Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to inform the House with what business the House will be occupied next week. On Monday the Third-Reading debate on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill will be completed. Thereafter the House will continue with the University of Fort Hare Bill. Then all the University Bills will be taken. On Wednesday the Post Office Budget will be introduced and this debate will occupy the House on Wednesday and Thursday. As I explained when I introduced the motion in regard to the times allocated to the different Appropriation Bills at the beginning of the Session, debate will commence immediately after the Minister’s Budget speech. Thereafter we will continue with the University Bills until Friday, and on Friday private members’ motions will come on immediately after questions to enable members to attend the State President’s garden party in the afternoon. I will probably adjourn the House at about 3.30 p.m. to enable members to attend the garden party.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for understanding the circumstances which made it impossible for me to be here when he replied to the Second-Reading debate. As a result the hon. the Minister will have the last word, but nevertheless, I am going to stick my neck out without having had a reply to the various points which I raised during the Second Reading.

I want to continue with examples of the problems which I believe are leading to discontent in the South African Railways. We have had a debate spreading over the week, in which the crux of the issue has been whether the railway personnel are being overworked and are being asked to do more than it is possible for them to do. We have had criticisms of the budgeting. We leave that to the figures to answer and we will see how the hon. the Minister’s guesstimates for this year are going to work out. One reply which I had from the hon. the Minister yesterday in regard to Airways indicated that he does not seem to pay much attention to figures but I do not, at this stage, intend to follow it up, other than to say that the hon. the Minister’s reply did not balance with the facts as set out in the Estimates of Expenditure. I will be interested to see next year how he is going to fly some four or five new aeroplanes without getting additional staff. He hid behind an increase of 75 first officers last year. Incidentally, it was not in the document to which he referred, but in the Estimates themselves. Either these people are idle at the moment or he is going to be short when the new aeroplanes come. I put it to the hon. the Minister that he is going to be short and we will see what the facts are going to be.

I want to return to the question of discontent among the railway personnel. The hon. the Minister asked me to give him two names of cases I quoted of persons who were fined. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have taken steps to ask permission to use those names. They were given to me in confidence, but I have taken the necessary steps to have these people approached personally, and I hope that I will be able to get that permission. I can tell him, however, that the persons concerned are in Glencoe, that I visited them personally and that it is just a question of getting their authority to use their names. There is a fear amongst railwaymen and all Government servants of giving information and I believe it is a tragic state of affairs that, in a democratic country, there should be this fear of victimization. The hon. the Minister gives assurances. I accept those assurances, but I want to say that they are valueless because it is not the hon. the Minister who victimizes people, it is not the Minister who transfers people. It is not the Minister who does not promote people, but the fact is that these people are not promoted because they are not efficient or, for some other reason they are not considered suitable. These are grounds which cannot be disproved or argued about, but there is no doubt that there is this fear. It is a fact, and I hope that the hon. the Minister, in his reply, will make it quite clear that where there is something wrong, and where persons have that knowledge and they give it to Members of Parliament there will be no victimization at any level and that he will see to it that nobody gets posted to the “gramadoelas” or in any way suffers as a result of giving information. What I am going to do is to give the hon. the Minister three names, which have come to me from another source, of persons who are alleged to have been fined for refusing to work overtime after the expiry of their maximum period of 12 hours work, after which they are entitled to ask for a break. In other words, after having worked overtime up to 12 hours they were asked to continue but refused. I have three names here of persons who are alleged to have been fined, two of them R15 and the other R12, for refusing to continue to work and for demanding their compulsory relief at the end of the 12 hours. These names I will send across to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will have the cases investigated. I assume that they work in the Cape Province, but he will be able to check from their full initials and names. Those names have come to me through a source of general knowledge and that is the information given to me. The other two cases I mentioned of persons fined for being late were personally interviewed by me, as was the case with all the other cases that I mentioned during the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River will probably be able to tell the hon. the Minister that this dissatisfaction has reached the stage that in the predominantly railway centre of Glencoe over 600 railwaymen and their families refused to vote in the by-election last month.

Rather look after the members of your own party.

I state this as a fact to indicate the dissatisfaction. The hon. member for Klip River, the new Leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, is as worried about it as the rest of his party. This was the reaction to the dissatisfaction. Why, in an area which always has a high percentage of voting and in a basically Railway area, was there such a high figure of abstentions?

How many were there?

Over 600 out of 2,500 did not vote in Glencoe. A lot of people voted for us. I personally received applications from persons who have been Nationalists all their lives to vote by means of postal votes through the United Party. I do not know how they voted, but I witnessed their applications.

Tell me the name of one Nationalist who voted for the United Party.

I can name lots of them.

Name one.

I am trying to think of the name of the man who always used to break up our meetings in Glencoe. In any event, the hon. member for Klip River will know him. This person was a specialist in breaking up United Party meetings, but his father voted for the United Party. That family was a wild Nationalist family and they were well known. The hon. member knows perfectly well that this is true. I do not want to waste more time on this and I want to come back to the hard facts of the discontent. I will give the hon. the Minister those three names, and I have here as well the original document in regard to an infringement of discipline dated 22nd August, 1968, which is a charge against a person for refusing at 4.30 a.m. to accept an instruction to continue work. The fine was R5. This is the original document of the case, as the hon. the Minister will recognize. I have seen others, which I do not have in my possession, of a similar nature. Regarding this document the person said—

This is the attitude, namely “what is the use of fighting?” I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that we get this information and whether he does not receive such information from his unions. Are his unions absolutely satisfied? The hon. the Minister keeps quiet. I submit that the hon. the Minister has had complaints from these organizations. He indicated that he had had no complaints and that the unions were perfectly satisfied and had not complained. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is not so. I have here the minutes of various meetings which have been held by the South African Footplate Staff Association.

The staff concerned.

Yes, the staff concerned and the very people who work this overtime. I have here the “opsomming van die jaarlikse samespreking tussen die Minister en die SuidAfrikaanse Voetplaatpersoneelvereniging” of 28th June, 1968. Here the hon. the Minister accepts that this is wrong and he agreed that nobody should be forced to work overtime over the maximum period of 12 hours. He said that no one must be forced to work overtime, but they must only be asked nicely to do it. This report reads—

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with this, but the hon. the Minister has said here that no excessive overtime is worked. Here he said that he is not going to force people to work excessive overtime but they will be gently persuaded to work longer than 12 hours. I challenge the Minister to deny that there have been convictions since the 28th June. The case I had was the 27th August, subsequent to this date. I have here the minutes of discussions which took place and it says—

But it is happening.

Daily.

Yes, daily. Let me continue reading from the minutes—

The minutes talk about “daagliks” and “ten spyte van beloftes van die kant van die Administrasie …" The Minister was all innocence when we said there were complaints. His reaction was that there is no complaint, we are just grabbing a few “los stories”.

But I have not replied to you yet, how can you say that?

No, but the Minister has replied to the allegations that there was dissatisfaction. The Minister said there was not wide-spread dissatisfaction. By way of interjection and in direct reply to the hon. member for Yeoville the Minister said there is no forced excessive overtime.

You were not here when I replied to him.

I know what the reply was. I heard the Minister interjecting that there was no excessive overtime, that overtime was not excessive.

No, I said it is not a general practice.

But the Association says “daagliks”. If “daily” is not a general practice, then what is? Hourly? His own association says there are daily demands for overtime over the maximum of 12 hours when staff ask for their compulsory rest period.

I want to bring another case of dissatisfaction. I have here the full record of an approach made to the Minister on behalf of assistant foremen, works foremen, and chargemen, Group A of Salstaff. On the 22.3.1968 the first approach was made to the Minister and on the 27.8.1968 the Minister indicated that there seemed justification for their complaint. Only on 26.2.1969 did they get a final answer when they started sending telegrams and asking for deputations to see the Minister. It took them a full year to get a reply, and what was the reply? “No”. Their representations were turned down. The case is they are supervisors over people who are earning more than they are; the supervisor is being paid less than the man he is supervising. The Minister says he is not going to accept their recommendations because it will cost R¾ million. I have all the facts here and the Minister knows they are correct. I have given the dates. Why did it take a whole year for the Minister to make up his mind? I have a telegram here indicating that in August the Minister accepted in principle what was asked. The telegram reads: “Meeting Minister August 26th, Minister acknowledges anomaly in salaries, has instructed General Manager to investigate—expect early decision.” This was on 27.8.1968. It talks of an “early decision”, and the “early decision” was given on 26.2.1969 when pressure was applied.

I have here a petition to which I referred dated 16th January over the same problem, namely people will not accept supervisory acting positions because it means a drop in pay. How are you going to get proper control if your supervisory staff are dissatisfied. They are discontented to the point that I forecast that this issue will still go to arbitration. I forecast that this discontent has not ended with the Minister’s refusal. This is going on all the time. The Minister says there is no dissatisfaction. I have a letter here dated 11.3.1969. What it says may not be true, I do not know. The letter deals with a person who was killed in an accident on duty. I quote from the letter—

That is from a member of the family. It may not be correct but it is what the family feels is the position; it is what the relatives believe is the position; they believe that he was overworked, that too much demand was placed on him, and he fell off the footplate whilst stoking. That is not the end of this story. This person died on a Saturday. The family asked that after the autopsy the body be sent back by road to the family home in George where he had joined the Railways. The Administration refused; they said it had to go by train. There were only two trains a week which meant it would be ten days before the funeral could be held. The family then approached the Railways, the Railways offered R150 towards the cost of transporting the body by road, and the family had the body brought by road which cost them R315. When they went to the Railways they got R100.60 instead of R150, as promised. If in the Police or the Army, for instance, a person is killed on duty, that department goes to endless trouble to get the parents up immediately by any quick means of transport and to fly the body home for burial. It happens in the Police, it happens in the Army, but when it happens to a railwayman, why should the family be treated in this way? One of the parents had a series of heart attacks as a result of the whole business of trying to get the body home. I will give the hon. the Minister this letter when I have had a copy made of it; I only received it yesterday afternoon. This is the sort of thing which is going on.

I have another letter received yesterday in connection with intermittent casual tally clerks. I have raised this year after year with the Minister and I really feel the time has come for something to be done for this group who earn R5 per day, which is 62c per hour on a 48-hour week. In many respects these men are carrying the work of the department. They are not really intermittent casuals; they are regulars, but they are classified as intermittent casuals. The Minister has tried to get full-time people but it has not worked. The people he obtained were just not suitable, so he relies on this group of identifiable regular workers. All I have asked the Minister is that those who have worked say for five years in that job, who are in practice regular workers, should get some share of the Railway increases that have been given. Casual clerks have been given an increase. It is a small one, R12.50 this year and R12.50 next year. This group of intermittent casual tally clerks are acting in numerous responsible positions, for instance, on the Durban market they act as checkers. They are doing a job which would normally require a higher pay. I have asked that they either be paid acting in grade pay or that they be given some basic increase in their salaries. I hope that after all these years the Minister will in fact now do something about this small group of people.

There is one way to test the situation and that is the way I suggested during the Second Reading debate, namely the appointment of an impartial commission of inquiry to establish the extent of the dissatisfaction, to establish just how far it has gone, so that the Minister does not have inquiries such as the one for Airways ground staff which is on the go at the moment, so that the Minister does not have to have arbitration with all the dissatisfaction that it causes, and so that we do not have a year of negotiations before we get an answer to a straightforward and reasonable request. These are all things which cannot lead to efficiency in the Railway service. They cannot lead to efficiency when people are dissatisfied, when your whole supervisory staff is dissatisfied. Let me say this in passing. I did not get these documents from members of the executives of these associations. They have come to me through contacts and I want to make it clear that no member of the executive of either of the associations was concerned in disclosing any information to me or giving me these documents. It came from another source altogether, so I hope there will be no witchhunt in this connection.

Those are confidential documents of the executive; how did you get hold of them?

But do executive members not talk to their members?

You were reading from the minutes of a meeting which I had with a particular staff association.

That is right, and don’t the executive members discuss these things when they meet their members?

Where did you get the extracts of the minutes from?

I am not giving the Minister the name. I have just said and I am making the point that it did not come from a member of the executive, it came from an ordinary railwayman.

Where did you get the minutes of the meeting from?

I happen to have them; I do not have to tell the Minister where I get my information.

You say you did not get it from a member of the executive?

I did not get it from a member of the executive. Admittedly originally it must have come from a member of the executive but it did not come from him to me; it came from him to someone else, and that someone else gave it to me.

I do not mind in the least that they gave it to you.

Well, when I used information a couple of years ago, you should have seen the witch-hunt which went on to try and find out who had given me that information. You should have heard of the witch-hunt, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am making this point now, to avoid a witch-hunt amongst the executive. Some of these people do resign from the service, some of them do die and leave documents to their estates, and some of them do show documents to other members of the Railways personnel. They also do discuss these matters amongst themselves. That is why when I have a document like this I make it clear I got it perfectly legitimately but not from a member of the executive.

I come back to the point that what we ask for is an impartial investigation. It is high time that we were able to get this clear once and for all so we can get our railwaymen working in the spirit in which so many of them do, the spirit of dedication to the service. Many of them are dedicated workers. Even those who are to-day dissatisfied are on the whole dedicated workers who, despite the dissatisfaction, are going on making tremendous sacrifices. Men with 20 and 30 years service, men who have helped to build the Railways are carrying on, and despite their discontent they are working long and we say excessive hours. They are giving everything they have got, they are sacrificing their home life, they are sacrificing their time with their children and with their family. They are working but they are working with discontent. There is a grumbling background to this work and we want to avoid the breaking point that will surely come when their dedication is extinguished by their discontent.

I trust I have said enough to prove the statement I made during the Second Reading debate, that there is in fact a wide field in the Railways in which there is dissatisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to imply that there is a great deal of unrest among the workers on the South African Railways. I have the privilege of representing one of the largest railway constituencies in the Peninsula and I cannot imagine a constituency which is easier to represent in this House. In the past three years I have not had a single complaint, from that large railway population, in which any man has stated that he is expected to work an excessive amount of overtime. A few days ago, when the hon. member for Durban (Point) made his Second Reading Speech, he had a folder which was at least 7½inches thick, and all that he could extract from that this morning were three cases, which did not even come from Natal but, as he claims, from the Peninsula, from people who claim that it is expected of them to work excessive overtime. The best test to which one can subject the Minister’s record and this Estimate, is to listen to the comments of the railwaymen themselves, the railwaymen as individuals and in their collective capacity in the trade unions. Immediately after the Minister delivered this year’s Estimates, I had the privilege of drinking coffee in the coffee-room of this building with various trade union people. Their one and only opinion of the Estimates was one of praise. Their attitude was that the name of Ben Schoeman would one day be inscribed in gold letters in the annals of the history of the South African Railways. I now want to extend an invitation to the hon. member for Durban (Point), in fact to any hon. member on that side of the House to come and address a meeting in my constituency when an election takes place again. I want them to come along and do sc in order to be able to determine what the reaction of the railway worker here in the Cape Peninsula is. This invitation is valid for the next three years. The Minister has now already introduced his fifteenth Budget here and for the first time it now enters the billionaire class Therefore one could have expected the United Party to have seized upon this as a milestone in the history of the South African Railways and to have come to light with new ideas and positive criticism. One would have expected them to have tried to indicate the lines along which the S.A. Railways, in their opinion, ought to develop in the future, in order to meet the requirements which are now being made of it. But they have failed in that duty as an Opposition on so great occasion as this.

In December of last year Dr. Kuschke of the I.D.C. made an interesting speech before the Federated Chambers of Industries in Johannesburg. On that occasion he tried to predetermine what the role of industry in the next 30 years would be. On the basis of a relatively low estimate of the population increase, he calculated that the population in South Africa by the end of the present century could be 37 million people. The Statistics Office calculated, on the basis of a slightly higher rate of increase, that there could be 42 million people in South Africa by the end of the century. I think that we can accept with reasonable certainty that by the end of the century there will be about 40 million people in South Africa. In addition Dr. Kuschke indicated that the volume of our gross domestic product over the next 30 years would increase from R9,000 million at present to R50,000 million—at a growth rate of 5.2 per cent. If we accept a growth rate of 5.7 per cent, we may expect the gross domestic product to increase to R58,000 million. Against this background he indicated to the industrialists of South Africa what may be expected of them. At the end of this century, so he informed them, the contribution of the manufacturing sector of our economy will have to be R21,000 million—in other words, six to seven times more has to be produced than is the case to-day. This means that the manufacturing industry alone will have to produce double the volume of the present national domestic product. In addition it will mean that at the end of the century they will not have to supply work to only 1.3 million people, but to about 4 million. He added that if gold has played out its part as an earner of foreign exchange by the end of this century, the mining sector will by that time only be producing 2.5 per cent of our national income and agriculture 8.5 per cent, as against 36 per cent by the industries, i.e. the manufacturing sector.

Against this background we must now ask, where must the future growth points be? Where must the manufacturing sector establish itself? And what must the role of transportation be, in this framework in particular? It goes without saying that, in the first place, there is going to be a tremendous increase in production. Equally important is the fact that we shall have to adjust ourselves to exporting. Because gold will no longer be able to play its part as an earner of foreign exchange this will have to be taken over by our manufacturing sector. During 1967 industries exported goods to the value of R690 million. This is equal to about 34 per cent of their total production. It is expected that this figure will in the course of time be increased to R2,000 million. This means of necessity that our industries will have to become more and more export conscious.

If we now look around at places where such industries may possibly be established, it becomes clear to us that the tremendous concentration of manufacturing industries in the Southern Transvaal—in 1962 that area supplied about 45 per cent of our country’s factory production as against 15.4 per cent by the Western Cape and 15.4 per cent by Durban-Pinetown—leads us to only one conclusion, i.e. that we cannot allow the concentration of industries in the Southern Transvaal to maintain their influence as a factor up to the end of the century. It goes without saying that there must be extensive development in the interior, in the field of industry as well. But if our industries want to serve their rightful purpose, they will have to establish themselves to a greater extent in our coastal areas. My plea to the Minister and his Planning Council is to have a look at the establishment of our manufacturing sector over a long period and, to determine on that basis what the role of the S.A. Railways must be in allowing decentralization of our manufacturing industry to take place in such a way that additional large coastal cities can develop. Mr. Speaker, I am at present not speaking as someone who comes from the Cape, but of someone who wants to sketch the picture in its entirety. The Cape covers about 80 per cent of the coastal area of the Republic. There are still places where large harbour cities can develop in the future. Places which have been named in this connection in the past are places such as Boegoeberg Bay, Saldanha Bay and Mossel Bay. However I believe that it was right to establish a large new harbour at Richard’s Bay. I believe that it is right for the Government to have decided to develop this area to accomodate 800,000 people eventually. Only by indicating in advance the direction in which an area is going to develop will the industrialist know where he stands. When he has to risk his capital, his future and his reputation, he wants to know what South Africa’s future plans are. Therefore I think that we must not contemplate decentralization to a number of places in South Africa; we must rather think in terms of decentralization to a few very well chosen places. Because industry will have to become more and more export conscious in the future, I believe that the emphasis will to a very large extent have to fall on the development of new coastal cities. Mr. Speaker, I underline the words “coastal cities”, because coastal towns will have no attraction for the industrialist. Taking the idea further that it is difficult for the industrialist to establish himself in the interior of South Africa because he will then immediately have to compete with the industries in the large market of the Southern Transvaal, I think we can give new hope to those who are prepared to establish industries if we tell them: Here in South Africa we are planning at least two or three additional large coastal cities over the next 30 years.

Order! The hon. member should rather raise this matter under the Vote of the Department of Planning. He is straying a little too far from the subject of the Railways.

I am pleading for this here because the role of the South African Railways also includes the Harbours and because I believe that this decentralization cannot take place unless the Railways think in terms of new harbours along our coast.

The hon. member should establish some connection between the two.

I want to make the statement here that industrialists who want to establish themselves in such coastal cities, will have not only the markets in their own vicinity, but that we shall then have a series of large cities along the coasts of Southern Africa, from Luanda on the west to Beira on the east. If we further extend our coastal shipping, which is at present flourishing, and if the South African Railways is prepared to accept the idea that the doors are not closed to the development of further harbours, because these coastal cities must of necessity be based on the development of further harbours, I believe that such a pattern of decentralization, which we are advocating and in connection with which Dr. Kuschke made an appeal to the industrialists of South Africa, will in fact be possible. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister in having the Railways keep pace with the development of South Africa over the past 15 years. Since the Railways is now exceeding the billion notch mark in its Estimates, we want to congratulate the Railways Administration for having always administered the South African Railways on commercial principles. However, I think that in the future we must not lose sight of the fact that section 103 (1) of the Constitution provides not only that the Railways must be administered on business principles, but also that due regard must be had to inland development in the fields of agriculture and industry in all the provinces. I do not expect a reply from the hon. the Minister to-day. I am only asking that, since he and the Railway Administration have entered a new phase, they should give attention to this idea.

