Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill the House is asked to approve the appropriation of an amount of R2 990-94 to meet certain expenditure from the Post Office Fund, expenditure for which there was no authority. Details of this expenditure and the reason why this amount was reported as unauthorized, are to be found in the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the accounts of the Post Office for the financial year 1969’70. This report has been tabled in this House. In its Second Report, which was adopted by this House recently, the Select Committee on Public Accounts recommended the specific appropriation of this amount. In the circumstances I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this any further.

We on this side have no objection to this Bill. In fact, it is the customary one to give effect to a resolution of the Select Committee on Public Accounts where there has been unauthorized expenditure. The amount involved here, relates to a subsidy in respect of a fire brigade installation, a subsidy for which no provision was made in the Estimates. The expenditure was accordingly shown under the head “Maintenance of Buildings”. One can argue with some justification that fire brigade installations can in fact be related to the maintenance of buildings. I therefore do not believe that a very serious mistake was made here.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is before this House as a result of representations made through the Association of Law Societies by the Attorneys’, Notaries’ and Conveyancers’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund Board of Control for various amendments to be made to the Attorneys' Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Act of 1941.

I shall start with the most important amendments concerning matters of principle, and in this connection I first refer hon. members to the provisions of clause 9. The purpose for which the Attorneys’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund—and when I refer to attorneys, I mean notaries and conveyancers as well—was established, is clearly set out in section 26 (1) of the principal Act. I need not quote its provisions—they are to be found in paragraph (a) of clause 9. It is very clear from these provisions, Sir, that the fund is there to be used to the benefit of the public in certain circumstances.

Now, we know that in terms of section 19 of the principal Act, the fund consists of annual contributions made to it by attorneys, income derived from investment of moneys in that fund, and so forth, as well as the interest on the investment of trust moneys in terms of section 33 of the Admission of Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act, 1934. The board of control of the fund has now indicated that the present financial position of the fund is such that it is justified to extend the purposes for which the fund may be used in the public interest. This is what is being envisaged in paragraph (b) of clause 9. In terms of this, as hon. members will see, Sir, it will be possible for the board of control, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, to make grants to any individual or any university for the purpose of education or research in law. Such grants, however, can only be made if the amount of the fund is not less than R2 million and if they do not detract from the purpose of the fund as contemplated in section 26 (1) of the principal Act.

Application of the fund for this purpose, Sir, can only benefit the public interest further in that promising persons can be enabled to undergo legal training or to broaden their understanding of law through research, which may result in good quality service to the public in the field of law.

In paragraph (b) of clause 9 provision is also made for the board of control to be able to pay an honorarium out of the fund to any person for services rendered at the request of the board of control to the attorneys’ profession, with the object of enhancing the professional standards of persons practising that profession. In this regard it happens from time to time that persons who are regarded as experts in certain fields, are asked to render services in the form of lectures in order to enhance the knowledge and the ethical and general professional standards of attorneys. With reference to this, I may mention for the information of hon. members that, according to the April, 1971, edition of the attorneys’ journal De Rebus Procuratoriis, the Johannesburg attorneys’ association arranged lectures on subjects of interest, and it was asked that these lectures should be held in a larger hall in future so that attorneys from outside Johannesburg would also be able to attend the lectures. Lectures have already been held on subjects such as estate planning (including estate duty, income tax in respect of estates. and so forth); lectures have also been held on the exchange control regulations and on third-party claims. Because a service is rendered to the public interest as well in this way, provision is also being made in this paragraph for the application of the fund in respect of compensation for services of this nature. Application of the fund for this purpose will, however, also be subject to the amount of the fund not being less than R2 million and provided that it does not detract from the purpose of the fund as contemplated in section 26 (1).

