 5, but the average paid to the European is R246.31 and the average paid to the Coloured and the Indian is only R86. That is a very big difference; the ratio is about 3 to 1. Strangely enough, the number of blind Coloureds and Indians, according to these figures, is 1,678 as against 1,077 blind Europeans. The number of Coloureds and Indians receiving disability allowances is 11,270 as against 11,484 Europeans. The point I want to make is that if we perpetuate this system we are doing a disservice to ourselves, because I know from personal experience, having gone round to the homes of these people that because they get this small pension, and their needs are the same as the needs of the European old-age pensioner, they have to go and live with somebody else, with the result that there is overcrowding. This tends to lead to further illness and sickness amongst those people. There is a greater incidence of tuberculosis amongst the Coloureds than amongst the Europeans, although I believe that that incidence has been arrested. The fact remains, however, that it will continue as long as we do not give these people sufficient amount of money to live decently and well and to overcome the illness which must come. Look at the figures for the blind. There are many more Coloured and Indian blind than European blind. Why? Although there are so many more European old age pensioners and other European pensioners, when it comes to the blind, the Coloureds are in the majority. Sir, I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sympathetic and my criticism is not intended to be destructive; it is constructive, it has always been. It is becoming more and more difficult for these old Coloured people to maintain themselves even on the most meagre basis because the cost of living does increase and has increased. The Deputy Minister will tell me that ever since the Nationalist Party came into power there has been an increase in the amounts paid to these people. I accept all that, but the cost of living has gone up; rents and rates have gone up.

Have you compared the two ratios—the increase in the pensions and the increase in the cost of living?

Sir, the Minister should hesitate to put that question, because the answer is obviously that the increase in the cost of living has been the same for the Coloureds as it has been for the White man, and yet the increase for the European old-age pensioner has been very much more than that for the Coloured man, so the Government has not maintained that ratio. I think the Deputy Minister sees my point. Whereas last year he gave the old-age European pensioner an increase of R3, he gave the coloured an increase of R1 but the cost of living went up to the same extent for both.

Sir, the Deputy Minister is probably the Minister who gave this reply to the question put by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. J. Lewis). I refer to a reply given on 31 January to the hon. member in regard to these particular points that I have raised. From that reply it is clear that to ourselves— I am not worried about the outside world— we cannot justify this large discrepancy between the pensions paid to our old people and even to our blind. Let me just give some of these figures to the Committee. The amount paid to the European old-age pensioner is R246 as against R86 in the case of Coloureds and Indians; the average paid to European veterans is R346 and in the case of the Coloured it is R94.18. Although there are more Coloured and Indian blind than European blind the average paid to the European blind person is R244 while the average paid to Coloureds and Indians is R91. Surely we cannot justify that. [Time limit.]

The Department of Social Welfare is concerned with the welfare of people who cannot provide for themselves, whether or not that be their own fault. It is the duty of the Department to try to support them. I do not want to give the Committee the facts in this regard this afternoon, but I just want to refer to the consequences of the abuse of liquor. Because if there is one thing with which the Department of Social Welfare has a great deal to do, it is the consequences of the abuse of liquor. I should like to make an appeal to the Department to give greater attention to people who as a result of the abuse of liquor find themselves in a position where they cannot provide for themselves. I recently paid a visit to an institution run by the Salvation Army just beyond Kraaifontein, where they look after people who would otherwise have finished up in gaol as the result of the abuse of liquor. Instead of placing alcoholics in institutions where they cannot work, I want to ask whether the Department of Social Welfare cannot consider buying a farm here in the Cape, where such people can work and where they can be looked after. When I refer to work I do not have in mind the type of work which is done on work colonies. I am now thinking of the system which the Salvation Army applies. I asked them what success they were achieving with this scheme. I am not sure of the percentages, but I was surprised to hear how many alcoholics who had worked there, had rehabilitated themselves and had once again become useful citizens of the country. Mr. Chairman, if one simply gives money to alcoholics and if one does welfare work on their behalf, one is not assisting them; one is only pushing them further down the slope. I therefore ask the Deputy Minister and the Government to give greater attention to people who unfortunately as a result of the abuse of liquor find themselves in a position from which they would like to save themselves, if possible.

Join the A.A.

As far as I am concerned, they can join any association just as long as they are saved. But I think we need more than the A.A. I think that if the State could purchase such a place where people who have become alcoholics can go and work and can be given part of the earnings, it would put an end to the idleness which often causes people to become alcoholics. I do not want to go into this matter any further; I think the Minister understands what I mean. What I have in mind is that these people should not be sent to such a place by a magistrate because then a stigma attaches to them. There are many families who are in despair because they cannot keep these people away from drink and these people could be helped in such a place.