In commencing I just want to mention that in the Postmasburg area of my constituency I have only 480 white Railway workers. I also have quite a few Railway people in the remainder of my constituency and I want to thank the hon. the Minister most sincerely and express my appreciation for the allowances granted to the Railway officials. Throughout the years the Railway people have enjoyed the privilege of having opportunities for promotion, financial assistance and periodic increases in salary. One thinks of those Railway people who have devoted their lives to the service of the Railways, the surviving members of whose families today have the privilege of being well cared for. Sir, no Railway man has the chance to become a millionaire, but by thrift and good judgment all our Railway pensioners are to-day in a position to live reasonably well. I am convinced that almost 100 per cent of them are to-day so independent that they are the most fortunate people in the Republic of South Africa. They are in this fortunate position because each of them, in my constituency as well, has lived so thriftily that to-day they have their own houses with their own small vegetable gardens. The families of these Railway people are all happy. It always strikes one in visiting the houses of Railway people how happy the family is, and the question arises as to why this should be so. The people do not have the prospect of one day being millionaires or of becoming very wealthy, but in the Railways Department there is so much security and certainty for them to-day that you can read the happiness on the faces of Railway families. The whole atmosphere in the home indicates that these people are happy and that their future is assured. The Railwayman to-day regards himself as a share-holder in the undertaking in which he is employed. If there are profits, he shares in them and his progress is assured. Mr. Speaker, the United Party Opposition has also ruled in South Africa, has it not; it is not only the National Party that has ruled the country. The United Party also had the privilege of doing something for the Railwayman when it was in power, if it had wanted to. But I do not believe that they made use of that opportunity because during those years they had so many supporters that they never thought that they would one day need a Railwayman’s vote. But now that they are in the Opposition benches they are trying everything possible to gain the support of the Railwayman. During the war years National Party candidates were elected with large majorities in constituencies such as De Aar and Kimberley. The reason why our candidates were elected with large majorities was not only because they were good Railway representatives but because the Railwaymen saw a good future for themselves under a National Party Government. I still remember how United Party supporters ascribed these large majorities to the fact that many of the constituents were Railwaymen—“a lot of old Railway people” as they described them—but to-day they are the important people as far as the United Party is concerned. Sir, both Parties have had the privilege of ruling the country and both have records which we may consult. It does not surprise me that to-day the Opposition wants to play the part here of championing the Railwayman, because they need his vote. In this debate they had a great deal to say about overtime and the manpower shortage on the Railways. But what are they themselves doing in this House? I sat here this morning and listened to the answers to questions put by Opposition members. Sir, I want to claim that they were questions without actual content; they were a lot of unnecessary questions unnecessarily taking up the time of this House and wasting hours and days of Railways officials’ time. They must work hard and they must work overtime to answer these questions. Does this not aggravate the manpower shortage if the officials’ time is wasted by unnecessary questions?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Railway Appropriation.

I am speaking about the manpower shortage on the Railways. The Opposition does not make the task of the Railway officials easier; they are making it more difficult. I want to ask the Opposition: What place did the Railwayman occupy in the community during their period of office? The Railwayman was not even noticed during those years; no one knew him. To-day, by quoting a few letters here from Railwaymen, they are trying to create the impression that they are supported by Railwaymen, and I often wonder whether they did not perhaps ask the people to write the letters to them. Sir, I am inundated by letters in which Railwaymen express their appreciation towards the Minister for what is being done for them. The sun is shining for the Railway worker under the National Party Government; the National Party Government ensures the Railwayman’s future. But we took cognisance of the Railwayman from the first and we shall still do so in the years ahead. The Railway people are our people and they shall remain our people. We know their needs. When individual Railwaymen have problems, the Minister is prepared to listen to each of them and to try to solve their problems, and to accommodate each of them. The Railwaymen know that they have a Minister whose ear and whose heart are attuned to them, and who is prepared to sacrifice himself in their interests because they are doing a great job of work in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point laid a charge here the other night which cannot go unanswered. He mentioned certain farming representatives on this side by name and asked where they were and why they were not stepping into the breach for the farmer in the Railway debate. I want to tell the hon. member where he can look for the farmers on this side. He can look for them in this House and in the offices of all departments where the interests of the farmers are pleaded for and dealt with. He can go and look for them at the meetings of the agricultural group, where we gather every day to promote the farmers’ interests. He can look for them everywhere where the farmers’ problems are submitted to the authorities. We know that under present circumstances there is no person who does not have problems. He can look for them in all places where the farmers’ interests are being promoted, in Parliament and elsewhere, but he need not look for them in places where they do not belong.

So you complain on the quiet; not here in public.

Sir, I have studied that hon. member’s speeches over the past years and I found no speech in which he pleaded for the interests of the farmers. I just want to say to him that if the contribution which he made the other night on behalf of the farmers was his most important contribution in their interests, there would no longer be a single farmer alive to-day if farmers had to rely upon the hon. member as their champion.

In the Second-Reading debate I spoke on the Pretoria disaster, and I want to say that I did so only after giving the matter a great deal of thought. I did not do so irresponsibly, as the Minister accused me. I realized that it could possibly give pain to a great number of people, but I felt that it was my duty to bring to the notice of this House and particularly of the hon. the Minister, the fact that there was a defect in the system which he employed in choosing the teams to fly these machines. I came to this conclusion after a most careful study of the report of the committee of inquiry, and, with the sole exception of my reference to pills, I did not, in arriving at my conclusions, make use of one item which was not contained in that report and known in his offices prior to the flight. All the items are there and the conclusions which people may arrive at may be different from mine, but I think a careful study will show, at least, that I have good grounds for the statement I made, namely that there was either incompetence or negligence on the part of the higher officials of S.A. Airways. I had looked at the instrument panel of the Boeing and I also discussed the matter with a South African Airways pilot before I spoke. I discussed it with my colleague, the hon. member for Albany, and I read the latest publication of the S.A. Pilot, the journal of the S.A. Airways pilots, not the defence journal. I omitted some of the evidence which was not available to that officer, although it was elicited later by the Committee. I omitted, for instance, the remarks of a senior pilot who had known Captain Smith. I came to the conclusion, and I think the hon. the Minister’s officials should also have come to the conclusion, that the inquiry ceased to investigate anything beyond the actual actions of the two pilots who flew this plane outthey did not try in any way to find an explanation of how it was that two highly experienced flying officers both—that is what they say—failed to be on the qui vive, failed to monitor their instruments—that is what they say—when they flew out into a black hole. They failed to the extent that when they thought they were climbing, they were actually descending. To my simple, non-technical mind, it seems that when you are climbing you should at least pay attention to that fact. It is probably the primary fact that the pilot should take notice of, and they had no outside lights to monitor them.

Now, what did I receive in return? What was the attitude of the hon. the Minister? He merely tried to prove me wrong. I do not want him to prove me right or wrong. I only want him to instruct his officials to give consideration to the statement I made and to see whether conditions inside the Airways’ offices need reorganization and reconsideration. I had to draw his attention to the fact that 10 years ago I warned him that this sort of thing could happen, with his then suggested arrangements for the pilots in the Airways he controls. His reply at the Second Reading was that I was talking nonsense. I want to make it quite clear that when I spoke 10 years ago I spoke after a great deal of investigation. I had the matter investigated through the best medical library in Great Britain and they flew out to me micro-films of what was the considered opinion of medical doctors doing air work in Great Britain. Their opinion was that the elderly pilots should be kept off the new, faster planes, to leave the older pilots on the planes to which they were habituated and on the routes with which they were familiar and to operate from the airports to which they were accustomed. But to the hon. the Minister this is nonsense. I know that the hon. the Minister is a great authority on transport, but he is not an authority on medical conditions. He went so far as to accuse me of differing from my colleagues, but doctors always may differ. I did not differ from my colleagues; I read more into their certificates than his officials read. That is what I did. I read what was said in the doctors’ certificates. The doctors who wrote those certificates will be pleased to think that I did so, because those men who are responsible for those certificates will think back and wonder and say to themselves: “I gave this man a certificate to fly for another six months; was I right or was I wrong?” Doctors are responsible people and the men employed on this work are responsible people. I think if the hon. the Minister could rise above his intolerance of criticism and occasionally forget his political polemics, this Parliament and the organization which he controls would benefit.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) who has just resumed his seat must pardon me if I do not follow him up in what he has just said, but I should nevertheless like to compliment him by saying that in the years in which I have sat in this House and listened to his speeches, I have gained the impression that he is one of the Opposition speakers who commands one’s respect. One is interested in what he says and he attracts one’s attention. However, in this case, where he spoke of the report of the commission of inquiry into this unforgettable air disaster which has blotted the fine and clean record of our Airways, I do not want to agree with him. I have made no study of this investigation, but in the same breath I want to say that I have the fullest confidence in the actions of the Minister and in the persons appointed to investigate the causes of the disaster to the best of their ability. We know that it is a very mysterious occurrence. One has no public evidence and one simply has to work on certain information and draw one’s own conclusions, which may also be wrong. In any case, it is an occurrence which has blotted the clean record of our Airways and its reputation, and one feels unhappy about that.

We have now come to the closing hour of this debate. We have had a whole week’s opportunity to listen and a great deal has been said here. Many words were spoken, words and again words. But if upon reflection one asks oneself what the meaning of all these words has been and what contribution they have made to this great national service in our country, our transport service, the Opposition must pardon me if I sum it up as follows. Late last year we read from day to day in their newspapers about the terrible storm that would take place here this year; the National Party would be driven into two camps, the verkramptes on the one side and the verligtes on the other, and there would be internecine conflict in our ranks. Their newspapers conjured up that feeling for them and many people were interested in it. Months before the Session they spoke of the no-confidence motion where the great battle would be fought.

Under what head of the Estimates are you speaking now?

I am talking about the Railways. If we now think back to what happened in the no-confidence debate and we now come to this Railways debate, it all boils down to the same thing. I do not believe that the United Party will ask the Speaker for an extra day next year, as they did in the case of the no-confidence motion, and not in the case of the railway debate either, they will ask for a day or two less. I sat here and listened very objectively, and the position is that each time an attack was launched here, especially by the political propagandist there, the hon. member for Yeoville, he tried to rouse his people to action, but then they crashed themselves up against the convincing replies from this side of the House, especially when the Minister replied to them.

We have now listened here to the grievances of the hon. member for Durban (Point). He had some five or six of them. We listened to them and we are not contemptuous of a railwayman’s complaint. I have also represented a considerable number of railway workers for the past 17 years and I can probably also speak with some knowledge of this situation. If we take into consideration that there are over 100,000 Whites alone employed in our transport services, it merely boils down to the fact that the number of grievances which the hon. member mentioned is a record. It redounds to the credit of the management of our transport services in general that there are so few complaints. One will always receive complaints. It will happen from time to time that one finds people in one’s own party whom one cannot satisfy.

Especially in your party.

Do not now assume that I speak scornfully of people’s grievances. I am speaking about stark human reality. One will always have dissatisfied people whom one cannot satisfy. For example, if one has a high percentage of complaints one can give attention to them, but out of a total of 100,000 Whites we have only had these few complaints to which we listened this morning. Surely that is no argument. It does the Minister and his Management credit that only a few complaints have been brought to light this morning out of a total of 100,000 people. That is the honest summing up that one ought to make of such an accusation as was made here. This terrible onslaught which the Opposition was to have made amounted to nothing and they lost the battle hopelessly. In my constituency I have good United Party friends, who are just as close friends as are my National Party friends. These stories which we have to listen to here, from men who should help us run our economy and govern the country, are childish, and to try to bring the Government to a fall and to place it in an unfavourable light with the constituents by those means, is an impossible task, and nothing can be achieved by it. When the United Party speaks of grievances I want to ask them if they still remember Marshall Clark. We had to kick him out in order to get rid of him so that we could continue with the extension of the Railways. We had to appoint grievances commissions and in addition do a great deal more to put matters right. As far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with my approach to our economy; we must confine ourselves to the present conditions. We must speak about this and see how we can contribute to its improvement. That is all I want to say in connection with the United Party and I just want to mention that their criticism once more consisted merely of words.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his General Manager warmly for what they have done. I want to wish the new General Manager prosperity in the years ahead and I may just say that we expect a great deal from him. When we cover terrain such as this to-day and speak about the interests of our country, we think back with great appreciation to his predecessor and what he did for the Railways. The people in my constituency will long remember Mr. Hugo and we wish only the best for the new General Manager. The Secretary for Transport is an experienced man who has been with us for years and he together with the officials who support him, have brought us where we are today as far as Railway matters are concerned. Who can deny, if he wants to be honest and is speaking in the interests of our country, that we have made tremendous progress during the past number of years as far as our Railway development and extension is concerned? We need merely take the important barometer of tonnage which was then transported as against that which is now transported by the Railways to see what has been achieved.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member not rather read his speech.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me—and I am also doing it on behalf of my constituency and my country—to say here this morning that we owe a large debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the staff who support him. I am now thinking of the many services which the Railways furnishes to our country, but apparently this does not count with the Opposition. I am thinking of the pipeline which was established by the hon. the Minister and the prospects for obtaining a second one. This is evidence of the massive Railway development which is taking place, but this is not mentioned or considered. The new deep-sea harbour which is proposed for Richard’s Bay, is also a tremendous development which means a lot for our country.

There is also another matter which I should like to mention. In my own constituency Ventersdorp received a fine new station after a struggle of many years. We co-operate with our people and we are aware of their needs. We do not read newspapers and other periodicals and then blow off steam here. We are concerned here with stark reality as far as representation is concerned, and how the representatives must support the Ministers concerned and their Departments. For many years we had a serious water shortage at Coligny and water had to be brought to the town. We later rented boreholes from farmers who lived near the town in order to supply the Railway community with water. Fortunately there is a stream which runs past very close to the town and the hon. the Minister built us a beautiful dam there. I may thus report that our water scarcity is a thing of the past. We are now selling water to the town and the ladies can now care for their gardens with Railway water. As far as the interests of the farmers are concerned. I may say that our transport has improved a few hundred per cent by comparison with a few years ago. At that time we could not get our livestock to the markets because there were not sufficient trucks available. We also experienced constant problems with the transportation of our grain. All these questions were solved, and by none other than the hon. the Minister and his officials. I should like to tell the Minister that at Lichtenburg. Coligny and Ventersdorp we also have a scarcity of housing and that the construction of a few houses there is essential and would be very welcome. From time to time we have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister and each time we have obtained a few additional houses, but the situation is now such that something must once more be done about the matter.

I want to conclude by mentioning that for many years it has been the feeling that there should be a link between Lichtenburg and Mafeking. About 15 years ago all the public bodies concerned in this matter made earnest representations to the hon. the Minister. Representatives of the Railways visited us, but it was felt that our transportation potential did not justify such a service, but we are convinced of the fact that the time is now ripe to provide such a service. We once more made representations to the hon. the Minister and I have here a memorandum from the Town Council of Lichtenburg and also one from the Western Transvaal Regional Development Association. More representations will still be made, but I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to this matter on behalf of all these bodies.

Mr. Speaker, whenever I want to get at the hon. member for Durban (Central) he is saved by the gong. The hon. member for Durban (Central) tried to get out of his difficulty a moment ago by attacking the hon. the Minister and saying that he was politically vicious in this debate.

The hon. member said here that he had obtained the opinions of pilots on how an aeroplane should be flown and about what had happened at Windhoek. But what about the opinion of this Commission of Inquiry? The members of this commission are very highly qualified and respected persons and I think that they carried out an exceedingly thorough investigation and brought out an excellent report in connection with this air disaster. The hon. member for Durban (Central) expressed himself very clearly on the report of the commission of inquiry and their findings, and made certain dangerous statements during the Second Reading debate. The hon. member for Albany was much more circumspect and confined his remarks to the data recorder. The reason for the hon. member’s circumspection is that he is an experienced pilot himself and that he was aware of the fact that the hon. member for Durban (Central) talked a lot of nonsense. I want to support the hon. the Minister strongly in his standpoint and to emphasize the fact that a very seriously wrong impression was created by the unfortunate words of the hon. member for Durban (Central) with his unfair allegations against the Management of South African Airways. These senior officials cannot defend themselves here, and although the commission of inquiry exonerated them from all blame the hon. member for Durban (Central) is still taking their findings as a basis for his attack. The evidence which was given he then uses to level the accusation that the Management had made a mistake by permitting Captain Smith to fly. The hon. member says that the Management should not have permitted him to fly, but what are the real facts? The facts are that Captain Smith had been medically examined by a very strict medical panel on 22nd March and that he had passed the examination. These persons are all colleagues of the hon. member and they passed Captain Smith, but the hon. member says no, the Management should have been wiser and should not have allowed him to fly. A further fact is that from 22nd March to the fatal day of 20th April Captain Smith had had 65½ flying hours on Boeing 707s. He had completed these flying hours without any incidents and had carried out his duties well. His flying ability was as good as always, but the hon. member maintains that the Management should not have allowed him to fly. If we accept that Captain Smith was in control of the aircraft the next fact is that he had flown from Jan Smuts Airport to Windhoek without anything having impaired his ability to fly that far. The next fact is that the aeroplane took off perfectly from Windhoek Airport, that the wheels were retracted in the normal way, that engine power was cut back to normal climbing power and that a height of between 600 and 700 ft. was reached. These facts testify to first-class flying ability. The hon. member for Durban (Central) also made insinuations here to the effect that Captain Smith may have been suffering from certain ailments and he referred to certain pills found in the wreckage. The report, however, says that it cannot be proved that these pills were used by Captain Smith. The most precious thing to any person is his own life, and I flatly refuse to accept that a person such as Captain Smith—and this is true in respect of other pilots as well—with his background, a man of his calibre and responsibility, who had more than 18,000 flying hours to his name, would have risked his life and the lives of his passengers by flying if he had known that he could not do it. If he had known that there was something wrong with his health or his vision he would have had the integrity to admit it. He would not have taken that chance. I have a very high regard for all the professional pilots in our country, because I believe that they are among the best in the world. Everyone knows that the most dangerous and most critical moment in the take-off of an aeroplane is when the engines are developing their full power and nothing can be done before a safe height has been reached. These critical moments were already past and the aeroplane had climbed to a safe height of 600 ft. But what happened after that? Thirty dramatic seconds later the aeroplane hit the ground and the nagging secret of what happened during that time went to the grave with all the unfortunate ones in the aircraft.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion as printed in my name—

I have tabled this motion for two main reasons. Firstly, it seems to me extraordinary that this subject has never been debated before in our Parliament, although it has been the cause of much heated controversy in other parliaments all over the world. I myself am in favour of abolition for reasons which I will give shortly, and I am very interested indeed to know whether other hon. members of this House share my views and if not, why not. It is my sincere hope, I might say at this juncture, that this motion will be discussed on a non-party political basis. I am hoping that the Whips of both parties have allowed their members a free say on this matter, and that if it comes to a vote, they will be allowed to vote according to their own consciences and not according to strict party lines.

Secondly, I want to state the reason why I have asked for this inquiry. Not only has this House never debated the matter of abolition of capital punishment, but South Africa has never even had a proper inquiry into the question of capital punishment. The Lansdown Commission of Inquiry into Penal and Prison Reform of 1947 had as one of its terms of reference “the general objects of punishment and the methods available to the courts of justice for the punishment of offenders, and the applicability of such methods to particular classes of offenders”. That is the closest that we have ever come to a commission of inquiry into the death penalty. I want to say that the commission which issued a lengthy report covering some 159 pages, devoted only six pages of its report to a consideration of the death penalty, and it made it very clear that it was offering an opinion only. The commission said too that it hesitated “to offer any view as authoritative, as to do so will be presumptuous unless the matter had been the subject of separate inquiry extending over the whole field of controversy”. Well, it is my contention that it is high time that we had such an inquiry, more particularly as our execution rate is one of the highest, if not the highest, in the Western world to-day.

In a recent article which appeared in the latest issue of the Annual Survey of South African Law, Dr. B. van D. van Niekerk of the Law Faculty of the Witwatersrand University gives the startling statistic that South Africa is responsible for carrying out 47 per cent of the world’s executions, and he bases his conclusion on the 1968 Report of the United Nations on Capital Punishment. I want to say at once that this report was independently prepared for the U.N., it was not prepared by the U.N. itself. It was prepared by one of the experts on criminology at the University of Chicago. I must also say at once that the report itself, which is based on a very wide survey of member and non-member countries of U.N., stresses that there are limitations which should be noted as bearing upon the report’s accuracy and its completeness. There are difficulties as far as varying terminology is concerned, and there are difficulties as far as categorization of capital offences and executions are concerned. Of course, the report also stresses that it had no information about executions resulting from military court trials. I want to put all those obvious shortcomings first. I want to say, too, that one might hesitate to accept at face value, therefore, this figure of 47 per cent. But there is no doubt whatever, both from the U.N. survey and from authoritative works all over the world by noted criminologists, that the overall tendency in the world is towards fewer executions. This is as a result, firstly, of the less frequent use of the death penalty in those countries that retain de jure capital punishment, and secondly, because of the fact that there is a constant tendency throughout the world—this tendency has existed for the past 50, 60 years—towards abolition of capital offences, either in toto or in certain respects. South Africa, however, has moved in the opposite direction in two respects.

Firstly, we have added to the list of capital offences over the years, and secondly, we are reprieving fewer people than we did 20 years ago. Originally, as hon. members no doubt know, the death penalty in South Africa applied only to treason, murder and rape. Those were the only three capital offences in South Africa, and the death sentence was mandatory upon a conviction for murder until the 1930s, when the “extenuating circumstances” provision was introduced and the death sentence left to the Judge’s discretion. I might say that the percentage of death sentences imposed for murder dropped dramatically thereafter. But since the 1930s South Africa has steadily added to the list of capital offences and since those days we have had armed robbery, housebreaking with aggravating circumstances, sabotage, child-stealing, kidnapping and terrorism added to the list of capital crimes.

Which would you like to see removed?

Actually I want to abolish all capital offences—at least I want an inquiry certainly to cover the abolition of all capital offences although I am prepared to say we might have to do it by stages. [Interjection.] Anyway, I am not going to be diverted by interjections because I have too much territory to cover this morning.

Murder remains responsible for something like 90 per cent of the death sentences imposed. Murder is the capital offence responsible. South Africa has reprieved fewer people over the years, unlike other countries where reprieves are mounting in most countries that do retain capital punishment. But in South Africa the percentage of people reprieved is dropping. For instance, between 1947 and 1956, 37 per cent of the Whites who were sentenced to death were reprieved, but in the period between 1959 and 1964 only 11 per cent of Whites sentenced to death were reprieved. Thirty-one per cent of non-Whites sentenced to death between 1947 and 1956 were reprieved but only 28 per cent were reprieved between 1959 and 1964.

The rising homicide rate in South Africa, and it is rising steadily all the time, is also disturbing. Another U.N. survey shows that we have probably the fourth-highest homicide rate in the world. Let me point out that, despite retention of capital punishment, we have a very steeply rising homicide rate. This rising homicide rate, together with the combination of the two factors I have already mentioned, i.e. the increase in the number of capital offences in South Africa and the decrease in the number of reprieves, have resulted in a steady increase in the number of executions in South Africa. Let me give the House the relevant figures which, of course, are taken from officials figures given to me over the years by Ministers of Justice.

In 1945, 14 people were hanged, in 1947, 27, in 1957, 104, in 1966, it reached an all-high figure with 124 people being hanged. In 1967 the number dropped to 97, and last year 119 people were hanged. If we contrast this position with other countries in the world, we find that to-day in Europe only Spain, France, Eire, Turkey and Greece retain the death penalty. Portugal abolished the death penalty for murder as long ago as 1867, Belgium abolished the death penalty for murder as long ago as 1863, and I might add these were both countries with colonial dependencies with multi-racial populations. In Britain, after a long campaign and following upon the most exhaustive inquiry into the whole subject—and this, of course, is the most authoritative inquiry that has ever been made—by the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment which sat from 1949 until 1953, the death penalty for murder was suspended in 1965 for a trial period of five years, except for treason. The death penalty is presently in abeyance for all crimes except treason and one or two other things like piracy of Her Majesty’s ships. But for murder, rape, etc., the death sentence has been suspended for a period of five years. Canada abolished capital punishment at the end of 1967 for all murders except those of policemen and prison guards, also for a trial period of five years. It is interesting to note that most Latin-American countries, ten in all, including Argentina and Brazil, have abolished the death penalty. Israel, New Zealand, New South Wales in Australia have abandoned the death penalty, either totally or at least for murder. Israel I may say retains it only for Nazi war crimes and genocide, and only one man has been executed since the creation of the state of Israel, namely Eichmann. In the U.S.A., a country where violence is ever-present, 13 states have abolished capital punishment, and it is interesting to note that in those states which retained capital punishment there is a growing reluctance to execute condemned men. In 1935, 199 people were executed in the U.S.A., by 1967 the number had dwindled to two, and last year, 1968, not a single person was executed in the U.S.A. I believe there are at the moment something like 400 men and women in what is known as “Death Row” in America, and legal experts are doubtful whether a single one of them will in fact go to the Chair. I might say the same de facto abolition of capital punishment can be found in other countries.

Let us look at the reasons for South Africa’s rooted adherence to the death penalty. I want to point out this is an adherence shared not with Western countries but it is an adherence shared with the communist countries. It is an adherence shared also with many of the Middle East and Far East countries, and some only of the African states. As I say, this is not an adherence shared by Western countries. Some of the arguments given in favour of our retaining the death penalty are arguments used by retentionists all over the world, but other arguments, of course, apply to the “special circumstances pertaining to South Africa”. The argument first used by retentionists is, of course, that the death penalty is a unique deterrent. This is the one which is most commonly used. People who hold this view believe that the abolition of the death penalty will indubitably lead to an increase in capital offences, particularly murder. In other words, as someone once put it, there are innumerable would-be murderers just straining at the leash to commit murder if the death penalty were abolished. I think people who think that have lost sight of two important factors. The first important thing is that most murders, by far the majority of them, are not premeditated. Criminologists who have made proper scientific studies of this subject estimate that 95 per cent of murders are unpremeditated. Therefore the existence or otherwise of the death penalty plays no part. The murders are not premeditated, they are committed in a rage, in a moment of passion, in a drunken brawl, at a time when nobody ever anticipated that murder would be committed. In other words, it is unpremeditated murder. Therefore, the calm weighing-up of the consequences does not enter into 95 per cent of murders that are committed anyway.

The chances that capital punishment might deter a person who intends committing a premedidated murder are also remote, for the simple reason that the majority of such persons do not believe they will be caught. That possibility does not enter their minds. They think they are going to commit the “perfect” murder, and therefore the thought that the hangman’s noose might be awaiting them does not in any way deter them.

I might say there is a high suicide rate among people charged with murder, and this I think also shows that the fear of death as such does not play much part in their reasoning.

Now I want to say something else about uniquely deterrent value of the death penalty. I must admit at once that nobody can ever say for certain how many murders and other capital offences were not committed because of the existence of the death penalty. We do not know. But what we do know, is how many detected murders and other capital offences have been committed despite the existence of the death penalty. I want to grant that right away.

A great deal of in-depth scientific inquiry has been made in fact into this aspect, the most important argument of retentionists, namely the uniquely deterrent aspect of the death penalty. One of the world’s authorities on the subject is Professor Sellin, who is the president of the International Society of Criminology. He is also the head of the Centre of Criminological Research at the University of Pennsylvania. At the request of the British Royal Commission he undertook a lengthy scientific study about this so-called uniquely deterrent effect of the death penalty. He compared various states in the U.S.A. with similar populations and similar social conditions. He came to the conclusion that according to the statistics there is no evidence whatever, comparing retentionist states with abolitionist states, that the death penalty has a uniquely deterrent effect. And I might say that with the evidence of Professor Sellin at their disposal, as well as the evidence of other experts, and after studying 60 judicial systems throughout the world, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that on the statistics available there was no evidence that the death penalty was a deterrent superior to imprisonment. It is the certainty of conviction, rather than the degree of punishment, which is the real deterrent. Dr. A. W. Hoernlé, who was a noted sociologist and a member of the Lansdown Commission, expressed the following opinion in her minority report—

She recommended that the death penalty be abolished in our civil courts in times of peace. I now turn to the important, perhaps the all important, question of whether the death penalty is required for the protection of society. To me this is the crux of the whole question. Other factors, such as the punitive factor and the factor of retribution, certainly play their part, and I shall return to them in a moment. To me, however, the crux of the whole question, the real crux, is whether the death penalty is in fact required for the protection of society. Considering all the available evidence before it and after having expertly scrutinized the figures available in Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth, the Royal Commission reached the important, albeit negative, conclusion that there was no clear evidence that the abolition of the death penalty has ever led to an increase in the rate of homicide, or that its reintroduction has ever led to a fall. Now. I know that the retentionists will eagerly seize on an article which appeared in the Argus not long ago. It appeared under the somewhat startling heading. “Massive rise in British murders”. I am sure everybody in this House who is going to speak against my motion, is going to flourish this in my face. I see the hon. member for Durban (North) has that very intention. I would have thought that a civilized man like him … [Interjections.] Oh yes, I see it on your face. You would not have flourished that article otherwise. In any event, Sir, the point is …

Do you think we on this side are uncivilized?

No. Perhaps eighteenth century but not quite uncivilized. By the way, I notice that hon. member is also a retentionist. But to return to this article. First of all, it is not an in-depth scientific study and thus cannot, in any way, disprove the findings of the Royal Commission which sat from 1949 to 1953. Secondly, it confuses the rate with the number of murders. In other words, it compares two incomparable sets of figures. Therefore, perhaps we would find a different figure altogether if we were to make a proper analysis. Certainly, we would find a different figure as far as the rate of murder is concerned just after the end of World War II. That is comparable with the figure this article mentions. But definitely not as far as the number of murders is concerned. As I was saying, I think one needs to inquire much deeper. 1968 is the only year mentioned in this article, whereas abolition has been implemented in England now for four years. The question now is whether 1968 was significant for a rise in the crime rate, because one would have to go into the question of rising crime rates. These are things which expert criminologists should examine before conclusions are reached, such as those expressed in this article.

I want to mention, and stress, that one important fact is often forgotten by retentionists. I am quite sure that most hon. members who intend supporting retention have this very thing at the back of their heads. This is that they think there is no alternative method for punishing the maldoer—in other words, it is hanging or nothing. Well, I cannot stress too strongly that this is nonsense. There are, in fact, alternative means of punishing the maldoer—life imprisonment for instance. It is, therefore, not a question of choosing only between capital punishment and no punishment at all. This I cannot stress too strongly. Life imprisonment is, of course, often not literally implemented. If it is, therefore, felt that this form of punishment offers no protection to society, because people who have murdered and have been sentenced to life imprisonment are released and may rush off and murder more people. I must point out that inquiries have been made into this and it has been found to be groundless. In fact, during the period the Royal Commission covered it found that only one case occurred where an imprisoned murderer had been released and who had committed another murder. But even that case was in doubt. It has since been the subject of considerable controversy. But, let me say this at once, there are people who ought to be locked up for life—vicious people, people beyond redemption, people who are a danger to society. Such people must be kept locked up forever if necessary.

What about extenuating circumstances?

That must be taken into consideration by the authorities in each case. But where you have a vicious and absolutely intractable criminal, society obviously deserves to be protected against such. But let me point out that the most dangerous of all murderers, the insane murderer, is never executed, or should not be, according to our law. Therefore, this argument as well can be refuted.

Abolitionists are often accused of being “soft on” criminals, of being “sickly humanists”, “crackpots”—people who sympathize more with the murderer than they do with the victim. In this respect, I need only refer to Canada. Great Britain, 13 States of the United States. Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, West Germany—are the people there “crackpots” and “sickly humanists”? And what about the many eminent persons, such as clergymen and others, who have supported the movement towards abolition? Can they be so categorized? Can Judge Hiemstra and Judge Cloete, for instance, be considered as irresponsible? Because they too have made statements in support of the abolition of the death sentence.

The real point is that concepts of justice change with the times. There was a time when there were 200 capital offences in England—from minor theft such as the theft of a sheep … Well, of course, stealing a sheep would not be considered to be minor theft in this House! In any event, there were about 200 capital offences in England. What is more, public hangings were considered the norm, as was drawing, quartering and torture. All countries which have abolished capital punishment at one time had capital punishment. But their concept of justice and punishment has changed. Rehabilitation has taken precedence over retribution. It is, therefore, not a case of being sympathetic towards murderers and not towards the victims. That is nonsense. Of course, one has every sympathy with the victim, but killing another person will not bring the victim back to life. All it does is to bring more misery, to the hanged person’s family.

I see my time is running out and therefore, I should swiftly like to tough on retribution. There are people who seem to think that retribution (a) gives comfort to the victim’s family, and (b) that it is a necessary element in society. In this connection they quote the old Mosaic law—incorrectly, at that, because to “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” they add “a life for a life”. This does not exist in the old Mosaic law. At one stage the old Mosaic law included 33 capital punishments—all sorts of things, like adultery, witchcraft, striking one’s parents. All these things came within the concept of Mosaic law, of the lex talionis, but I have not yet heard that even the most fervid retentionists want to bring back the death penalty of these crimes. So, it is easy enough to pick out what one wants and to leave out what one does not want. Furthermore, one can always quote an opposite text from the Bible, to any biblical quotation one may want to counter. It must also be remembered that Israel, which is the country most wedded to Mosaic law, has abandoned the death penalty except for Nazi war crimes. The Knesset, when it abolished the death penalty, was heartily supported even by the most religious members of orthodox Jewry in the Knesset.

There are lots of other arguments which I could use, such as the brutalizing effects of hanging on society, and the revolting sensationalism of a murder trial, which is very often enjoyed by the accused, in the case of a person who likes the idea of being in the public eye, as much as it is enjoyed by the public. This has been advanced by many psychologists as the reason for murder. The imposing of the death penalty—and this is very important—for certain crimes like rape, kidnapping, armed robbery or housebreaking, etc., can lead to murder by the very fact that it will obviate the likelihood of the victim identifying the criminal. One must remember that too. I do not want to expand on that any further.

I want to mention only one final argument in favour of abolition. That is that mistakes do occur. No judicial system is infallible. I do not say that our courts have made many mistakes in this regard, but I am quite sure that, like other courts, they have made some. Not everybody was as lucky as the convicted murderer who was reprieved at the last moment because a mistake was discovered, which the hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned only the other day when he was speaking against the abolition of juries. I only want to say that once a man has been hanged, that is that. It is irrevocable and the mistake cannot be rectified.

Now I want to turn to the arguments that are supposed to take South Africa’s special circumstances, the multi-racial population and the primitive state of the development of many of our non-Whites, into consideration. The opinion of the Lansdown Commission, and it was admitted as being only an opinion, was that it could not recommend abolition. This was in 1947. Inter alia it stated that 80 per cent of the population have not yet emerged from a state of barbarism. The Commission said that public opinion in South Africa was not ripe for the abolition of capital punishment. In that regard it also said that in a matter of vital social reform, the reformer must be in advance of public opinion and that it must educate and lead public opinion. I might say that I heartily concur with this. I would say that this is especially so when public opinion is uninformed and when it is based on emotional attitudes as public opinion in South Africa very often is. The idea that abolition is not possible because of our non-white population, the so-called “barbarous” 80 per cent, is widely held in South Africa. People fear that the abolition of the death penality will result in thousands of non-Whites, overcome by their primitive instincts, murdering us in our beds, incidentally, I want to say that prosecution figures over a 10-year period show that Whites commit murder and rape on non-Whites at a rate four times greater than non-Whites on Whites. That is just one figure from official statistics.

What about the terrorists?

I am coming to those. Do be quiet. In absolute terms, the figures are approximately equal. There was a very interesting article in the last Sunday Times by Mr. David Welsh, senior lecturer at the University of Cape Town, who is an ardent abolitionist. He points out the fallacy in the concept that primitive tribal Africans are given to murder on a large scale. According to his article this is just not true. In times of war, during the Chaka era, which was not a typical time, there was a great deal of bloodshed but in normal times this is not so. Even medicine murders which are, incidentally, the classic case of premeditated murder, are rare. I might say that in Lesotho it has been shown that hanging people for medicine murders has not made the slightest difference to the murder rate in that respect. What undoubtedly is true is that there is a great deal of violence to-day, particularly among urban non-Whites. Nobody can possibly deny that. I think there are over nine murders per day in South Africa. But as Mrs Hoernlé has stated in the Lansdown Report, the reasons for the higher homicide rate among non-Whites are to be found in the whole circumstances of their lives, and not in any differences in racial constitution. I submit that the crux of the matter lies not in the retention of the death penalty, but in the removal of conditions that are the root cause of violence and crime, of social dislocation, of poverty, low wages, hopelessness, bad living conditions, and migratory labour—that cancer in our society. I would say that terrorism would largely be reduced if these factors … [Interjections.] Remedy these factors and watch the frighteningly high crime rates decrease in our urban townships, and elsewhere too. The Elliot Commission which inquired into causes of crime in South Africa in 1942 was quite specific on this point. It stated:

I echo those sentiments as they were echoed also by Judge Steyn speaking at the Annual Congress of Community Services only last year. I believe it is time that we should have a top level inquiry into this matter, because we have not had such an inquiry since the Elliot Commission of 1942. It is high time that we should have a top level inquiry by an independent commission of inquiry into the causes of crimes of violence in South Africa. The commission should consist of well-trained criminologists. Surely, it is extraordinary that there has not been a proper inquiry for over 25 years into the causes of crimes of violence in South Africa, which, as I have said, to-day has one of the highest homicide rates in the entire world. And I say that the time is ripe now too, for an inquiry into the abolition of capital punishment. It is over 20 years since the Lansdown Commission reported. This Commission reported, by no means in depth; it only gave an opinion, so I am asking the House to consider the advisability of appointing a proper commission of inquiry on this matter. That is all I am asking for. I am not asking for anything else at this juncture because I know that such matters require time; they require the reeducation of public opinion and they require proper study. I am asking the House to appoint a commission which should re-examine our attitude to capital punishment, to demonstrate at least our willingness to consider joining those civilized countries that have abolished the death penalty, if not for all capital offences, then at least for some, and for a trial period. Again I want to mention that murder is responsible for 95 per cent of the capital offences in this country. We are not inundated with terrorists despite the obvious fear of the hon. member for Turffontein.

It is a fact.

It is not a fact because …

Or course it is a fact.

He says it is a fact but he has no figures to support his contentions. I just want to conclude by saying that the grim figure of the hangings which take place in South Africa is a powerful weapon for our enemies abroad. Therefore, I say, a step in the direction of the abolition of the death sentence, the fact that we are prepared to consider moving in the same direction as countries of Western Europe and elsewhere, would contribute to removing this weapon, something which would be of great benefit to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has moved a very important motion here. We also witnessed the phenomenon that this hon. member who asked the House to consider the appointment of a commission and who at the end of her speech, again referred to the appointment of a commission, proceeded in the meantime to decide for herself on the constitution of this commission: she appointed a one-man commission, she herself led the evidence, she herself passed judgment on that evidence, she herself gave the ruling and made a recommendation. Therefore, we have now reached the stage where we have to consider the “report of the Suzman Commission”.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the hon. member for Houghton would also listen to me as quietly as I did to her.

This is a matter which we should treat with the greatest measure of responsibility, for it does not only concern the lives of people, but also the life and the safety of the community.

There are three requirements with which a discussion of or an approach to this matter should comply. Firstly, it is essential that this matter should not be dragged into politics. It is important that it should not be dragged into the arena of agitations, for this was the unpleasant and costly experience of Britain. The hon. member referred to the British example. In fact, a commission was appointed there, i.e. the Royal Commission to which the hon. member also referred. In Britain we find that, especially from the middle forties up to the present, the question of capital punishment has been a political issue. This was so severe that the Homicide Act was passed in 1957 as a result of a commission report, in regard to which there was agitation, in regard to which pressure groups took action, in regard to which there was political dissension and in regard to which a compromise was entered into, the most impossible compromise which has ever been entered into in criminal law, in terms of which six categories of murder were made punishable by death but not the rest. As a result of that state of affairs the British Parliament had to proceed, in 1965, to the passing of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act, 1965, in terms of which provision was made for a probationary period of five years, i.e. up to 31st July, 1970. When they voted on the abolition of the death penalty for five years, some members in both Houses of Parliament said that they were not in favour of the abolition of the death penalty but that, as a result of the impossible anomalies which resulted because of the 1957 legislation, they were now obliged to do so. I just want to refer here to one or two of them—

And this is what the hon. member is asking us, i.e. that, if we do not want to abolish capital punishment for all crimes which are punishable by death at present, we should abolish it in respect of certain crimes—

Then I shall quote what was said in the House of Lords when the Second Reading of the Bill was introduced—

On this occasion in 1965 the Chief Justice of England said that he was not in favour of the abolition, but that the legal position in England was so impossible that he would vote for the Second Reading—

He then made the special request that something should at least be done in the Committee Stage so as to make the position more clear. Sir, this is what has happened in Britain.

Secondly, we must approach this matter soberly and not emotionally; that is very essential.

Thirdly, we must view this matter against the background of the country in question. The hon. member said that there are not very many differences, and she simply shrugged off what the Lansdown Commission had said. Sir, the Lansdown Commission did not only express an opinion; it also heard evidence.

The Commission itself said it was only giving an opinion.

A moment ago I made a polite request to the hon. member.

We cannot judge the South African circumstances in the light of the experience other countries have had. The paragraph to which she referred makes this very point, for the Lansdown Commission tells us this—

Sir, we are concerned here with the background against which capital punishment has to be judged. We can learn a great deal from other countries, but their experience is not a decisive factor. We can, in fact, profitably take cognizance of it. The hon. member told us, “There is a rising homicide rate in South Africa”. Sir, this must, of course, be correlated with the tremendous increase in population over the years in respect of which she has furnished us with figures here. But that is something she disregards completely.

Sir, I want to summarize the position in South Africa in a brief and terse manner. What is the position in respect of capital punishment? Let us look at the crimes for which capital punishment must not be imposed but may be imposed. The Judge is under an obligation in one case only. The crimes are as follows: Treason, sabotage, acts of terrorism—I am grouping them together—kidnapping, child-stealing, rape, robbery and attempted robbery if there are aggravating circumstances, housebreaking if there are aggravating circumstances, and murder. We are now dealing with two sets of crimes: the one group is aimed at the life and safety of the individual and the other is aimed at the life and safety of the community. This is the position in South Africa; these are the categories of crimes in respect of which capital punishment may be imposed. This position is being regulated by sections 330, 331 and 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Criminal Procedure Act, 1959, as amended, also makes provision for reprieve by the Executive, by the State President. All the crimes I have mentioned here, are crimes in respect of which the Judge may, and not must, pass the death sentence upon conviction. There is only one case where he is obliged to do so, and that is for murder without extenuating circumstances. That is the only one.