Then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has raised a matter to which I feel the Government should give closer attention. One is sometimes approached by people who say: Look, my neighbour is receiving so much from the Department of Social Welfare; he is much better off than I am. I have never asked the Government for assistance and I now also ask for something because he is receiving so much. I do not think the Government should not help people who need help, but what I am saying is that much of the money which is being paid out, is being paid to people who do not need it, who can manage without that money. On the other hand there are people who really need the money but who cannot get it for one reason or another. I understand that such an applicant must fill in a form and subscribe to an oath and that he must indicate what he owns and what he earns. There are many people who make mistakes in filling in that form. The man who fills in the form correctly and honestly is perhaps just above the limit and cannot receive any assistance, while the other man who is dishonest does in fact receive such assistance. I think that something should be done in this regard. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the people who need it, both White and non-White, are very grateful to the Government for the assistance which they are receiving. Many of these people use part of the meagre amount which they receive to help give their children a proper education. One often finds children with a high intelligence quotient whose parents cannot afford to give them a proper education, and I ask whether something cannot be done so that these people can be given an opportunity to enjoy a better education, and perhaps even a university education.

: This is not a question for my Department.

I know that that is not the task of this Department, but the point I want to make is that if assistance can be given to people who have such children, it would also be in the interests of the State. I am pleading here this afternoon on behalf of those people who in my opinion are more deserving cases than the old people who do not have long to live. I am pleading for the future of the White nation and of the people of South Africa in general. The less people we have who have not reached the necessary standard of education, the more the country will prosper and the more people we can keep out of gaol, if the State can only give a little more attention to them.

I should just like to ask the Deputy Minister when he replies to the debate to make clear what his attitude is as regards Public Service pensioners, particularly those who went on pension a long time ago. From time to time one receives representations from these people. I do not have the necessary information to test the truth of all the allegations which are made and it is for this reason that I am raising this matter by way of a question rather than by way of a motion. The position which these people have submitted to me is, in brief, that they retired ten, 15 or 20 years ago when the value of money was of course far higher than it is to-day. Although it is conceded that a special allowance is already being paid to them in addition to the allowances which are paid to all pensioners …

It amounts to £147 per annum.

Yes, this is given as a percentage in the representations which have been made to me, but I assume that the figure is the same. These people nevertheless feel, rightly or wrongly, that when this special allowance is compared with the increases which have been granted in old-age and war veterans’ pensions, and particularly when it is compared with the rise in the cost of living, they are worse off to-day than when they went on pension 15 or 20 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have shown in the past that I am the last person to rise and to advocate irresponsible, thoughtless increases in all pensions. I fully appreciate the financial implications. But seeing that we are dealing here on the one hand with people who have contributed to their own pensions, and on the other hand with people who rely on the generosity of the State for their pensions, I think that the State should give immediate attention to the position of the former. If it is not correct to say that these people have, as it were, been left behind as a result in the rise of the cost of living, then I shall apologize, but I am raising the matter as a result of representations which I have received and I shall be glad to hear what the hon. the Minister thinks about this matter.

I am sorry the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is not here at the moment. He has criticized the Government and the Minister in respect of the old-age pensions which are paid to Coloureds because they are supposedly so much less than those paid to the Whites. I want to ask him whether he and the businessmen who agree with his political views pay the same salaries to Coloureds who are in their employ as they pay to Whites. I should like to know whether they still discriminate. The standard of living which the White man must maintain in this country is far higher at the moment than that of the Coloured and that is why the pension paid to the White man is also higher. If there is one thing which is proved by the expenditure on this Vote and the concessions which the Deputy Minister has announced this afternoon, then it is that the National Party Government and the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular are sincerely concerned about the less privileged people of our country, the old people, the children from disrupted homes and the physically disabled. It shows that the Government is always prepared to extend a helping hand to the needy in their hour of trouble. We of course believe that the best type of assistance is always that assistance which helps the helpless to help themselves, and here we think particularly of employment—employment which is not only aimed at supporting such a person, but also at the realization of his own inner self and the development of his inner character. But unfortunately there are times in the lives of people when they are no longer able to work, no matter how much they would like to do so. We think of the aged who as a result of their advanced years have become too infirm to do a day’s work. We think of people who have become physically disabled, who as a result of some physical defect are not able to work, and the tragedy is that although the basic necessities of life of these people continue, they no longer have the income they require to provide such basic needs. The National Party Government and this Deputy Minister not only have an open heart but also an open purse. That is proved by the expenditure provided for on this Vote. Mr. Chairman, the total amount in State expenditure provided for on these Estimates is R719,325,200, as compared with an amount of R76,557,000 on this Vote. It is clear from these figures that the heart of this Government is at least as big as the human heart is in relation to its own body. Despite the State’s heavy financial commitments, a considerable sum is still being put aside on these Estimates for what is pure charity. And what we find encouraging is that these amounts continue to show a rising tendency, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has shown. In 1960-1 the expenditure was R74,384,068; to-day it is R76,557,000, i.e. an increase of R2,172,932. And then the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. J. Lewis) says he is disappointed at the provision made on this Vote. What an unwitting charge against the Government of his own party which was in power prior to 1948!