But we have a very large number of safety valves in our law. In the first place, we should always bear in mind that, in spite of these U.N. reports to which the hon. member referred and all the other liberalist criticism we may find, the State must always prove the guilt of the accused. The death sentence can only be passed by a higher court. There is ample opportunity for appeal to the Appeal Court. There is the principle of extenuating circumstances which the Royal Commission did not want to accept, in spite of the evidence. This is a very wide concept, very widely formulated in our law, and the same applies to the principle of imputability, or, in other words, provision for those suffering from mental defects, etc. Those safety valves have been provided. The hon. member referred here to an “insane murderer”, but there is no such thing. A person who is insane, cannot commit murder; he is not accountable. Then there is special provision in respect of a person under the age of 18 and a woman who is guilty of infanticide.

When the death sentence is in fact passed, the Judge who has passed that sentence must immediately submit, through the Secretary for Justice, a report to the State President, who has to decide whether the sentence will be confirmed. No death sentence is executed until the Minister of Justice has given written notice to the effect that the State President has decided not to use his powers of reprieve. Even up to the last moment before the execution of the sentence, the condemned person may be granted an interdict if new facts come to light which have a bearing on the sentence. Every person who is accused of a capital crime in South Africa has legal representation, and if such a person does not arrange it for himself, the State arranges it free of charge: he is defended pro Deo. And even if a person were to plead guilty to a charge of murder in a South African court of law, our law stipulates that the plea should be changed to “not guilty” and that the court of law should follow the normal procedure and try him properly. Even if he is charged with murder and the evidence indicates otherwise, the court of law may find him guilty of a much lesser crime, even of the crime of assault. This is the position in South Africa, i.e. a very scientific approach.

Now we come to the next aspect. What is the object of punishment? The hon. member touched upon this. Punishment can have a three-fold object: retribution, deterrence or reform. In any modern penological system the retribution aspect does not occupy a prominent place. As regards murder and crimes such as treason, the possibility of the death sentence—I say possibility because it is not compulsory—is a very strong deterrent. Therefore, if the hon. member tells us, “It is not a uniquely effective deterrent”, then I ask her this: if the supreme penalty that can be imposed, the death sentence, were not a deterrent, would any other penalty act as a deterrent? If any other penalty were not a deterrent either, then I want to suggest that the deterrent in our penal code would fall away and then only reform would remain. In that case many of the Acts we pass in this House would become a farce and the penal code would collapse.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was dealing with the hon. member for Houghton’s assertion to the effect that capital punishment as such was no effective deterrent to murder and crimes of that nature. If capital punishment, the most severe penalty were no deterrent, then we must inevitably arrive at the conclusion that all milder penalties would have even less deterrent value. In that case all punishment would become pointless. Then the reform aspect would be the only remaining aspect in the treatment of crime. We would then arrive at the absurd position that our whole penal code would collapse. But then the hon. member once again backed out to a certain extent by saying that they had to get a prison sentence. In that case we would arrive at this impossible position that one would be encouraging the murderer to think of his victim in these terms: “You are going to the cemetery for ever, but I am merely going to prison for a while.” This would give rise to the situation where the terrorist, who knows that he dare not turn back, for then his comrades would destroy him, would tell himself that he might as well apply the diabolical skills he has been taught in Tanzania and Algeria, that he might massacre the hon. member for Houghton and her family, because he would know that what is in store for him in South Africa is not death but a well cared for life in prison.

That is the situation we would arrive at. No effective alternative was stated.

The hon. member referred very contemptuously to a report which appeared in the Argus of 11th March. The report reads as follows—

I could read out the whole report to you, Sir, but the time is lacking. Amongst other things the following is said in this report—

The following is significant—

The figure for the past year is 2,500. This was not unforeseen. When the debate on the abolition of capital punishment in England took place, Sir Peter Rawlinson, a former Solicitor-General, said—

The report on this debate goes on to say—

That is, since the abolition of the Homicide Act, which only laid down capital punishment in respect of certain categories. The report goes on to say—

These things are proved by facts; not theories and views to which the hon. member referred, but statistics. She said that we had to look to England. She quoted to us the Royal Commission and its recommendations. Now she wants to lead us to the impossible situation which prevailed while the Homocide Act was being implemented. She said, “Abolish capital punishment; if not in all cases, then in some”. This would result in the same absurd position as the one into which Britain has now fallen. Quite casually the hon. member also said that this question of capital punishment was immoral and that it was not based on scriptural grounds either. If that is the case, Sir, the Christian Church has been erring for 2000 years! But the Church has not been erring. I also want to quote to hon. members a church leader, who cannot be accused of not being liberal enough. I quote from a report on what the Archbishop of Canterbury said—

Therefore, the argument falls away, also as far as the ecclesiastical aspect of the matter is concerned.

But what does the hon. member tell us in the findings of the “Suzman Commission”? She says that if one has to deal with such a terribly impossible criminal “then lock him up for ever”. Do hon. members know what the abolitionists in England said when that very same argument was advanced in the House of Lords and the House of Commons? They said that it was immoral: “You cannot allow men to rot in prison.” Now the hon. member uses this illogical kind of argument so as to get past the impossible. If we are dealing with the illogical, it is no longer a case of “Forever Amber”, but of “Forever Helen”.

In her ardent “patriotism” the hon. member thought it fit, when she was struggling along with U.N. figures here, to compare her fatherland with the communist systems as far as this matter is concerned. But when she dealt with the figures and mentioned a “rising homicide rate”, she omitted to mention that in the vast majority of those murder cases both murderers and victims were Bantu, that we have to cope with ethnic groupings in this country, that we even have to cope with such things as faction fights in this country. She rather casually kept quiet about these facts, but she very expertly held up to us the picture of the U.N. figures and took them as her model.

If one comes to the advisability of appointing a commission, it must, after all, be based on a request from authoritative and representative opinion. I make bold to suggest that such a request has never been made by the Judiciary as such, the Bar Council, the South African Law Societies, the Department of Justice, the Attorneys-General or the Department of Prisons. But I shall go further than that. As far as I am aware, such a draught resolution has never been introduced at any congress of the National Party, nor of the United Party.

I doubt whether the Progressive Party has ever had such a draught resolution at its congresses. But, after all, to-day they appointed a one-man commission; I suppose they also have one-man congresses at present! I do not know. There has never been such a request. The next point is very important. No Bantu authority or representative non-White organization in South Africa, i.e. those people about whom she has had so much to say, has ever come forward with such a request. We are dealing here with a very important subject, which, as I said at the beginning, does not only concern the life and the safety of the individual, but also the life and continued existence of the State, the community and the nation. Since we want to discuss this matter in a sober and responsible manner, we should consider the question of the advisability of the appointment of such a commission against the background of our public opinion. The hon. member said that the Lansdown Commission was only giving an opinion. It was not, Sir; it went further and said—

In the light of this and if one has regard to the composition of this population, as I briefly put it to hon. members; if we bear in mind that we are dealing with threats on our borders by terrorists, who have been taught their diabolical skills in Tanzania and Algeria, and who would, if we were to abolish capital punishment, come here with the knowledge that a milder punishment awaits them here than would be meted out to them if they were to turn back to their comrades; if we have regard to the fact that this is not being requested by the general public, I must say that the hon. member for Houghton has not made out a case, and that there is no proof for the advisability of appointing such a commission.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has given the House a very interesting and, I think, a very necessary background to what the law in fact provides at this stage, and in relation to the differences which exist in broad outline between the views that were expressed by the hon. member for Houghton and the views being expressed in our country.

The hon. member for Houghton expressed the view that she had hoped that this might be a free vote. If this were a debating society, perhaps that might have been a point well made. But this is not a debating society. We have to make decisions here which must be acted upon, if necessary, by those responsible for the administration of justice. The motion of the hon. member, namely that a commission should investigate the matter, is not a motion which we feel should be passed by this House if we have any positive feeling, as the representatives of society (which we are here in Parliament assembled) on the question as to whether the death sentence should be abolished. I suppose one could say that there is in this country a commission sitting all the time in the form of the Judges of the Supreme Court who have to deal with this question from day to day in many more cases than most Judges of the world. But, it is for society itself to determine. I do not think that we in this House, as the representatives of society, are entitled to pass the buck to a commission. In fact, one wonders whether we should not have on our desks here what Harry Truman, the former President of the United States had on his desk, namely a notice saying, “The buck stops here”. We have to take a positive attitude in determining what, in fact, our attitude is towards this matter. I am sure we are all pleased that we have had the opportunity, by the introduction of this motion, to determine where we stand in relation to this matter. I am sure that here, imperfect though we may be, we (if anyone does) represent society.

There is another field in which society brought its opinion to bear very directly, as regards the question of the imposition of the death sentence, namely the jury system. That, sadly and against our wishes on this side of the House, has now been removed from our legal system. There are examples, not only in Great Britain where the system originated, but also in our own country, as the hon. the Minister will know from the Lansdown Report. In Natal, for example, juries found difficulty in finding people guilty of rape, because they knew the death sentence would in those days follow automatically. Here was society itself interposing itself and indicating what it felt about the death penalty in certain cases. We are sorry the jury system has been abandoned, but it has been. We are the only arbiters at this stage.

Abolition is a very easy way out if one is dealing with one’s own conscience. But we are not fulfilling our obligation to society or to ourselves if we do not positively determine this issue that is before us to-day. One is in no different a position than one is in when one acts as an assessor, as hon. members in this House have had to do, in a murder trial. One has to take part in reaching the decision of determining whether someone should, in fact, be sentenced to death or not. Neither is this position any more pleasant than that of anyone who has to defend the accused. We all, in such positions, have a duty to perform to society and ourselves, and to the prisoner. It is a very ugly business but it is a very necessary business.

The hon. member for Houghton very kindly said she regarded me as a civilized person.

I might change my mind.

Oh, she might change her mind. That is her privilege as a lady. Therefore it was expected that I should support her. She expressed obliquely the view that is abroad amongst abolitionists; that is that if you are a member of the intelligentsia or an academic or someone of that sort, if you are civilized in that sense, then you must support abolition. Well, I think this really begs the question.

What in fact is the death sentence? It is a matter of punishment. Punishment must be sufficient to deter others and sufficient to be accepted by public opinion—and this is important—as an adequate vindication of the law. It ought not to suggest that the crime of murder, treason, rape, terrorism, sabotage, and all the other capital crimes should be regarded lightly, either by the State or the public, or should be put on the same level as any other crime. I think Lord Justice Denning of Great Britain expressed this better than I could ever express it. I am quoting from Sir Ernest Gowers’ book, “A Life for a Life”. He was the chairman of the Royal Commission. He said—

I am sure hon. members have read about this really quite incredible Moors murder case in Great Britain. It induced an abolitionist in the form of Pamela Johnson, the wife of C. B. Snow, who reported this case in her book “On Iniquity” to conclude that (although she was an abolitionist) the prisoners should have hanged. You will remember this case, Mr. Speaker. It was the case of the murder of the children. The murderers actually recorded for their pleasure the dying noises of the children that they tortured. She, as a member of the intelligentsia, who reported this case and who sat in on it, felt that, although she was an abolitionist, a sentence of imprisonment was quite inadequate. That is the feeling.

What are the other results of maintaining the death sentence? The Royal Commission itself said—

We can add to that other crimes in our own country.

There are other aspects which might induce one to think that the death penalty should be retained. There is the retribution or vindication element. I leave that to the hon. member for Mooi River to deal with more eloquently than I could deal with it. But we are not a vindictive society. Think of all the figures quoted here. But figures that have not been quoted are the numbers of people who have been indicted for and found guilty of crimes which carry the death penalty and the number of those persons who are in fact executed later on. A very small percentage. These figures have not been mentioned, and those of us who practise in the courts know that there are in every city in this country two, three, sometimes four courts sitting every day trying capital offences from the beginning to the end of that day. This is the indication that we are not a vindictive society. The fact that more sentences of death are pronounced here than in other countries indicates nothing.

All the literature, and it is myriad, which deals with abolition, deals with the concern for the accused person, for the condemned person. Society is concerned with this. But there is also the other side of the coin, and the other side of the coin is his victim and the victim’s family and society itself, and the protection of society. Hanging is a grim and ugly business, but so is murder, so is rape, so is treason, so is terrorism, so is sabotage, so is going outside the country to train to subvert our country, so is housebreaking with aggravating circumstances, so is robbery with aggravating circumstances, so is child-stealing and so is kidnapping. All these crimes are a grim and ugly business for the victims and for society itself.

This question of whether or not it is a deterrent is obviously a question which we will have to consider. One cannot by producing statistics, quite obviously in the nature of things say how much it is a deterrent. You cannot prove it. All that the figures indicate is that there are a number of people who have put themselves outside the pale of society, and that in respect Of them it was not a deterrent. So it is a matter of one’s own impressions. I think it is our duty here as the representatives of our society to indicate what is our collective impression about this thing which cannot be proved by any statistical evidence.

We have a duty in our society to protect the police. Remember that Sir Robert Peel could never, when he established the first police force, have maintained that police force had the public, had society not been with him in that respect, and that is why he would not arm them at that stage. Consider those other guardians of society. If the abolitionists were to have their way, if no one were to be sentenced to death, then let us consider our warders of the prisons in which they have to spend their lives. A prisoner serving a life sentence for murder could escape and kill the warder in the process, knowing that all that could happen to him is that he would continue where he was before, namely continue to serve a life sentence. The Mountbatten Report of 1967 on prisons in Great Britain pointed out that of the 138 men in category A, that is to say people who normally would be hanged, 53 had tried to escape and that a further 83 were suspected of making escape plans. But I do not have to go to Britain for an example. One has only to look at the Lansdown Report where a hypothetical example is given in this very respect. It says:

Sir, what about the police? What about people who are arrested for murder and then resist arrest and murder in resisting arrest? What about persons who try to escape from custody, committing murder in doing so having been arrested on suspicion of murder. What about second time murderers? These are all matters for which there is no alternative. The hon. member for Houghton suggested that the alternative is imprisonment. There is no alternative for these persons but the imposition of the death sentence. I have said that one has a revulsion for the proceedings. One has to take part in it obviously, because one has a duty; but one has a great horror of the events themselves which cause the proceedings.

The character of human nature, I believe, is that the capital penalty is the most dreaded thing of all. The question which we have to ask ourselves here to-day is, what is the most dreaded thing of all, what would one want more or what would one want less? I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever. One reads all the books that have been written by prison governors in Great Britain. We do not have such literature in our own country for obvious reasons. One finds that every one of them writes about the moment of reprieve of a condemned prisoner and the great relief that there is always by the prisoner when he learns he has been reprieved. Let me again refer to Lord Justice Denning and what he says about the gangster type people. You get gangsters, groups of people, who are not deterred by imprisonment. We have this recent example in Great Britain of the Kray and train robbery gangs and others, which showed us the extent to which they will go not only in supporting each other but in helping each other because they know that life goes on and that they as master-criminals can find a way to get round any difficulties the State may put in their way. I wonder whether they would have acted that way had the death penalty been in existence in Great Britain at the time?

Because we feel that this is not a debating society and because we feel that we have to have an attitude as responsible elected people, I wish to move as an amendment—

I have said that our task, our responsibility, here to-day is to determine our own instincts as members and the representatives of our society here in this House assembled. This is our view based on the collective knowledge of human nature of my party.

You know, Mr. Speaker, all that has been said by the hon. member for Houghton, all that has been written about abolition, all the arguments which have been produced, have been produced in respect of the law as it exists (or existed) in Great Britain. The situation is absolutely different in South Africa. All that has been said and written in Great Britain in this regard, was about murder. About 90 per cent of the people hanged in this country are hanged in respect of an offence relating to murder. But there is no comparison whatsoever. The abolitionists in Great Britain had a case. If there was a mandatory death penalty for a person found guilty of murder, regardless of how the murder was committed, regardless whether the man was a crank or whether he had an aberration or whether he was moved by something or whether he had been provoked, or whatever, the law said that he had to be hanged.

What about diminished responsibility?

Yes, there was the doctrine of diminished responsibility, but the McNaughton Rules did not take the matter very much further except in extreme cases of insanity and it certainly had no effect. Of all the people who received a mandatory death sentence in Great Britain I would say that something like—I am going to be conservative—80 per cent of them would not have been sentenced to death in South Africa. This is the whole point and this is what is missing in all the experience of Great Britain, this is what is missing in all the writings of these people, that is what is missing in the writings of the intellectual, Arthur Koestler. He wrote a magnificent treatize on the subject provided you confine it to the law of Great Britain. If you go into the question, you will find that the Royal Commission actually took evidence from our Dr. Lansdown, the former judge who was the chairman of our commission. In respect of what he has said, they summarize his evidence thus:

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is what makes our system different from any other system in the world. Only the very worst cases are hanged. Except where there are no extenuating circumstances in murder, where there is a mandatory death sentence, the discretion is vested in the Judge to determine whether it should be applied. This matter was considered by the Royal Commission and it was found that all the Judges in fact felt that if they were given the discretion, they would Obviously not shrink from it. Then they say:

This is a very grave burden which rests upon our Judges, but they have carried this burden and they have carried it with distinction. When one deals with the differences and there are in this regard great differences between the law of Great Britain and our country, or any other country, I think one must appreciate, in the first place, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has pointed out, that our system in this respect has no peer in the world so far as this sieving process is concerned, between the time the man is arrested and the time that he is hanged, including the procedure between court sentence and execution.

Prof. Herman Venter, a member of the Penal Reform League and the head of the Criminology Department at Pretoria University, when he was asked to comment about New Zealand’s abolishing the death sentence, said that he thought that the death sentence was senseless and served no useful purpose. Then he went on—

Sir, I think this is a factor and a feature that we must take into account viz. that in this country there are those features, those different groups at different stages of development, and that we would abolish the death penalty at our peril.

So far as the Royal Commission was concerned, it did provide, in respect of one matter, something for which we should be grateful, and that is their investigation into all the methods of execution. There is no doubt whatever from their report that of all the methods of execution that exist hanging, in the manner in which it is carried out in South Africa, is certainly the most humane and the quickest—between nine to ten seconds from the time that the condemned person leaves his cell until the time he is dead.

Sir, in the short time available to me I must briefly deal with the remainder of my amendment. During the debate on the Abolition of Juries Bill, the hon. the Minister indicated, in response to a plea from this side of the House, that he would favourably consider and that if he could get the consent of the Judges he would put on the Statute Book a provision that Judges sitting in capital cases shall have two assessors with them, in other words, the principle that one man should not decide the matter. It is further suggested in my amendment to-day that an investigation should be made by the Government into the advisability of providing an automatic right of appeal in a death sentence case. A Judge is placed in an impossible position when he has to decide, after deciding, in a case beyond a reasonable doubt and in all conscience and with two assessors agreeing with him, whether on appeal another court might take a different view. And you cannot appeal unless he decides this—except on petition. It is a difficult task for him. If is really an impossible decision for a Judge to have to make, and I think there should be an automatic right of appeal. In other words, you should not have to ask the Judge to determine in effect that although he is certain of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt …

Is that not in actual fact the practice?

No, it is not In practice a lot of people who ask for leave to appeal are refused permission by the trial Judge, and the classic case here is the case which I quoted when the Abolition of Juries Bill was before the House, namely the case of Nzimandi in the Bergville dagga murder trial. In this case the condemned person asked for leave to appeal; his application was refused. He petitioned the Appellate Division for leave to appeal; the application was refused by the Judge on duty. He then got a stay of execution the day before he was due to be executed, and when the matter went to the Appellate Division, they found him not guilty and discharged him. I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that very often in practice applications for leave to appeal are refused, and I do not think that a Judge should be put in that position.

The other aspect with which I want to deal in the minute left to me is the question as to whether the procedure of appeal in these cases—this is a matter to be inquired into—could not be speeded up. I am sure that we are all revolted in our society by the sort of thing that can happen in other countries, where a man like Chessman can stay in the death cell for ten years and more, and then be executed. That does not happen in our country, and I mention it just as something which revolts one; it is so awful. This does not happen in our country but nevertheless, seeking perfection, I think the procedure could be speeded up and I think in those cases is should be speeded up.

Perhaps the condemned person prefers to remain alive.

Sir, I cannot accept that.

She likes torture.

This can only mean that a condemned person should be tortured before he is executed.

In all these circumstances, Sir, and my time has expired, I feel that this House will support the amendment which I now move.

The hon. member for Durban (North) made a very constructive speech here. I am sure he would not expect me to open or close the door to the amendment moved by him. I think he will expect the Minister to react to it.

Will he accept it?