It was a good Government.

Yes, under that Government the country supposedly fared very well in the economic sphere, as they are always trying to tell us.

We had an £8,000,000 surplus and we lent £80,000,000 to England.

Yes, they had such a big surplus, but what did they give to the old-age pensioners—only R8,000,000! This Government under whose régime the country has supposedly not been so prosperous, i.e. according to hon. members, has succeeded in setting aside R23,374,000 for old-age pensioners. That is the difference. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has also shown how the amounts have increased over the years—fourfold in the case of old-age pensions; threefold in the case of war veterans, and in the case of disability allowances the pension has increased from £54 per annum per person to £127 14s., which shows that although the country was always so “ prosperous ” under the United Party, the National Party is the true friend of the needy people of our country.

I want to add my plea to those who have asked for a thorough investigation of the means test. The hon. the Minister did announce one alleviation in relation to the means test in that where a man did not get an inheritance as far as money was concerned, his pension would not be cut off immediately, but I should like to ask him if that applies to a person who inherits a home with no income, where the home, their own home, in which they have lived for years, may be valued by a city valuation higher than the allowance allowed to give him or her a pension. These are mostly cases of single women or elderly women, who inherit a home in their old age, and I will quote a case where I think this concession will not help. But before I go on with that, I should like to pay a tribute to the Commissioner of Pensions for the way in which he interprets the law to the very advantage of old people who need help. Where he can help us, he does. But he is tied by the Act. I want to quote this case, and it is not the only case I have had—I have had three cases during the last six or eight months. The case I want to quote is that of a woman who lived with her mother and nursed her parents for the last 30 years. The mother lived into the nineties. She died and the woman inherited the house. The house originally, if she had inherited it some years ago, would not have prevented her from getting a pension. She has been enjoying an old-age pension herself for 20 years. She lived in the home, in which she now has been living for 79 years, and that woman lost her pension when her mother died in February. The home was left to her and in August they cut off her pension and she was required to pay back-pay. She has no income whatsoever and she is living in her old home in an area which, also by Government action (and that can happen to many people), is adjacent to an area which will probably be proclaimed as a non-European group area. She cannot sell that home at anything like the city valuation for that very reason. Nobody wants to buy property in that area. She sits in an empty home, not a big home—she has only got two bedrooms in it—but it is a home that over the years has been revalued and revalued and was revalued only a few months before she inherited it, so that now by the means test she is put out of court as far as an old-age pension is concerned. There is a woman who has done a good job. In her young days she worked, but to-day at her age she cannot work any more, but for years she nursed her parents, and to-day the state says: “You own a home, but you cannot sell it except to one particular group and because it is bordering on a group area she cannot get anything like a reasonable price. If she were to sell it to-day in the open market, she would get a mere pittance. Everyone knows how difficult it is to sell any property in the market to-day, but where it is adjacent to a group area for non-Europeans, what would she get as an income? A pittance to live in one room for the rest of her life! She is an old woman to-day who has lived in that house I think since 1889, ‘ and we tell her: You must sell it to get a pittance to live in a back room. I’ll put all the facts in writing and submit it to the Minister. And she is getting every month a demand for repayment of an amount received and she has not got one penny of income. She has got to meet her rates in connection with which one of her family is helping her. I know that somebody in the Department will quote the case of somebody who buys a house with a great number of rooms and says “ Different members of my family are living in the rooms and I am getting no income ”, whilst it is known that in some instances they are being well paid for those rooms in the form of rentals. Mr. Chairman, that is a totally different case and I do feel that this is one of the cases that needs full investigation. The Minister and the Government—and the same thing has been said by previous Governments—say “ Where are we to find all this money for social pensions?” We know it is running into millions. That is why we say that the Government should at the earliest possible moment institute a national insurance scheme. Then the money will be forthcoming from the public as such. You would even save the money that you are spending to-day on this very issue. The money would be subscribed by the public, and I think the public would be only too happy to do so. One sees the advantages of the unemployment benefits scheme, and I think here the hon. the Minister ought to take the earliest possible opportunity and bring pressure to bear on the Cabinet to help the old age people of the Union who do not even enjoy an old age pension. Under a national insurance scheme they would not be receiving charity. They would be receiving something to which they subscribed and to which they are entitled.

I move—

Agreed to.