I hope the amendment is not aimed at reducing the value of the reference of such a case to the Executive Council in any way, because I am convinced that irrespective of there being an automatic right of appeal or not, it is extremely valuable to refer the case to the Executive Council for a possible reprieve. I have here a book written by Prof. H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility—it is a new publication—in which he points out, on page 61, that in spite of the disadvantages of the so-called “Royal prerogative of mercy”, most lawyers in Great Britain to-day are in favour of the position remaining unchanged. Sir, the motion presupposes that there must be doubt in the mind of the legislature as to whether capital punishment is still desirable and/or necessary and/or effective. My humble opinion is that no such doubt exists and that the appointment of such a commission should not be considered at all. On the contrary, to put it positively, I think that capital punishment still serves a vitally important purpose in this country and that it should be allowed to remain unchanged on our Statute Book. The first reason which I want to mention, and which has already been mentioned here, is that our legal system is elastic enough, much more elastic than the English legal system was up to the passing of the Homicide Act in 1957, and much more elastic than the English legal system is to-day. We have only two cases in which the death penalty is mandatory. The first is murder where the jury finds no extenuating circumstances—this will now have to be adapted to the new amendment to the Act—and the second is murder where the Judge sits with assessors and the majority of the court finds that there are no extenuating circumstances. Then we have three oases of murder at the moment in which a discretion is left as to whether the death penalty should be applied or not. The first case is where extenuating circumstances have been found to exist; the second is where a woman murders her new-born child and the third is where the accused is under 18 years of age. This gives us five categories of murder, in only two categories of which it is mandatory for the death sentence to be applied. In other words, our system is elastic. In addition there are eight cases which vary from high treason to terrorism in which a discretion is also left as to whether the death penalty should be applied or not and which have been established for the protection of the safety of the State and of the person and of life. Moreover, as I have said, we have the right of appeal in certain circumstances, as well as the automatic reference to the Executive Council, which has particular advantages in that circumstantial evidence which cannot be adduced in court may be adduced before the Executive Council. Our system therefore has the necessary elasticity, and I maintain that in the last resort only the person who really deserves the death penalty is hanged in our country. As far as the question of punishment is concerned, in Rex vs. Swanepoel, 1945 A.D., the Appeal Court gave a series of five reasons which must serve as the objects of punishment, and these are the following: Firstly, to ensure that the person concerned will not contravene the law again; secondly, to cause others to learn from the example and in that way to deter them from committing crimes; thirdly, to give expression to society’s feeling of indignation; fourthly, to rehabilitate the criminal by means of discipline and industry; and, fifthly, to isolate him from the community in cases in which it seems as though he cannot be rehabilitated. So you see, Sir, that our law no longer has the old-fashioned idea of an eye for an eye. By far the most important of the objects mentioned here, particularly in the case of murder, is that the punishment must serve as a deterrent to others. In the case of murder capital punishment is a deterrent. Even the Royal Commission, who were very humanistically and liberalistically indoctrinated, arrived at the following conclusion in regard to the death penalty—

Even they found that in fact there was prima facie evidence that the death sentence was a deterrent in certain cases.

In February, 1955, a debate was held in the House of Commons on a motion to the effect that the death sentence be suspended for five years as an experiment. Major Lloyd George, the then Home Secretary, said, inter alia, the following about the death sentence—

During a debate in March, 1965, Sir Patrick Spens said in the first place that he had been Chief Justice in India for four years and that many appeals against death sentences had come before him during that time. Then he said the following—

What is important about this finding of Sir Patrick Spens is that although he was the Chief Justice of a country that was homogeneous as far as population was concerned, he was the Chief Justice of a country that was heterogeneous as far as its class structure and the degrees of civilization of those classes were concerned. I therefore regard his observations as very much applicable to our own circumstances in this country. But even in the Homicide Act of 1957 the British acknowledge the deterrent effect of the death sentence. Professor Hart, whom I quoted a few moments ago, says on page 60 of his book—

It is history that the House of Commons passed an Act in 1964 abolishing the death penalty for a trial period of five years, and it further provided that for persons under the age of 18 years there would only be detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure. And where does Great Britain find itself to-day? Reference has been made to the report in the Cape Argus. I want to agree with the hon. member for Houghton that this is not a scientific report, but I think we would be closing our eyes to reality if we were not prepared to admit that England is in a much more precarious position to-day than she was prior to the passing of the 1964 Act. And I want to say that in retrospect the words expressed by Sir Patrick Spens, the realist, in respect of England in 1956. “You will do a grave injury to society if you suspend or abolish the death penalty”, had a prophetic ring about them.

In conclusion I want to say that important evidence was submitted to the Royal Commission in England on two aspects as far as detention is concerned. The first is the tremendous problem that will be caused by having to detain dangerous prisoners, who will continue to increase in number, under conditions of maximum security, which will also be a real problem in this country, in view of the fact that we have a large prison population figure. Furthermore, the Prison Officers’ Association also submitted very strong evidence to the Royal Commission to the effect that they were opposed to the abolition of the death penalty for the reasons mentioned here by the hon. member for Durban (North), inter alia, that if it were abolished it would be easier for a dangerous prisoner to kill a warder and then simply to return to the same prison.

Now I want to say this here to-day. For my part every convicted murderer in this country who has not been reprieved—even though there may be hundreds or even thousands of them—can be hanged rather than that one single warden or one single policeman or one single child in this country be killed in a senseless way. For this reason, and after making this statement I shall resume my seat. I am of the opinion that there is no need at all to consider at this stage the possibility or the desirability of appointing a commission of inquiry as requested.

I think what has become fairly clear during this discussion is that this House is virtually unanimously of the opinion that the existing position should be retained, and seeing that this House will have the final say, no matter what commissions may be appointed, I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton too does not also agree in her heart of hearts that asking for a commission at this stage is something for which there is absolutely no need. It seems to me that when we request the appointment of commissions, that is sometimes done so as to soothe our own consciences when we do not have the courage of our convictions and want to put the blame and the responsibility on the commissions.

But there are a few matters which are fairly clear to me. The first is that in South Africa—I do not want to talk about other countries—it is very essential to have a deterrent as far as certain crimes are concerned. The hon. member for Houghton said that she was not so sure that the death penalty was a deterrent, but I think it is, because if we are opposed to this principle we must be consistent. The death penalty has not even been abolished altogether in England. They have retained the death penalty for treason and for certain other offences, as it acts as a deterrent against the commission of those crimes. Certain people in England were obviously of the opinion that those crimes were more contrary to the national interests than murder, and that is why they have retained the death penalty as a deterrent.

But there is another reason for punishment, and that is retribution. For example, I now have in mind a case I know about, where a long-term prisoner escaped from prison and murdered a man, a Mr. Rabie, here in the Western Province—I should not like to talk about other cases as they are still being investigated—in a most gruesome way in Worcester two years ago. Now, does the hon. member honestly want to believe that the public will allow such things to happen, namely to give a life prisoner the right to escape and murder Mr. Rabie in the brutal and gruesome way in which he did so, whereupon he should only be sentenced to imprisonment once again?

You should have more secure prisons.

I think a fine thing which the hon. member for Houghton may do is this. She said this afternoon that we should improve social conditions in South Africa and that we should no longer have migratory labour. Incidentally, I agree with her in this respect; I should like social conditions to be improved and I am not in favour of migratory labour, but I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton will get up for once and stale emphatically that criminals who commit murder, criminals who plant bombs and criminals who come over our borders to kill other people will be punished for committing murder and whether that will not serve as a stronger deterrent. But I have never, not on a single occasion, heard the hon. member for Houghton telling wrongdoers, saboteurs and people trained overseas that they will get their just desserts in South Africa if they continue to do these things.

Of course I have said so, but you must not convict them without trial.

I have never heard about that. I think the hon. member for Houghton will do well …

Rubbish.

No, it is not rubbish. The hon. member probably did not hear very well. But I think it will be a good thing if the hon. member’s public remarks will be such that the public will gain the impression that she is standing on the side of law and order against those saboteurs and those other people.

I am certainly against their being imprisoned without trial. That I am certainly against. I am against …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a second speech sitting down.

I admire the humanity and the motives of the hon. member for Houghton. Nobody likes the death penalty. I will definitely have made a bad Judge, because it will tear me virtually in two to condemn somebody to the gallows. But fortunately we have Judges who are probably more courageous than I am in the execution of their duties, and in South Africa nobody is lightly sentenced to death and hanged. I should like to refer the hon. member for Houghton to the report of the commission from which she herself quoted, i.e. the Report of the Penal and Prison Reforms Commission of 1947, the Lansdown Commission. In this Report an exposition is given of the entire procedure, including the procedure which is followed after a person has been convicted and has been sentenced to death. Nobody is lightly taken to the gallows without there being any procedures for still giving him a last chance. I do not want to go into this as I happen to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). I think most people support it and I think the hon. the Minister will also support it, because it can do no harm and, of course, things may always improve. This whole argument hinges on the death penalty for murder, but I think the best argument that I can use in favour of the retention of the death penalty—and I want the hon. member for Houghton to listen, because I know she is interested in those people—is to protect the Coloureds from other Coloureds, and the Bantu from other Bantu. I do not know how well she knows these people, but if to-night I were to go to the Coloureds and the Bantu I know, after I had voted in this House this afternoon for the abolition of the death penalty for murderers, I would not be very popular with my own Coloureds and Bantu. I will take her to fine, respectable, decent Bantu before whom I grew up and who told me not so long ago, “Sir, you must tell the people up there that in the olden days before the white man held his hand of justice over the Transkei the life of a Bantu was not worth as much as that of a little bird”. I know the motives of the hon. member for Houghton are fine ones, but I do not think she knows the everyday life of these people as I do. The few intellectuals with whom she comes into contact, do not constitute the masses of the Bantu. She does not realize how little it means for one Bantu to kill another Bantu and there is only one deterrent for him and that is death. He knows no other.

Is that why nine murders are committed per day?

No. I do not want to be as dogmatic as the hon. member for Houghton and say that I know everything but I just want to ask her this question. Has she ever given it any thought whether all these things, such as extenuating circumstances, do any good? These people go as far as saying amongst themselves that it is easy for one man to kill another, because you simply say you were drunk or had smoked dagga. I wonder whether we should not give some consideration to the other side of the picture as well, and that is that drunkenness should not be regarded as constituting extenuating circumstances but as constituting aggravating circumstances. I think we must be realistic. We have a responsibility towards ourselves as members of this House. I think that the average white person can look after himself fairly well and there are not daily onslaughts on his life. The number of murders committed by Coloureds on Whites are few and the number committed by Whites on Coloureds even fewer, but the murders committed by Coloureds on Coloureds are large in number. We would not be doing those people a service if we were to do anything which would cause the number of murders committed by those people among themselves to increase. I do think the hon. member for Houghton has given this matter deep thought. I think she was advised by others. They are people who mean well. We know who they are. They are decent, Christian people. [Interjections.] With the word “Christian” I am not referring to a religious sect. I mean that these people are inherently decent and well-meaning people, but people who do not have sufficient knowledge of the nature, the way of life, the way of thinking and the philosophy of all the peoples who inhabit this country. Therefore I see no need for even discussing this matter. I think it is fairly clear from the arguments and figures and the evidence quoted here this afternoon that there is absolutely no need for this motion. I may just point out to the hon. member that this evening’s paper—unfortunately I do not have it here at the moment—contains a short article published in pursuance of the figures which were published last Wednesday and which, although she does not deny them, are of no value according to her. This article also deals with capital punishment. This article states that the debate on capital punishment may be postponed because of political pressure and the political implications of this question. The article was written in England. That is why I say that it is a pity that the hon. member introduced this motion. She said this afternoon that we should abolish the death penalty because if we did not do so we would give the outside world a weapon to use against us. Sir, the outside world does not have so much responsibility as regards law and order and law-abidingness in this country. We are carrying the full responsibility. If the outside world is to criticize us and to prescribe to us what we have to do in order to protect our own people in South Africa, that will be a late day in the history of this country. I regret having to say this, but there are certain people in the outside world who are wanton enough to want to see chaos and trouble in this country, as it will be to their advantage if peace and quiet and order were not to prevail in this country, as they are prevailing in my opinion.

I do not think I need say anything more in this regard. I do not want to go any deeper into the theory. I cannot go into that. Perhaps I do not know as much about that as the hon. member for Houghton does. But I, who come into contact with the less privileged people every day, know to what extent they are in need of the protection and the assistance of the hon. member for Houghton as well as of this House. These are the people whose social upliftment she wants to help bring about, and if I am able I shall assist her in doing so. I hope the hon. member for Houghton will not even ask for her motion to be put.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank hon. members very sincerely for conducting this debate at a very high level, and also for the contributions they made. Some speakers, such as the last one, adopted a practical approach, other speakers, again, quoted from reports, but in general the debating was of a very high duality, and I am grateful for that. I want to begin by asking the hon. member for Houghton what really prompted her motion of this afternoon. I tried to trace that. I have studied this matter over the past two or three years. I shall try to indicate what prompted the motion. I refer to a speech made by the Hon. Mr. Justice Cloete. According to a report in the Eastern Province Herald of 16th June, 1966, Mr. Justice Cloete made a speech before the Temple Israel. On that occasion he delivered a plea for the abolition of capital punishment. He mentioned the usual arguments. He referred to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice occurring. He also said he did not believe that it was really a deterrent. I was not aware that Mr. Justice Hiemstra had also referred to this matter. This is news to me. Furthermore I believe that an article by a certain David Welsh in 1966 also contributed to this matter coming to the fore. He is a senior lecturer at the University of Cape Town. He also expressed the same ideas. He said that capital punishment was no super-deterrent. He also pointed out the possibility of a miscarriage of justice occurring. He also repeated the old story that the living conditions of these people should be improved. According to him, this would solve everything. So far we have now heard from Mr. Justice Cloete and Mr. Welsh. Last year Dr. Van Niekerk of the University of the Witwatersrand also delivered a plea in this connection. He pointed out that nearly half of all the executions in the world occurred in this country. I just want to say in passing that this is the same Dr. Van Niekerk who is reported to have said the following the other day—

This shows you the mentality of this particular person. Now, this was the hon. member’s starting-point. In this she saw an opportunity to gain publicity for herself. She then announced that she would move this motion during this Session. In the meantime, I must say, the Star also encouraged her to a certain extent.

So did Dagbreek, by the way.

Yes, I am coming to Dagbreek. I will come to Madeleine van Biljon. I have it all here. On 27th August the Star had the following headline: “Judicial murder: If hangings did any good, South Africa, with 200 a year, should be completely free of all capital crime by now.” There is nothing of the kind. I do not know where the Star got this.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but I am just mentioning it to the hon. member. Then we had the following report: “Helen Suzman wants inquiry into abolition of executions”. After that the fat was in the fire. The Rand Daily Mail had the following headline: “Judicial killings”. Then a very honest man, for whom I have great respect, said: “The hangman has never solved any problem”. This was written by a certain Mr. Robert Olufsen and it is a very good article. I attached great value to it. The next report in support of this was the article by Mrs. Madeleine van Biljon. She again used the usual arguments. That is all. However, I found it very interesting that these arguments were advanced by newspaper correspondents only. In addition the lecturers from the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand also wrote articles. But there was also an honest man who felt very strongly about the matter, a certain Mr. Kronenberg. When he noticed that there was no public reaction in this connection, he wrote the following in The Cape Times of 22nd January, 1969—

He is still looking “in vain”. He goes on to say—

This is not a question of “vested interests”. The fact of the matter is simply that the public feels no urge for this. Public opinion is not asking for this.

Now, what do we have on the other side? In the first place I have here the reaction of Professor Venter of the University of Pretoria. He said the following (translation)—

That is his comment. Then a serving Judge wrote me a letter in which he stated, “I do not think public opinion in South Africa would tolerate the abolition of the death penalty”. Ex-Judge Leslie Blackwell is reported to have written—

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member must give me a chance now. The report goes on to say—

This is what a former Judge said. Now I just want to quote to hon. members from a document that was submitted to the Executive Council. I want to refer hon. members to a certain case. The report submitted to the Executive Council was prepared in English. It reads as follows—

This was only a short while ago—

This is just in passing. The report goes on to say—

Now hon. members must remember that this was an old man of 71 years who was living peacefully in his house and who was alone at home the evening it happened. The report continues—

These are the words of a serving Judge. I have another case here of a young Coloured man of 23 years who was convicted of the murder of an eighty-year-old white woman by a Judge and assessors on 7th June, 1967, here in Cape Town, and was sentenced to death. I want the hon. member to listen to this. This document reads as follows (translation)—

The court found that the motive was financial gain. The Judge found him guilty of the crime or murder, and said (translation)—

The Judge goes on to say—

These views were expressed by Judges who are serving on the Bench and have to deal with cases of this nature. I mentioned to hon. members those who have expressed themselves in favour of the retention of the death penalty. I have here a letter from one of our Attor-neys-General. He wrote to me (translation)—

This comes from an Attorney-General. I received the following very well-reasoned document in which statistics appear from the Commissioner of Prisons. He writes (translation)—

He goes on to say—

I have received letters from the public as well. I want to read this one to you. It comes from an English-speaking person, who wrote as follows—

He then goes on to say—

He pleads for that. I also want to tell the hon. member that the Cape Times did not hold out much hope for her, because this paper wrote the following in an editorial, with reference to what happened in America at one time—

Here is an item from the Cape Argus as well. The report apparently refers to letters received by the hon. member. I quote—

I do not know whether she received these letters. I take it she showed these letters to the Press.

Before coming to the other documents, I am merely mentioning these things to show that on the part of the public there has been absolutely no demand for the abolition of this, In fact, people would take it amiss of us if we abolished it. I appreciate the words expressed by the hon. member for Durban (North) when he said we were not a debating society; that we should realize what we are doing here and should not just take decisions lightly. We must take the circumstances in this country into account, we must take into account what the people of this country are asking for. The hon. member said we had to take the lead, and that is so, but we cannot go completely against public opinion in taking the lead, particularly not in a case such as this.

The hon. member also referred to the Royal Commission. I do not want to refer to all the findings of the Commission, but evidence was submitted to the Commission to the effect that capital punishment was indeed an effective deterrent.

There was also an opposite opinion.

Yes, but there was this definite evidence. I can quote it to the hon. member if she wants me to. Various persons gave evidence to the effect that they definitely considered it to be a deterrent. Sir Harold Scott, Commissioner of Police in Britain, gave evidence to this effect. Similar evidence was given in New Zealand. The evidence referred to a person who had committed two murders in 1948 and who said the following—

Another person said—

In a third case a certain person decided to murder seven people. He made no secret of it, and declared that seven years’ imprisonment was a light sentence. In this way various persons gave evidence of this nature. What is of more importance to me is the fact that we can learn from the experience of other countries. This Royal Commission found that capital punishment was abolished in various countries at some stage, but subsequently reintroduced. It found, for example, that in New Zealand capital punishment was abolished in 1941 and reintroduced in 1951. The Commissioner of Police gave the following evidence before the Commission—

What happened in the U.S.A.? In Washington capital punishment was abolished in 1913 but reintroduced in 1919. Let me quote from a document on what happened there—

In Oregon capital punishment was abolished in 1941 and reintroduced in 1920. In Tennessee it was abolished in 1915 and reintroduced in 1919. The Attorney-General there said the following—

In Missouri it was abolished in 1917 and reintroduced in 1919. There the Attorney-General said the following—

In Kansas it was abolished in 1887 and reintroduced in 1935. In a certain document the following appeared—

In Dakota it was abolished in 1915 and reintroduced in 1939. In Switzerland it was abolished at one stage, and later 10 of 25 cantons reintroduced it. To return to the U.S.A.—in Maryland it was abolished, but subsequently reintroduced. All these facts are given in the report of the Royal Commission.

I mentioned a few cases to hon. members where Judges expressed their views on this matter. I want to mention a few more cases so that hon. members may see what sort of thing is happening in our country. I want to refer to a particularly gruesome case, and I want the hon. member to imagine herself in the shoes of the lady concerned. The hon. member for Durban (North) will notice that in all the cases I am going to mention there were a Judge and two assessors on the bench. On 5th September, 1968, a certain prisoner, a 21-year-old Coloured man, was found guilty by the Judge and two assessors in the Uitenhage Local Circuit Division of the Supreme Court of having on 18th May, 1968, raped and killed a 73-year-old white woman at Kabeljous River in the Humansdorp district. The circumstances were as follows. On 16th May, 1968, the murderer suggested to a fellow farm worker that they should break into the house on the farm on which they were employed at the time, and in which the 73-year-old Hermina Katarina Ferreira was living by herself. Early the evening of 18th May, 1968, the prisoner went to Mrs. Ferreira’s house and attacked her in the garden in front of the house while she was busy watering her plants with a hose-pipe.

I can picture the scene so well. There the old lady is standing, she is 73 years old, and she is watering her plants in the evening. [Interjection.] No, the hon. member should listen now. While she was busy in this way, this is what happened to her. The prisoner and, according to a confession made by him, an accomplice threw Mrs. Ferreira to the ground on her back, ripped her underclothes off her body, and raped her. Remember this was a 73-year-old lady. Then he hit her over the eyes, nose and face with a stone of 8½ lbs. with such violence that two holes were made in the skull near the eye sockets, damaging the brain and causing her death. This is the sort of person for whom the hon. member is pleading here.

The hon. member for Sea Point pointed out that the Coloureds have to be protected against one another as well. I want to mention to the hon. member the case of a group of Coloureds, and what happened in Bishop Lavis. The parents of a decent Coloured family sent their fifteen-year-old daughter to a nearby shop to buy something there. The Scheepers girl was walking across the school grounds when the prisoner seized her and, pressing a knife to her throat, ordered her not to shout for help. She was only 15 years old. He gagged her with a handkerchief, and kicked her legs from under her. One of the prisoner’s cronies ripped off her briefs and had sexual intercourse with her and then the prisoner also raped her. While each of the other six members of the gang raped her in turn, the prisoner went to his abode nearby, and on his return to the place where the rapes had occurred, he asked the others whether they had finished with their victim. Then the prisoner carried her to another place next to the school building and raped her again. This was the ninth time. He suggested to the other members of the gang that they should kill her in order to prevent her from laying a charge against them. She then appealed to one of the prisoner’s cronies and promised to go with that person if he should prevent the prisoner from killing her. The person she had appealed to started to walk her away from the others, when the prisoner ran up to them and with the words “dead men tell no tales” snatched her away and stabbed her repeatedly in the head, neck and body with a knife. She tried to ward off these stabs with her hands and one of the stabs penetrated her right hand. One of the approximately 29 stab wounds that caused her death penetrated her liver. The father of the deceased discovered her blood-stained body the next morning near the school building where she had been murdered. She was killed after she had been raped nine times. This is the sort of case one has to deal with, and which one has to take into account.

It is a fact that our execution rate is extremely high, but our crime rate is extremely high too. The increase in the crime rate is naturally causing concern. Crime is of course a world wide phenomenon, because people want to get rich quickly and so forth. I should like to mention a few figures to the House which cause me concern, and in respect of which I at this stage really do not know what to do. I am certain of one thing, however, and that is that this motion of the hon. member is not the solution. In 1950 the number of deaths as a result of murder was 827. and in 1966 it was 3.119. In 1950. 1.341 persons were charged with murder and in 1966, 4.531. In 1950 357 persons were convicted, and in 1966, 1.456. I can also classify the convictions according to population groups and I think I should mention those figures here as well. The largest increase was in respect of Coloured men, next in respect of Bantu men, thirdly in respect of Coloured women, fourthly in the case of Bantu women, then in respect of white men, and then male Asiatics, while the figures in respect of white women and female Asiatics remained constant. I also want to mention the convictions per 100.000 of the various population groups. In 1950 3.6 Bantu per 100.000 were convicted, and in 1960, 10.06 per 100,000. I want the hon. member to take particular note of this figure of 10.06. In 1950 3.2 Coloureds per 100.000 were convicted, and in 1966 9.39 per 100 000. The figures per 100.000 in respect of Asiatics decreased, because in 1950 the figure was 2 and in 1966 it was 1.82. In 1950 .5 Whites per 100,000 were convicted, and in 1966 the figure was .6 per 100,000. I want to underline this figure of 10.06 in respect of the Bantu population and to compare it to that in respect of the Whites.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In discussing this motion I should like to focus attention on the Coloured population of South Africa, and I want to indicate in broad outline what the Government has accomplished during the past two decades for this population group. In addition I want to focus attention on the distribution of the Coloured population throughout the Republic of South Africa and on their exceptionally high rate of increase. I should also like to ask that we take cognizance of the particular place they occupy in the Peninsula and the urgent need for a reasonable degree of far-sightedness on the part of our authorities to make timeous provision for future community development in the light of the growing numbers of our Coloured population in the Peninsula. According to available figures the Coloured population numbered 1,829,521 at the beginning of 1967. According to estimates the number of Coloureds at the beginning of 1969 was approximately 2 million, fully half of the white population of South Africa and one-tenth of the total population of the Republic of South Africa. We are therefore dealing here with a considerable minority group which occupies a very important place in the socioeconomic set-up of the Western Cape. Since it came into power in 1948 this Government has definitely devoted a great deal of attention to the needs of the Coloured population. We are aware of the fact that by no means all the Coloureds appreciate what the Government has done for them; that by no means all the Coloureds support or accept the policy of separate development which the Government advocates and implements, and that by no means all of them are satisfied with the position of the Coloured population in South Africa. However, there are few Coloureds who would not concede that a great deal has been done to further the socio-economic welfare of the Coloured population. When we consider the establishment of group areas and review the position 20 to 30 years ago, we realize and are forced to admit that slum conditions were the order of the day. The residential areas of the Coloured community, with the exception of a small number of better residential areas, were for the most part the backward areas and the slums of the white cities or towns. That is why slum clearance and the allocation of new group areas, which were reserved for the Coloured population, has been a primary task of the Government since it came into power in 1948. Mr. Speaker, what opportunity was there for an unorganized, underdeveloped, less well-to-do or indigent Coloured population to acquire sizeable residential areas? If the Government had not intervened, established group areas and reserved and purchased land for the settlement of Coloured communities, there was no chance at all that such areas would have been established. There is in fact room for criticism, but if one has to ask oneself the question to-day: “What would Cape Town and its environs have looked like to-day, after 20 to 30 years development as we have experienced, if a start had not been made with the establishment of group areas?” then this is a question to which it is difficult to supply an answer. We still remember the familiar, unsightly Windermere which was situated right on the doorstep of Cape Town here, and the question is: What great measure of exploitation of Coloureds by owners of slum buildings would not still have existed to-day if the Government had not taken those steps? If one sees what race friction exists in a highly developed country such as the United States, then the question is: Would we have been spared the friction of mixed residential areas, where Whites and non-Whites live next to one another? Would Cape Town, if it had developed according to the old integrationistic pattern, still have been spared race riots to-day? Mr. Speaker, I definitely do not think that it would have been spared these things. If we consider housing, then I think we can state that the housing programme which has been carried out during the past two decades by this Government for the Coloured population is without doubt an exceptionally noteworthy achievement. One can travel the length and breadth of the Western Cape platteland and find that there is almost no town where a reasonably neat, decent, Coloured housing scheme has not been introduced; and if one considers the Peninsula, then it is simply spectacular that we have been able, in so short a time, to build so many houses—simple houses, but so many of them—for this community which really faced an emergency housing situation. During the five years between 1962 and 1967 no fewer than 33,812 residential units for Coloureds were built in the Republic of South Africa at a cost of R33 million. It is repeatedly being said that the standard of this housing is too low; that the lay-out of these residential areas is too monotonous and colourless. I am inclined to say that I hope we will be able to improve on this in future, but I am certain that it is the ideal of the Departments of Coloured Affairs and Community Development to improve the situation. But we must view the provision which has been made here in the light of the circumstances in which it took place. It is a matter in regard to which there was far too much prevarication in the past, i.e. before the National Party Government came into power. There was no planning, no order, no vision, and it was necessary to start from scratch. It was therefore, to a high degree an emergency provision; it had to be done rapidly, and it had to be done on a large scale, and the fact that it was possible to establish it in such a relatively short time, merits only praise, and this praiseworthy work is continuing year by year because the demand for housing on the part of our Coloured community is a growing demand and because this is a growing and rapidly growing population group.

So much in brief, Mr. Speaker, in regard to housing and the establishment of group areas. Time does not allow me to elaborate on educational matters, but I just want to state that according to the available figures for the second semester of 1967 there were at that stage already 1,810 schools for Coloureds in the Republic of South Africa, and I may add, there were also high schools for the Coloured population situated at the most strategic points, in the large towns; there were 13,138 teachers and 48,562 Coloured children at these schools. Of this 429,562, 373,000 were attending school in the Cape Province. There were 129,000 here in the Peninsula within ten to fifteen miles from the heart of Cape Town. When we consider more advanced training facilities, we see that there are 13 training colleges with 1,799 students and 14 vocational schools with 3,126 students, a university college with a staff of 68 and 655 students, and on this level the development is continuing. As we know, and as we expect, this institution will shortly acquire university status. That, Sir, was not brought about in a day; it was not merely a question of saying the word; this is a task which has with effort been tackled and accomplished by the Department of Coloured Affairs during the past few years, with the aid of church bodies as well. I feel myself quite at liberty to say that this great task, particularly in respect of the educational facilities for our Coloured population, redounds to the credit of South Africa and our Government.

I should just like to mention a few things in regard to the development on the economic level. Our Coloured population, as you know, is enjoying the benefit of wage increases at the present stage of progress and development. A considerable percentage of our Coloured population to-day no longer fall under the lower income group but are well-remunerated people. They live on a reasonably high standard, many of them in houses for which they are paying sub-economic rentals. They themselves admit, when you ask them about this, that the house rent they are paying is in many cases a nominal amount. Even where their rental has been adjusted and they have to pay rental on an economic basis, they still pay very little. Separate residential areas have opened new doors to the Coloured businessman. As businessmen they to-day have preference and protection in their own group areas, and they realize this and appreciate it. The establishment of the Coloured Development Corporation was a step taken by the Government to lend positive financial assistance to prospective Coloured businessmen. Already large amounts have been made available and a considerable number of these people have been placed in a position where they were able to become employers, entrepreneurs, owing to the capital which was placed at their disposal.

Looking at the platteland we see that development of the Coloured population on a rural level has also taken place. We hear so often that the responsible Coloureds who are active there in the interests of their people, who take the lead there, who are helping to support the Department of Coloured Affairs there, admit that here for the first time in the history of their people something substantial is being done.

Mr. Speaker, with this I want to end my argument in regard to what the Government has been doing for the Coloured population at this juncture. I now want to focus attention on the distribution and the growth of the Coloured population. The bulk of the Coloured population is living in the Cape Province. Of the figure of 1,829,000 more than 1½ million are living in the Cape Province. Of that number 856,000 are living in the nucleus area of the Western Cape, i.e. the relatively small area west of a line drawn through Swellendam, Ceres, Piketberg, i.e. the lesser Western Cape, and of those 856,000 more than 500,000 are living in the Peninsula. This could probably, owing to the movements to the cities and the rapid increase in the Coloured population, be closer to 600,000 to-day than to 500,000, but at this juncture we can safely put it at approximately 550,000 Coloureds here in the Peninsula, approximately one-third of the Coloured population of the Cape. You will allow me, Sir, by way of a conclusion to my argument, to make a projection of the growth of the Coloured population of the Cape Province during the ensuing three decades. According to available data the Coloured population of the Cape Province at the beginning of 1967 totalled 1,554,000. According to estimates the Coloured population of the Cape alone will be 2.383.000 by the year 1980, and will be 3.584.000 by the year 2000. In other words, the rate of growth of the Coloured population is an exceptionally high one, and if we accept on the basis of past experience the growth tendency as it existed and as it is revealing itself at present, then we can state that the Coloured population more or less doubles itself in a period of 30 years. Then I want to focus attention on the fact that by the year 2030 the Coloured population of the Cape will number approximately 7 million, i.e. within two generations. I see hon. members are looking at me with a measure of surprise. I do not pretend to be a good prophet, but this is a figure which we arrive at on the basis of the present rate of growth of the Coloured population, and this emphasizes for us the need for far-sightedness, particularly with a view to the provision of accommodation, the settlement of the Peninsular portion of the Coloured population, because our Cape platteland is extensive; it is still possible for a great deal of development to take place there; more large towns and cities can be laid out at a distance if the circumstances of the time require this. But I foresee that the Peninsular Coloured population will number between 2 to 3 million by the dates I mentioned, i.e. within 30, 50 and 60 years. I want to state that I do not regard it as a Coloured problem. I do not think it is necessary for us to view it in this light. All I want is that we should view this matter soberly and calmly and make provision for it. In addition we must bear in mind that there is still the continual tendency of a migration to the city with its higher wages and better opportunities for employment and greater facilities. Living to-day in the triangle between Woodstock, Bellville South and Wynberg are half a million Coloureds. By the year 2000 they could easily number one million, and the probability is that they would have increased from 1.2 million to 1.5 million. And if we look one generation ahead it is 3 million. That is why I find it essential that we should recognize this as our responsibility and make provision for it. If we allow this to continue unplanned we will experience a population pressure, particularly in the Peninsula and in the Cape Flats, which may create special problems for us. I just want to point out that land prices have in the meantime increased tremendously in the Cape Peninsula and surrounding areas. Twenty miles from Cape Town to-day people are paying from R500 to R700 per morgen for worthless land on the mere rumour that there is a possibility that a township may be established. [Interjection.] Somebody here is mentioning the figure of R2,000 per morgen. For the sake of my argument, let us take it to be R500 per morgen. Then I want to emphasize the fact that we must bear this in mind, because we are dealing here with a phenomenal increase in land prices. Vacant plots in White areas to-day in quite modest urban areas cost up to R10,000, for a building site. The Whites in the lower income group cannot afford them. The Coloured population as a whole cannot afford them. The Coloureds are excluded from that market. Among them there is no body which has the capital at its disposal to say: Here we are purchasing 2,000 or 3,000 morgen in order to make provision for the future. In other words, it is the State’s responsibility. It is the duty of the State. Nobody would lift a hand if South Africa found itself in a dilemma in a half century’s time. Precisely because the State has in the past done this in such a praiseworthy manner and made this provision, I want to put in a plea to-day to the effect that the Minister and the Government consider this matter with the necessary far-sightedness. That is why I should like consideration to be given to the purchasing of an area which lends itself to this purpose. To that I want to add that we must get away from the idea of a local Coloured residential area adjoining each White town or urban area. Since we have a large, growing population group which is making an important contribution to our Western Cape economy, we must make provision on a high level and with vision. We must think in terms of the planning and development of a new Coloured city in a district which in future will be able to absorb at least a few million people, and the question is where?

On the Cape Flats?

I am thinking of an area in addition to the Cape Flats, as I suggested in my motion. I do not regard the Cape Flats as being provision enough because specified problems will be created in this area as well. That is why I want to focus attention on an area which I do not want to define any closer. I want to say that we must take into account the fact that the good agricultural land must be reserved for agriculture. This must be left intact. We cannot use the good agricultural land of Stellenbosch, Kuils River and the Koeberg for this purpose. We must look to other areas which are inferior as agricultural land, but are at the same time situated relatively close to the city. That is why I want to say that if we look to the north of Cape Town, north of the Koeberg and north of Melkbosstrand—and I am bearing in mind that an area there is being allocated for a nuclear power station—but west of the national road and west of Kalbaskraal, there is a considerable undeveloped area, reasonably large, and adjoining the sea, which in my opinion ought to be investigated and if possible purchased and reserved for this future development. It may take 10 to 20 years longer than we think, but as sure as we are sitting here to-day, we will need it. If we do not make that provision the generation which comes after us will accuse us of short-sightedness. A city in this region will afford alleviation of the population pressure which will of necessity have to arise in the Cape Flats and the Peninsula. A city in that region is within daily reach of the labour market in Cape Town. A city in that region would be able to absorb and accommodate the platteland Coloureds so that they will not have to go through District Six and other residential areas here first before they are settled. A city in that region will supply labour to the Peninsula, but at the same time to the agriculture and other industries in Darling, Malmesbury, Wellington and Paarl because all these towns, as well as Cape Town, are situated within a radius of 15 to 20 miles from this region.

Let me emphasize just one more important point, because my time is almost up. I want to add that if the Government is thinking in this direction, as I hope the Minister and the Minister of Planning will do, and the Minister of Community Development as well, then we must also obtain the co-operation of the hon. the Minister of Transport, because the necessary lanes will have to be left open for the development of future roads and railway lines. These are things which must be provided. If we see what has to be done in our large cities to-day, if we see what has to be done in Johannesburg, and if we hear what has to be done elsewhere in the world, where the authorities simply ran up against existing cities and towns, then I think that we must very definitely give consideration to this factor as well and make the necessary provision for it. I am not suggesting that we should ask the Minister of Transport to-day to build a railway line at this juncture to Mamre, for example, which falls within the designated region, but I am very definitely asking the Department of Transport, the Railways, to give the necessary attention and the necessary cooperation in regard to this matter. We must keep those development corridors open for the purposes of building railway lines and main roads.

I am presenting this matter in all good faith, with a view to the future and because it is the Government’s duty and our responsibility. At the same time it is also our self-imposed task to make provision for this sector of the population. I want to express the hope that hon. members on both sides of the House will in general support us, and that the hon. the Minister will assist us so that this may also go to prove that the Whites in South Africa are not only well disposed towards the Coloureds but that we are also making positive provision for their future.

I listened to the hon. member for Piketberg with great interest, and I could not help but think of a hymn which I knew as a small boy, which went: “There is a happy land far, far away”. This motion tries to deal with the year 2000, but I want to deal with the year 1969. We have heard only recently, after 20 years of promises and 20 years of talk about the sky being the limit, that the Coloured man is a dilemma and that the Government does not know what to do with him, and that we must leave it to posterity. I do not know how many generations posterity is removed from us. The hon. member spoke about two generations. I think posterity lies many generations further away than that, for them to bring their minds to bear on the problem, if that is all the Government can suggest. I believe that the hon. the Minister should apply his mind to the lack of planning. The remedy is in their own hands, inside the Government. The Coloured people in the Peninsula and on the Cape Flats have great difficulties in getting houses. They are not being built fast enough. It is perfectly true to say that every little platteland dorp has a number of houses for Coloured persons. The majority of these houses are sub-economic, and the great complaint I have against the Government and the housing authorities is that the Coloured people are being arbitrarily removed and taken out of the homes in which they lived in the Peninsula and on the Cape Flats and pushed into small properties which are much below their station and standard of living. I believe the whole thing is due to the lack of planning. There is plenty of land in the Cape Flats, especially between Wynberg and False Bay where all these small vegetable farmers are. This is the part of the Peninsula, and the Flats, which should be developed, but why is something not being done? My information is that the Department of Community Development is running up against vested interests and political influences. I do not think we have to go to Kalbaskraal or to Melkbosstrand and other places to the north, to find land for the expansion of housing for the Coloured people, because it is right here with us. I have had conversations with persons associated with the Divisional Council and they will tell you that in their opinion it is a simple matter, by the use of bulldozers, to flatten out the dunes between Strandfontein and the national road, which is an enormous piece of country. You know, of course, Sir, that next month a plan will be produced showing what is suggested in regard to township layout in the Peninsula, and the Coloured people are put even further away than they are now. They are being put on the Swartklip Road. The hon. member said he did not want to ask the Minister of Transport to provide a railway to Mamre, but I think we should have a railway here on the Flats, because I have a letter with me in which a Coloured person complains about having to use the bus from Bonteheuwel to Wynberg at a cost of 23 cents, single, which means 46 cents a day. But this hon. member wants to put them 30 miles away. I asked the Minister of Transport. Not only is he unwilling to provide a railway, but Community Development gets the same answer, that, for these townships on the Flats the Minister of Transport requires a guarantee that he will get the traffic. What happens to these people in the meantime? It is all very well to have a grandiose plan in terms of this motion, but I am a realist and I say that we must get down to the practical stuff.

This is essentially practical.

I am very glad that the hon. member interjected. For how many years have commissions been sitting on dealing with a simple little thing like beaches. [Interjections.] We have had the Starke Commission and the Heunis Commission, a member of the Executive who was the chairman of the Cape Provincial Council Commission. Everything was fixed and most people were happy.

Nobody was happy.

Oh no, they were. The Transvaal M.P.’s were. I know that. That is the whole fact of the matter. There is far too much influence from the Transvaal in the affairs of the Cape Flats and Peninsula.

That is one aspect. Another small aspect is that this hon. member wants to plan for places 30 and 40 miles away. Do you know that when a small township in the Peninsula asked for a telephone service they were told that they could walk the 1.8 miles to the nearest telephone? Just think what happens when people get ill at night. This is the sort of planning that we get. Who worries about them? Nobody. It is only Coloured people. Push them here, push them there, push them anywhere. They have no redress and they can do nothing. Then they are asked to subscribe to a motion thanking the Government for what they have done! It is ludicrous. If it was not so silly it would be criminal. Further, the Divisional Council itself has offered in one township a house for a post office. But the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs cannot find the inclination to establish a post office for these people to use. We hear talk of cooperation. There is the co-operation of our local authorities, but nothing happens. The hon. Minister for Coloured Affairs, I think,.is really trying to do a job. But he is so hedged around by the lack of co-operation between Community Development and Planning that he is unable to make progress. The hon. member could only mention two items in his remarks. Firstly, he gave a chronicle of education or the lack of it, and secondly a talk about separate development. Coloured people think that there is plenty of separation, but very little development. They do not see the development. There is no industrial township where Coloured persons can go into industry, if they should wish to do so. They must get permits and permission from the local authorities. So, we find that this community, who has done no harm to anybody, the most law-abiding and most loyal community in our midst, are the ones who were singled out. If one looks at the Peninsula one will find that all that has been done is that Coloured people have been moved from one place to another. They have not disappeared. They are still there and they will remain there. When we hear talk suggesting that the Government consider dumping them 30 miles away or even further, one must begin to realize that we are getting a little crazy, because these people have to go to work. It costs money. I have a letter here in which a man tells me that he has to travel from Grassy Park to Paarden Eiland. He has to start at 5 o’clock in the morning to be at his job at 7 o’clock. Imagine what the position would have been, if he had to come from Kalbaskraal. These are the matters which I would like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to, because I think that the Government has enough hay on its fork, especially now that the future of the Coloured people is in a cul de sac. The sky is not the limit any longer. All that talk is gone by the board. When one talks about employment for Coloured people, one realizes with tremendous sadness, that White trade unions are now advising their members that they need not train any Coloured youths other than those who are at present indentured to them. How are these people to learn? The hon. the Minister for Transport has said that he does not allow them to work alongside Whites on the Railways. It is all very well for the other side to have pie-in-the-sky and grandiose ideas and schemes for developing a vast metropolitan complex 30 to 40 miles away from Cape Town. It is possibly true that there will be 7 million, but how many Whites will there be in the year 2030 in this part of the country?—7 to 10 million. Is the proposition now that we should move them again over to the north of Bellville or, as the hon. member has said, west of the national road? I think the hon. member is unrealistic. It is easy, as he has said, on the platteland, to stand at Moorreesburg or Piketberg or Springbok, for you can see 50 miles, and there is not much to see. But here in the Peninsula it is a totally different story. I do believe that the Minister should not be concerned about what is going to happen in the year 2030, I think he must start being concerned about what is happening now, in the year 1969. We have had an eulogy from the hon. gentleman about education. Surely the time has come when Coloured education should be compulsory. This hon. member speaks with some pride about the number of Coloured school going children. It is the duty of every State to educate its citizens and these people should go to school, every one of them. Every child should be obliged to go to school—the same as the White children do. Then the question comes down to teachers. They are leaving the profession. The reason for that is quite simple. They get a salary about half of what the White teachers earn, whereas they have to maintain the same standard of living and they have to buy at the same prices. They are leaving because they can draw a bigger salary elsewhere. The answer given to that one is, that they should be dedicated to their jobs. It is fair enough for White teachers to be dedicated to their jobs. They are dedicated, but receive top salaries—perhaps not even enough for them, but very much higher, and very much more, than what is paid to Coloured teachers. In Coloured primary schools, you get the situation that a lot of teaching is done by married women with no qualifications. The hon. member has talked about the University of the Western Cape. I think the hon. the Minister will get a surprise when we deal with his Bill on that particular university next week. The whole fact of the matter is that the Coloured community is a lost community. All the efforts of the Government have been directed at them. In the old days we used to talk about giving them a Colouredstan. Where is their Colouredstan, where is their homeland, what are they to do? They have lived in the Cape for 300 years, as long as we have. Yet we now talk of them as becoming congested and crowded. I do not believe that this motion which we have before us this afternoon is an innocuous one. I think this a forerunner …

A carefully thought-out motion.

Yes, this is a forerunner of the thinking of the Government, what is commonly known in politics as a change of direction, because you see, Sir, all the ideas which have been enunciated during the years, about the sky being the limit, have come to an end. When one speaks in this House of opportunities for the Coloured people in the Government service, hon. members on that side do nothing but jeer. They jeer at any suggestion which offers employment to the Coloured people. Insinuations are made that we, and myself in particular, are suggesting that these people should be put in charge of Whites, to order and to command, which is not true. The whole of the Government Service, in which they are entitled to a share, is closed to them, because of the attitude of the majority party in this Parliament. The Government has admitted that they have no solution to the colour problem, although last year I was astonished at the heights of eloquence to which certain Government speakers rose in offering the Coloured people this great Utopia, this golden citadel on the hill, namely separate development and their own Parliament. This is what the Coloured people were offered. Whites were to be excluded from their political activities. This happened last year, not 12 months ago. This was the culmination of years of struggle and strife by the governing party. This was the solution, the answer, the panacea to all ills which were bedevilling the Government because the Coloured man was somebody with whom it did not know what to do.

Now our children must solve the problem.

Yes, but when Coloured men and women want to go to universities where there are Whites, what is the Government’s attitude? They are not letting the children get together to provide any solution. One wonders therefore whose children are going to find the solution.

Our children. The White children.

Only yours. Sir, I am going to ask that hon. member a question which I often ask from platforms, and to which I have never had an answer. My question is: The solution to what? That is the point. What is the colour problem? For which problem is a solution required? I should like someone to stand up and tell me what problems the Coloured people create. Do they work? Are they conscientious in their jobs? Are they loyal?

Are they here?

Are they with us? Do you see them outside? An hon. member spoke just now about the “integrasie van die ou dae”. I ask any man in his sane senses to tell me this: When one lives here in Cape Town or in the Peninsula and moves about on the Flats, and goes into the factories and shops, who are these other people one sees with dark skins? Are they Coloured people? Are they integrated with us? What is the meaning of integration? Anyone would think that the Government had introduced something new. This is exactly how the Cape has been since Van Riebeeck first got off the ship. The first people to meet him on the beach at Roggebaai were Hottentots. I think it is time the Government became realistic and got down to some basic facts, and stopped all this talk about the Coloured man being a problem. We on this side are often asked, as the Nationalist propagandists on that side know, what our alternative is. My answer to that again is: Alternative to what? I ask this question because there has been no change. Nothing has happened in the Peninsula except that Coloured people have been chased from one part to another. This is the point. Government speakers talk from platforms about solutions. They say that this party is a party of integration. But the actual physical facts are that the Coloured people are here. They will always be here. They will never be anywhere else. The Coloured man is the one genuine South African. They have been born and bred with us. When the hon. member says that, purely because land is expensive, some consideration should be given to the purchasing of land in distant places, I want to say that the hon. the Minister, in collaboration with the Minister of Community Development, the Provincial Administration and the local authorities, should so amend the law that housing required for township purposes shall be regarded as being for public use. As such, it could then be expropriated. Expropriation proceedings would ensure that values were fair, just and equitable.

Sir, I should now like to revert to the Cape Flats. The Joint Town Planning Committee of the Cape Town City Council and of the other municipalities could quite easily solve any problems in regard to land in the Cape Flats if they could find out from the Minister of Community Development what he intends to do. Their problems would be further simplified if the Minister of Planning could make up his mind to tackle the job. The plan which is on the point of being implemented, and which will, I understand, appear in April, makes provision for Coloured housing as far away as Macassar Beach. That is an awfully long way from Cape Town, Sir. Even that is too far. Stretching westwards from Strandfontein towards Claremont and Wynberg are large stretches of countryside which are crying out for development. They are waiting for the local authorities concerned to subdivide them and offer them for sale.

Finally, I should like Government members to get it into their heads that all Coloured people are not sub-economic occupiers or tenants of sub-economic houses. They pay an economic rental as soon as their income rises. They would like to move to bigger and better houses which are simply not available. I think the time is long overdue for the hon. the Minister to have some consultations with the Minister of Community Development to provide for a better type of house for Coloured persons in the businessmen group, the teaching group and the artisan groups. They should get away from the idea that all Coloured persons are sub-economic. The Minister must apply his mind before very long to the provision of proper training for Coloured youths. I concede that he has already done something in this regard, but if Coloured youths are to be trained properly in trades and if they are to become useful citizens, they should be apprenticed to skilled journeymen. That is something which is long overdue.

Finally I should like to say that I cannot support this motion because I think it is a pious one. I shall go further and say that I think it is intended for a purpose which is not very obvious from the words used in the motion. I do not think that this motion was intended as something innocuous for the benefit of the Coloured people in the year 2030.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react in any way to the contribution of that hon. member. You will understand, Sir, that if one were to react to so much destructive and bitter criticism, one would not be able to conduct a constructive debate. I do want to say, however, that the time for discussing the interests of the Coloureds on the basis of such arguments is fortunately drawing to a close.

To-day I want to confine myself, in the first place, to the astronomical increase in the Coloured population here in the Cape Peninsula. In the course of my discussion I want to try and indicate to you, Sir, how vital this motion moved by the hon. member for Piketberg is in point of fact, and how necessary it is for active steps to be taken in the spirit in which he moved his motion. To-day I want to state it as a fact that nearly one-third of the Coloured population of the Republic is living in the complex of Greater Cape Town. This phenomenal growth in the Coloured population occurred mainly in the post-war years when there was a tremendous flow to the Peninsula as a result of an industrial revolution. It appears from figures that the white population of the Cape Peninsula increased by 140 per cent in the period between the 1921 census and the 1960 census, but that proportionately the Coloured population increased by 271 per cent. Now the expectations are that in the next decade, in other words, up to 1980, the Peninsula will have a population increase of approximately 351,000, of which number 283,000 will be Coloureds. The ratio between White and non-White will then be two to one in favour of the Coloureds. As the hon. member for Piketberg indicated, the conservative estimate is that the total population of the Peninsula will be at least two million by the year 2000. He also gave hon. members a projection of what the Coloured population would be at that time. In addition to all these factors the Coloureds have the highest birthrate of all population groups in the Republic, i.e. an increase of 4.7 per cent as opposed to 1.4 per cent in respect of the Whites in the Peninsula. Furthermore, the Coloureds are also showing a tendency to-day to an ever-increasing extent to move from the rural areas to the urban areas where there are employment opportunities and where wages are better as a general rule. This movement is illustrated by the fact that 47 per cent of the total population of the Peninsula consisted of Coloureds in 1921 and that this increased to 53.1 per cent in 1960. In 1921 68.6 per cent of our Coloured population lived in the cities. This figure increased to 89.5 per cent in 1960. But now it is so that there still is a considerable reserve of Coloureds in the rural areas of the Western Cape, people who are being drawn to this metropolitan area as a result of industrial growth. They will be drawn to an increasing extent if we cannot arrest the movement towards the city.

Now the question arises on the one hand: Where are all these Coloureds living to-day? To me the most provocative question remains: Where, when one takes this tremendous anticipated increase into account, are all these Coloureds going to be settled in future? It is easy to fling about accusations as the hon. member for Karoo did so freely; but 30 years ago no-one could have foreseen the present development. However, there can be no doubt in our minds as to the development which will take place within the next 30 years, even though we do not have the full picture before us at the moment. Necessity compels us to think in terms of the next 30 years, even though this hon. member’s vision is restricted to 1969. On the basis of data which the municipalities have received from time to time, they have done a great deal in regard to Coloured housing as well as bringing about resettlement and more orderly residential areas. But areas which might have had the appearance of being planned at that time, no longer seem to be that to-day because of various developments. I want to mention a single example in my own constituency, as this is the constituency in which the largest Coloured areas are situated. I want to take the municipal area of Parow as an example, where resettlement work for the Coloureds was undertaken ten years ago to the south of the white area of Tiervlei. At that time this seemed practical but to-day the pattern there is quite different. What was regarded exclusively as a resettlement area has developed into a Coloured residential area in which 20,000 Coloureds are living at the present time and in respect of which additional housing has reached an advanced stage of planning. This has resulted in a position that a white community is completely hemmed in between the railway line to the North and a Coloured area. This also gives rise to the situation that Coloureds, in order to earn their livelihood, must move through these white areas every day as a matter of necessity.

But this is not the only place where this problem has arisen; it has arisen in all areas where a Coloured area is adjacent to a white area and where there is movement to and from places of employment. This is why the hon. member for Piketberg also advocated a breakaway from the idea of these two areas having to develop next to each other. But defective planning in the pre- and immediate post-war years not only resulted in the uneconomic utilization of land, but also located communities at the wrong places. In this regard we in our wisdom, seeing that this is the year 1969, can mention many such cases, such as Windermere, which now is an improved area called Kensington. But the situation of that area is wrong. To-day we cannot remove Kensington, because, in terms of the Group Areas Act, the Coloureds too are entitled to that certainty of residential separation which the Act affords the Whites. But there are also the areas of Claremont, Elsies River, Florida and the much discussed District Six.

In support of my argument with regard to increasing land prices, I want to mention to hon. members the case of the Elsies River Coloured area which is situated in the municipal area of Goodwood and in which 80,000 Coloureds are concentrated at present. I must say that a large section of them are still living in miserable slum conditions. Now, the position is that the Municipality of Goodwood is not in a position financially to solve the most urgent of these problems. Do hon. members know that the total amount collected in rates from that municipal ward comes to an annual amount of R174,000, of which approximately R74,000 comes from the industrial area. In other words, the remaining R100,000 is contributed by the Coloured residential area. Of this amount R40,000 is the pro rata share for the normal and the non-profitable services such as administration, fire brigade services, etc. Consequently an amount of R60,000 at the outside of the rates collected annually remains for quid pro quo utilization. According to estimates it will cost approximately R4 million simply to provide the necessary facilities and services. This excludes the main outfall sewer and the stormwater drains. Therefore hon. members can see that at a rate of R60,000 per annum which is available, it will take us nearly seven years to develop Elsies River’s services. Then we shall have the situation that the services will have been developed but that not a single house will have been built. This is only one example I want to mention in order to indicate what a tremendous sum the price of land comes to in the existing areas. Then I want to say that increased housing density in respect of the Coloureds is inevitable if we want to utilize this land economically. As a matter of fact, I notice that this already is the policy of the Cape Town City Council. There is an announcement in the afternoon paper that the Cape Town City Council is going to erect a complex of flats at a sum of R2 million in implementation of this policy of increased density and more economic utilization of land. But now one asks oneself whether this is the solution or whether we are merely occupying ourselves with an economically acceptable measure. Should we continue the further over-concentration of Coloured housing and should we continue the further overconcentration of industries? Then I want to ask whether our action is not financially economic whereas we actually meant to act on a socio-economic basis. Should we allow this process to continue as it does at present for an indefinite time, i.e. to concentrate up to 1 million Whites and many more non-whites in an around our large cities. The population here is mixed during the day, separated at night, but over the week-ends everyone is on the street looking for escapes and recreational facilities which will hardly be available any longer. In the Western Cape there is enough room for Whites as well as non-Whites to be able to live under decent conditions rather than to be crowded into the Cape Peninsula complex. The population concentration in and about Cape Town, including the Cape Flats, has already assumed excessive proportions for its more than 1 million inhabitants. When we see that social, transport and recreational facilities for Whites as well as non-Whites already constitute a problem to-day, I do not want to know how difficult these things are going to be within one generation when this will be a completely built-up area. One will need the wisdom of Solomon in this respect. In his time Solomon said that man should go to the ant, consider her ways and be wise. In nature we find that when an ant colony becomes too large, part of that colony forms a new colony and finds new living space. In other words, decentralization takes place.

The hon. member who introduced this motion looked in the direction of the West Coast and I want to support him as far as this is concerned, because that was the logical thing to do and not as the hon. member for Karoo saw it. I want to support the hon. member for Piketberg wholeheartedly, but you must allow me, Sir, to look in a somewhat different direction, namely in the direction of the Bot River complex beyond Sir Lowry’s Pass. Now hon. members opposite should not tell me that it is too far to travel from that area to the Peninsula, because that is not the idea. In the limited time at my disposal I shall not be able to go into the matter in detail, but this area lends itself to dreams being dreamt at this stage, dreams which may become reality, especially when one is driving through this low-lying sour veld in the direction of Hermanus. To me it is inevitable that this area will have to become a future industrial area when saturation point has been reached in the Cape Peninsula. You will allow me, Sir, to digress a little from this motion in order to justify this statement. This area has absolutely everything required for the location of industries. There is a great deal of land which is not suitable for agricultural purposes, there is the railway connection at Bot River station, as well as the new coastal road which is being planned as well as the fact that a lack of water cannot be a real problem. This area is not far from the metropolitan area of Cape Town. There is the harbour at Hermanus which is not in fact suitable for heavy traffic, but the facilities can be extended. The point I really want to stress is that there is a tremendous labour potential in this area. In and around this area there is a concentration of traditional Coloured areas of which I want to mention only a few. The one is Genadendal, which has now given its name to a constituency which includes the towns of Greyton, Elim and Hawston near Hermanus. This is the point at which I return to the motion. These Coloured areas lend themselves in an absolutely ideal way to tremendous expansion without any over-concentration of Coloureds as we at present have in the Cape Peninsula with the attendant social problems. In passing I should like to mention Hawston as an example. This is an example of a beautiful small Coloured town which can be a nucleus for future development and which covers more than 900 morgen at this stage. It is situated on the coast and it has all the potential of becoming the future Hermanus of the Coloured population. Adjacent to this large area there are large pieces of State-owned land which can be used for housing. In the same way I can mention other Coloured areas which have special possibilities and which are all situated within easy reach of this Bot River complex.

Apart from the advantage with regard to industrial development, there are further advantages here, i.e. the necessary seasonal labour will be available for the apple industry at Elgin and Grabouw. But I do not want to go into this matter too deeply as my time is limited, but I must mention this in order to indicate why before long we shall have to look to this area as a rapidly developing Coloured area with alternative industrial opportunities. Here is an opportunity not only for housing but also for creating unparalleled possibilities for development and orderly government for the Coloureds. We shall have to do so in order to create new employment opportunities for the Coloureds and to enable us to arrest the flow to our metropolitan area. It will remain our task in future to create employment opportunities for the Coloureds although many of them are still living in a fool’s paradise in respect of economic demand.

My time has expired, but I want to mention that it has already been proved in Israel that large residential areas which were created in undeveloped areas attracted industries to them. In this I also see a possibility for developing the area I mentioned, because if we can create housing conditions in ideal circumstances, the industries can be attracted to them. Therefore my plea is that we should plan on a regional basis and that we should acquire land even now before it will be too late as far as the future is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for Tygervallei, in my opinion always makes a constructive contribution to a debate. I do think that he considers his case carefully before he presents it and to-day has been no exception. I believe that this motion has also been carefully thought out by the mover and by the seconder and no doubt by those who will still follow him. I think it bears out what we on this side of the House have contended for a long time, namely that before group areas are established and before the future, for example, in the Peninsula of the White communities and the Coloured communities is decided upon, there should be very careful investigations.

If I am to be fair to the hon. member for Tygervallei I would say that his argument this afternoon has been that it is no longer acceptable that Coloured areas and white areas, although separate, should be adjacent. He can see the undesirability of such close proximity and I think he has in mind certain circumstances and conditions that pertain in his constituency and more particularly in Maitland. He admits, if I heard him correctly, that postwar planning, for which this Government is responsible, was wrong and he says further that the Government is learning lessons as a result of the mistakes which have been made. He questions whether there has been over-concentration and whether it has proved to have been an economic proposition to have established all the non-European townships in the Cape Flats area. He feels that—and I gathered from what the proposer of the motion said that he also feels—there should be decentralization, and in the case of the proposer of the motion, he suggested that there should be decentralization to the extent that a Coloured town should be developed in the region of the Malmesbury and Melkbosstrand area. In the case of the hon. member for Tygervallei he suggests that a further town should be developed in the area of Bot River down to the sea at Hawston. I asked him when he was speaking whether that meant a geographically consolidated area to take in, for example, Genadendal, Greyton, Elim and Hawston. It could mean a geographically consolidated area. I did not get an answer. I think these are matters that have to be considered very carefully. It bears out, as I have said before, what we have always maintained, and that is that the “solution” to community development, to group area development, that the Nationalist Government brought with them when they came into power in 1948, was not a final solution and that it should have been far better thought out and far better worked out.

Sir, if I may refer to the motion itself, the proposer thanks the Government for the many measures adopted during the past two decades in promoting the socio-economic welfare of the Coloured population. Now, I do not see the Coloured population through rose-coloured spectacles; I believe that we have to face up to the fact that there are many members of the Coloured population who have taken to crime; that there is a very high incidence of drunkenness and alcoholism among them; that the vast majority of the assaults and knifings that take place in the Cape Province are perpetrated by Coloured people; and that many sections of the Coloured population have shown a marked degree of unreliability and irresponsibility. But I would like to point out that there are different strata of society among the Coloureds, and that there are decent middle class Coloureds. That is where I quarrel with the Government in that I believe that they have not made the most of their opportunities in building up the decent middle class amongst the Coloureds and encouraging and assisting them. I regret that the middle class Coloured group itself does not take greater responsibility for the development of its own people.

I have long felt that they could play a far more active role in assisting their own people than they have so far.

I should like now, Sir, to deal with the attitudes of Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Malan in their approach to the Coloured people. In so far as Gen. Hertzog’s attitude is concerned, he expressed his views in this House in 1939 and I fully subscribe to them. As regards the economic status of the Coloured people he said—

Then he deals at some length with the social status of the Coloured people and he says—

Then, to refer to what Dr. Malan said when he came into power, his argument was that the Nationalist Party based its policy on the fact that Coloured people form their own separate group between, on the one side the Europeans, with whom they share a common language and cultural interests, and, on the other side, the Natives from whom they differ considerably. I would like to examine the views that I have quoted of Dr. Malan. I would like to ask more particularly what measures this Government has taken to bring about a distinction between the Coloured people and the Native people, a distinction which obviously Dr. Malan envisaged. What steps have been taken by this Government since 1948 to protect the Coloured people, for example, from the Native people? Later on in his statement about the social status of the Coloured people, he recognizes that there is a more civilized group among the Coloured people and he says that special attention should be given to the requirements of the more civilized ones among the Coloured people. That bears out precisely what I said a few minutes ago, namely that this Government has failed to develop and encourage the interest of the middle class of Coloureds.

Sir, the Group Areas Act, when it was passed, was claimed by the introducer, Dr. Dӧnges, to be the most important of the apartheid measures. “The purpose of the Group Areas Act was to demarcate areas for each racial group in a fair and equitable and judicial manner,” to (quote Dr. Dӧnges. In the third reading he said—

I believe I am entitled to ask whether the contact points have been removed and whether the friction in fact exists. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Maitland is not here this afternoon. This Government has been in power for 21 years and the hon. member for Maitland seems to carry on a perpetual war concernings points of friction. One thinks particularly of the bus terminus at Mowbray, a matter which constantly enjoys his attention; one thinks of the non-White hospitals in certain portions of his constituency, a further point of friction, and one thinks of other members on the Government side of the House who have referred to the difficulties which exist when there are White bottle stores in Coloured areas and White bottle stores in White areas with a large Coloured clientele. The points of friction have not been removed, Sir, not at all.

They are being removed though.

Then one thinks about the beaches. This Government has been in power for 21 years. The points of friction still exist. I can take hon. members to various beaches, not in the Cape Town municipal area; I am talking about beaches outside the Cape Town municipal area, in the Divisional Council area. The Divisional Council has done a first-class job in providing separate amenities in most of these areas but because this Government cannot tell them where they stand, for example, with regard to the beaches along the Swartklip coast, there are mixed beaches there and there are further points of friction. The point that I am making is that this Government has done singularly little to remove the points of friction that they claimed they would be able to remove when they came into power. What have they done? This Government, admittedly, has removed some. It has cleared up slum conditions. Sir, that is the duty of any Government. The United Party Government also cleared up slums.

It created them.

Of course they cleared up slum conditions, and when the United Party is returned to power it will likewise clear slum conditions where they exist and where they have been left by this Government. That is the duty of any Government. But this Government has gone further. It has moved settled and established communities and I believe that they have their order of priorities wrong. Sir, let me give you an example of that. In certain parts of the Peninsula, to quote Simonstown, to quote Kalk Bay and Claremont and to quote certain parts of Wynberg, areas where there certainly have not been slums, the Government has concentrated on moving people out of those areas. The decent middle class Malays and the decent middle class Coloureds have been moved out of these areas and put on the Cape Flats. In the case of those in my area, they are moving them from Simonstown and from Kalk Bay and putting them at Slangkop. What is more, in those townships they have the good, the bad and the indifferent Coloured persons all mixed up together. The proposer of the motion himself went so far as to admit that in the townships there is no marked distinction between the economically different groups amongst the Coloured populations. I believe that it is quite wrong that a Coloured man who is earning a high wage, as many of them are, should be allowed to hire a house in a township at a sub-economic or a very low rental. I believe that like the White man, and particularly the poor White man, he should have to go to building societies and make financial arrangements in accordance with his financial means. That is something which has been completely overlooked by this Government. My main argument is that without forethought and without planning the Government has proceeded to demarcate the Peninsula into different group areas. It has moved out from Simonstown, Kalk Bay and the other areas that I have mentioned, many settled non-European communities. I do not believe that that has been in the interests of the Whites or of the non-whites concerned. I believe it has been a hasty step and one that certainly has not been thought out properly. To give as an example what has happened at Slangkop, you have had settled communities from Kalk Bay and Simonstown moved out there, a long distance from transport. Admittedly they have been brought nearer the beach amenities provided by the Divisional Council, i.e. firstclass beach amenities at Soetwater. But think of the problems which have also been created. There is the problem of transport. How are they going to get from Slangkop to the nearest rail point which is Fish Hoek? Fish Hoek is a small, condensed, entirely White area. What problems are going to be caused if you are going to bring non-Whites from Slangkop to use the transport facilities in the centre of Fish Hoek?

But you do want them to live together in the same areas.

Where else could they go? From Slangkop they can go to Glen-cairn and a station could be built for them at the Cape Town end of Glencairn where there is no settled population of any kind. But this requires a road to be built from Slangkop over the mountain to the Cape Town side of the Glen Valley to the new station that I have mentioned at Glencairn. But all of this requires advanced planning. These settled communities have been moved to Slangkop without this advanced planning having been done, without such facilities being available to them. As the hon. member for Karoo has mentioned, they are paying very high bus fares and taxi fares to get to their places of employment, quite unreasonably so and quite unnecessarily so.

Sir, the principle of decentralization is not unacceptable to this side of the House; it never has been. That is why I personally believe that it is not a bad thing to give consideration to the decentralization of Coloured populations in various portions of the Peninsula and the areas surrounding the Peninsula. I can see nothing wrong with it, but then it must be planned and there must be considerable and considered advance planning. That is why I believe that this afternoon’s motion has been a complete vindication of the attitude of this side of the House at the time of the passing of the Group Areas Act in 1950. The attitude of this side of the House at that time was that the principle of social and residential separation was traditional in South Africa, but that the establishment of group areas was so complex that the whole question should be referred for report on its practicability to an impartial commission. I believe that that attitude holds good to-day and has been vindicated by the fact that this motion has had to be moved.

I think the motive behind this motion is quite clear to all of us on this side of the House. We see a new line of thinking on the Government side. Otherwise I cannot fathom why they have introduced a motion of this nature, where hon. members have expressed their gratitude to the Government for what has been done for the socio-economic development of the Coloured community, and also expressing the view that more land should be purchased for the Coloureds during this year 1969. The hon. member for Piketberg, who introduced the motion, mentioned his reason for wanting us to invest in new land for Coloured townships, namely that the price of ground is rising year by year. I concede that. We know that this is taking place all the time. But at the same time we must bear in mind that while land values are rising, the prices of urban stands and urban properties are increasing at the same rate as the prices in rural areas. It is not merely the one type of land which is increasing in value; so where the Government would have to pay more for land to develop for Coloured townships, at the same time the people who would have to move out from the urban areas in which they are now living, would also receive fair compensation for their land and properties, regardless of when the purchase and the sale of land might take place.

The hon. member for Piketberg mentioned that an area such as Melkbosstrand should be considered. I wonder why he does not consider areas even further away, beyond Saldanha. If he is going to move these people 30 miles or more, he might as well move them 100 miles. I cannot possibly see how the Coloured community can work in the Peninsula on a sound economic basis if they have to live a distance of 30 miles from Cape Town.

This is a problem which I have appreciated for many years. What this motion reveals clearly to me is a lack of planning and a lack of policy. Of course we have seen, for at least 21 years, since 1948, unfortunate episodes taking place year after year, and from election to election, in that, quite clearly in many areas in South Africa, the Coloured community has been used as a political foot ball for political gain. [Interjections.] The hon. member can make as much noise as he likes. He can come to any public meeting of mine, and ask me questions and I will welcome it. I can remember the years when I was at school in Steynsburg. It was an Afrikaans-medium school. I remember that at that time the United Party Government was removing Coloureds from a slum area in Steynsburg and resettling them in a new area. This took place long before we ever thought of this Nationalist Party Government. This process did not start in 1948. Nobody can tell us that.

Then why did you oppose it in 1948?

You have often heard the reasons. We had many reasons for opposing your legislation. The point is that we have been cleaning up slum areas since time immemorial and the hon. member knows it. Let us be honest about it. Now District Six is being cleaned up.

We cleaned it up.

It would have been cleaned up if the United Party was in power too. Do not bluff yourself. I can mention other areas, apart from Steynsburg, where the United Party Government took the matter in hand. It was done in General Smuts’s time. You see, Sir, when the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Bill was before this House last year, the Leader of the Opposition, whilst speaking about the representatives being removed from this House, said: “You are doing away with Coloured representation in this House”, and the Prime Minister interjected: “Yes, it depends on what you give them in return”. This House subsequently passed the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, which is something quite new and foreign to South Africa. We saw what the Coloured people are to receive in the place of the representatives they have had in South Africa’s Parliament all these years.

Which Coloureds?

We asked the Government what powers this Council would have, and we subsequently found out that this Council has no powers at all, not even the powers of the Bellyille Municipality or the Divisional Council. Only recently the whole concept of the Nationalist Party’s Policy in regard to the Coloured people was revealed to be nothing but a bluff. During this Session the Prime Minister stated that the Government was in a dilemma in regard to the Coloureds.

At least we are facing the dilemma.

How do you face a dilemma?

After 21 years they now tell us that they are in a dilemma. We told them that, in 1948, that they would eventually face a dilemma. There is a large stretch of land beyond this Cape Peninsula. I am thinking of places like East London and Port Elizabeth, and further to the north, Queenstown and Aliwal, where development has taken place, but under this Government the Coloured people in those areas are no better off to-day than they were when this Government took over. In East London in particular we still have North End, a slum area, and nothing is being done.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know everything I am talking about, but it is a pity you do not know what you are talking about, because you went to school in East London and you shold know what the true position is there. [Interjections.]

Sir, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

But there is no amendment.

Then there should have been an amendment. I am very much opposed to this motion moved by the hon. member for Piketberg, because I firmly believe this Government has no right to pat itself on the back, nor should anyone have the audacity here this afternoon to thank the Government for supposedly doing what has not been done. People have been bluffed long enough, and particularly the voters outside. We want to see more action and less talking done by this Government. They should stop talking by medium of Motions, and get on with the job.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Piketberg for having presented this topical matter to the House to-day, a matter which not only affords the House an opportunity of considering what has been done during the past two decades by this Government for the betterment of the Coloureds, but which also afford the House an opportunity of casting a glance into the future, in order to see what tasks await us. It is fortunate that this country and the Coloureds are to-day being Government by a Government such as this and not by a Party for which the hon. member for Karoo is a mouthpiece; for if the poor people of South Africa had been left to the mercies of such a vision, the future would definitely have been a black one for us. To take it amiss of us for wanting to look to the future and to insist that we should simply concern ourselves with the year 1969 certainly does not testify to leadership, but for the moment I shall leave it at that. I shall subsequently make a further reference to the hon. member.

By way of introduction I should just like to say that what the Government has done during the past two decades for the Coloureds in the field of education and economy and politics has not gone unnoticed by them. I think one can to a very large extent attribute these good race relations between ourselves and the Coloureds which exist to-day in this country to the fact that they see to-day what the Government has done for them in these various fields. Unlike the hon. member for Karoo, they see this, and they also realize that the Government is sincere and that the Government is in earnest as far as they are concerned. That is why the Coloureds are also deeply interested in what is being planned for their future, and that is what I am going to confine myself to now, reference to the motion which requests us to plan for the future with a view to the population increase.

Let me say at once that the expected population growth of the Coloureds in the next few decades, the extra numbers which will in future have to provided with work and accommodation and who have to make a happy subsistence, are matters which are receiving daily attention from the authorities, that is the Government and the Provincial Administration in this country. Thanks to that attention on the part of these bodies which these matters are receiving day by day, we have to-day a very good picture of what the position is going to be in a few decades time, and I am not going to refer to that.

I want to begin with the Cape Peninsula, which has the greatest concentration of Coloureds, where more than 500,000 Coloureds are living. In the first place I want to ask what the carrying capacity of the Peninsula is, this Peninsula which because of tradition and economic considerations is and will remain such an important key area to them. The question one must furnish an immediate answer to is what the economic and social carrying capacity of the Peninsula is. The size of the Coloured group areas which have already been proclaimed in the Peninsula is 9,500 morgen. Of this 9,500 morgen the greatest part has been developed; 740 morgen still remain to be developed. But added to this there is that other larger part which has been investigated by the State by means of its Department of Planning with a view to future Coloured settlement. That area totals 15,000 morgen, besides that which I have already mentioned, which is being envisaged for future Coloured settlement in the Peninsula. It sounds like a lot, and it is in fact a large tract of land. If one views it from the air one realizes what a large tract of land it is. But this land must be properly utilized, otherwise we are going to get into difficulties in the future. Progress is being made with that planning. Unlike what is being thought by hon. members opposite, who are apparently living in a dream world and who think that there is no planning, planning is in fact being undertaken on a very large scale. Thorough consideration has already been given to this tremendously large area in the Peninsula by the Department of Planning and the Provincial Administration, and planning has been undertaken.

In the Greater Peninsula three separate independent Coloured towns have been planned for the future. The intention is that it should not be one continuous Coloured town from Athlone to Macassar, but that these should in fact be three separate, independent towns, each with its own character. In these towns industrial sites are going to be set aside. Contrary to what the hon. member for Karoo tihnks, namely that the Coloureds are not being afforded any industrial opportunities, such sites are going to be set aside. Let me correct the hon. member on a statement he made. Not only are Coloureds entitled to acquire land in the existing industrial areas by way of permit, but this Government, through its Coloured Development Corporation, is in fact encouraging Coloureds to acquire industrial sites there. Apart from that these industrial sites will in future be made available in these three independent towns and these towns will be laid out in such a way as to offer the necessary community facilities and attractions. As far as possible arrangements are going to be made to the effect that they will have to be self-supporting. In other words, they must each have their own business centres and they must obviously have their community centres where cultural, religious and other facilities can be made available. In addition it is the intention that these independent towns will also have their own beaches. To the west they will have Strandfontein, and to the east Macassar beach will be developed. A great deal of development will still in future have to take place in regard to these two beaches so as to provide the Coloureds with the necessary beach facilities. But in spite of this large tract of land here, it is also necessary that this land, with a view to the future population increase, will have to be planned very judiciously. It is felt by our planners that we will in future have to have a vertical development on the CaDe Flats. In spite of the fact that there now appears to be a great deal of land available, we shall have to plan vertically with a view to this population increase in future. In other words, flats and multi-storied buildings will have to be erected from the outset in these three independent towns which are to be established on the Cape Flats. With such a pattern it is expected that it will be possible to accommodate more than a million Coloureds in future in this Peninsula area. These three towns which are to be established, together with the existing development, will, according to expectations, be able to accommodate more than a million Coloureds.

But we are not only engaged in planning, we are also acquiring the land. As the hon. member for Piketberg rightly pointed out, land prices are increasing and in 20 to 30 years’ time the prices could be exceptionally high. These are all aspects which the Government is taking into consideration. Steps have already been taken to acquire land, and I can mention a few of the purchases in order to indicate that the State is not simply planning but is also implementing its planning in this respect. Adjoining the Cape Flats section, to which I referred, the Stellenbosch Divisional Council is developing a town in the Macassar area where 2,000 houses are to be erected. Apart from that in the same Macassar area, the State itself has acquired 850 morgen for the purposes of this future development. At the nearby Eerste River station is the Kleinvlei area where 480 morgen has been acquired for this Coloured development. In the same way a town is being planned at Kuilsriver and this is going to be developed there in the near future. At Kraaifontein the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch has acquired a further piece of land 450 morgen in extent which is intended for Coloured development.

Before I come to further expansion in this regard and refer to other areas, such as the West Coast, I would just like to say a few words about the facilities which are going to be made available in these towns. I am doing so particularly because certain derogatory remarks have recently been made in the Press again. It has been said that we are developing this Bonteheuwel-Heideveld area by merely building small houses there. I am coming in a moment to the sub-economic complaints of the hon. member for Karoo. It has been alleged that we are building such unattractive little houses there, and that these are in fact no towns in the true sense of the word. That is why it is necessary that I should, for the sake of the truth, merely state what development is in fact taking place. In the aforementioned areas the following buildings have already been constructed, there are 22 newly erected schools, 5 community centres, a swimming bath, a library, a theatre, 3 clinics, 64 shops, 8 sportsgrounds and 8 equipped playgrounds. Surely this is an indication that the Government is carefully looking after the social welfare of those people. This is the pattern which will in fact be followed in the three towns which are to be established, and in other towns as well.

Now I want to concede that, with a view to the far distant future, this development in the Peninsula will not be adquate, and that is why it is a good thing the hon. member for Piketberg focused the attention of some members of the Opposition on this matter. At this moment the Government is in fact looking further afield than the Peninsula. After all we know now what the population increase is going to be in future. We must therefore take into account the fact that those people will have to be accommodated. It is a senseless piece of propaganda on the part of the hon. member for Karoo to say that we want to settle those people 30 miles away. If the Cape Flats becomes built up over a period of 30 years then people will have to go elsewhere, because how else must they be accommodated? If we settle them here in the western area, in the Mamre area, to which I shall come in a moment, it does not mean that all of them need work here in the Cape. If this planning idea of ours, i.e. that there should be industrial sites there as well, is implemented, then surely those people will be able to work in the townships. On the other hand one must bear in mind that not everybody likes living in an urban area. One must also accept that there would be some Coloureds who would prefer to live in more rural surroundings. With a view to this we must see to it that the rural areas are also developed. We are meeting this need and making provision for it in three ways. The first is to develop our Coloured towns, places like Mamre, Genadendal, Hawston and others. The hon. member for Tygervallei asked for future development in Botriver area. That is precisely what is being done. Not only did Genadendal remain static for years, it even began to go into a decline and the Coloureds there all wanted to leave because the town showed no more signs of vitality. Then the Department of Coloured Affairs intervened there and inter alia established a creosote factory which served as an economic shot in the arm for that area. Planning in connection with agriculture there has also been undertaken by the Department. Now Genadendal is once more becoming a vital town which is keeping its people, and this is also in the interests of the surrounding areas which need their labour. Similarly the 950 morgen covered by Hawston have been proclaimed, and that area is such that it can be further developed, so that we will not leave it at that 950 morgen.

I come now to Mamre, in regard to which the hon. member for Piketberg also put in a plea. He asked that a city should also in due course be developed in that area. Whether it will be a city or not, one thing is inevitable; town development will in future have to take place in that area. We are in fact engaged in that. It is not a matter in regard to which we are dreaming dreams and expressing pious wishes. The Department of Planning in consultation with other Departments, is looking at and acquiring land in that area with a view to future town expansion which will have to be undertaken there. All this indicates that the Government is in fact engaged in planning. It is engaged in that planning with a view to future requirements. We are not simply thinking in terms of exclusively Coloured towns; we are thinking in terms of the task of the White towns in this regard. The hon. member for Piketberg pointed out that we do not want a Coloured town adjoining every White town. I agree with him, we cannot have a Coloured town adjoining every White town, because there has to be all kinds of facilities, schools, etc.

What are you going to do with them?

Wait, listen for a moment. Most platteland towns will have to retain their Coloured townships. I concede that not every little hamlet can have a Coloured town, but by far the most platteland towns will have to remain where they are, adjoining the existing White towns. Consequently I now want to address a plea to the town councils of those White towns. I want to ask them to make greater use of the means which the Government places at their disposal for the development of housing schemes in each White town. Not only does the State grant loans for the erection of houses, the State also grants loans for the acquisition of land for Coloured housing in those White towns. Many White towns are in fact making use of them. The hon. member for Piketberg spoke with praise of the housing schemes of certain White towns, but I would be neglecting my duty if I omitted to say that there are still many White towns which are not doing their duty properly in this respect. Those towns are not yet making full use of the facilities and the means which the Government is placing at their disposal for the creation of better Coloured housing schemes adjoinging their towns. I really want to express the hope that they are going to do this, because it is in the interests of their own region, it is in the interests of the need to keep the Coloured in the platteland. It all goes hand in hand with the need to retain our population balance in this country. After all we cannot allow—no country in the world can allow—everyone in the platteland to stream into the cities. After all it is necessary that a kind of population balance be maintained. In other words, there must be enough Coloureds in the platteland to fulfill their economic function there by making their labour available there, etc. To keep the people there, however, it must be made attractive for them. Apart from the establishment and the development of Coloured towns, and apart from the obligation of White towns to establish Coloured housing schemes, there is still the obligation which rests on the farming communities themselves, i.e. to make life and living conditions for their own farm workers as attractive as possible. In this respect my visit to Vlaeberg, which falls in the constituency of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, was really an inspiration. There 7 farmers from Vlaeberg met in Stellenbosch and established a community centre where cultural and other sporting facilities could be made available for the Coloureds of that farming community, so as to make it more attractive for those people to live there and in this way to reduce the need to leave and go to the city. This is, in my opinion, an example which will in fact have to be followed to a much greater extent by our farming communities. In this respect as well, Mr. Speaker, the Government is doing as much as it is possible to do at this juncture to keep the Coloured farm workers on the farm. It is known to you that we have already agreed to grant loans to farmers for the erection of houses for their farm workers. Apart from that the Government has felt that we must bring the little farm school for the Coloureds into its own again. In that respect more assistance will have to be granted in future than was granted in the past. That is not all however. To make it more attractive for the Coloured teacher teaching at that little farm school, State aid will also have to be granted in future so that housing can be provided for them there to keep them on the farm so that they can contribute their share and in this way help maintain the population balance. In these many ways the Government is not only engaged in planning but also in lending assistance and carrying into effect this great idea which has to be implemented. It will always be our task to encourage these growth points which we envisage by means of planning and appropriation. These are growth points which can help to get our Coloured community settled in an orderly and happy way in this part of the country in particular.

With reference to the motion of the hon. member I just want to say this to the House in conclusion. The House can rest assured that the Government will, with full consideration for the future population increase and with full consideration for the economic and cultural needs of the Coloured population, act in this way so that a future generation will not be able to level the reproach at the present generation of White governers that we were short sighted and that we did not plan far enough ahead for them. On the contrary I am convinced that on the basis of these steps which the Government is making a future generation, which looks back upon the year 1969, will be able to say: “They saw, they planned, they did”.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. the Minister’s reply to this debate, which to my mind was a fruitful one and the purpose of which was to stress this matter, I herewith wish to withdraw the motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.