Next, Sir, I shall deal with clause 7. This clause mainly contains amendments in respect of the contributions to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund by an attorney. As hon. members know, the fund is one which was established and is maintained through the actions of attorneys, and they receive no benefit at present in respect of the contributions made and costs incurred by them in connection with the fund. It has accordingly been felt that when the fund reaches a level where it would not prejudice the purpose for which it was established, contributions to the fund should be stopped. The amendment effected to section 22 (1) by this clause lays down the contributions an attorney has to make to the fund. The proposed subsection (2) provides that when the fund amounts to R1 million an attorney shall not be required to make further contributions. Contributions to the fund are, however, again required when the fund amounts to less than R1 million. But in order to retain the character of the fund as a fidelity guarantee fund provided by and for attorneys, the proposed subsection (4) requires an attorney who sets himself up in practice for the first time while the amount of the fund exceeds the R1 million mark, to make a contribution of R50 in one lump sum to the fund. The payment of one lump sum is required in order to facilitate administrative work. Furthermore, the proposed subsection (5) provides that the board of control may require an attorney to make the annual contribution to the fund if, in his case, the fund has been applied for the purposes of section 26 (1), despite the fact that the amount of the fund exceeds the R1 million mark. This requirement is being laid down as the suspension of contributions ought not to apply in favour of the dishonest person. However, it is left to the discretion of the board of control to determine in the light of the circumstances in each case whether and for what period contributions are to be paid. The other amendments in this clause are self-explanatory.

Then, Sir, I refer to clause 5, which effects amendments in respect of the various amounts which may be paid out of the fund. The amendment in paragraph (b) can only benefit claimants. Experience has shown that a person who has suffered financial loss, sometimes has to incur considerable expenses in order to obtain evidence to enable him to submit his claim and to substantiate it satisfactorily. Persons instituting claims against the fund will therefore, benefit from this amendment to the extent that it will be possible to compensate them for reasonable expenditure which had to be incurred in order to substantiate a claim. Paragraph (g) provides that the bank charges which an attorney has to pay in connection with the keeping of a trust account may also be repaid from the fund. This provision is fair, as he is obliged by law to keep a trust account with a bank. He then has to pay the cost involved out of his own pocket, for which he receives no benefit. For the same reason it is also fair that the cost which an attorney has to incur in order to obtain a fidelity fund certificate shall be paid out of the fund. Provision for this is made in paragraph (i) of clause 5. Then it also happens that clients suffer losses in circumstances other than those at present mentioned in section 26 of the Act, losses for which no compensation may be paid out of the fund. In order to meet the public in this respect as well, it is provided in paragraph (h) that the premium payable in respect of a professional indemnity group insurance policy taken out in favour of attorneys may be paid out of the fund. This will afford the public further cover.

As far as the other provisions of the Bill are concerned, Sir, clause 2 makes provision for an increase in the number of members of the board of control. This is necessary because of the scope of the activities of the fund The amendment in clause 6 will enable the board of control itself to determine a date on which the auditors of the fund must have the necessary audit statements ready every year. The object is to bring the submission of the necessary statements into line with the close of the financial year of the fund. Clause 14 provides that the chairman of the board of control may after five years, instead of 10 years, direct how the documents and other records of the board are to be disposed of. This amendment is necessary to overcome storage problems.

As the administration of justice, including matters relating to attorneys, is a matter listed in the schedule to the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, the principal Act is, in terms of clause 16, applied to the Territory as well. At the same time provision is made for the transfer of the moneys in the Fidelity Guarantee Fund of the Territory to that of the Republic, and for related matters. The board of control of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund of the Territory supports the incorporation of the fund of the Territory with that of the Republic.

Clause 16 also inserts a provision into the principal Act in terms of which no action for damages shall lie against the board of control or any member or servant of the board of control in respect of anything done in the execution of its or his powers and duties in terms of the Act. This provision is necessary in order to protect a member or servant against actions because of the nature of the claims which are handled. The boards of the law societies and their servants already enjoy such protection in terms of their private Acts.

The rest of the Bill contains consequential and minor amendments. I may just mention that the board of control of the attorneys’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund of the Republic and the board of control of the fund of the Territory are in agreement with the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the original Bill was introduced in the House in 1939 by the late Dr. Colin Steyn, he stated without hesitation that although the Bill conferred privileges upon attorneys, it was mainly for the protection of the public and that it was very much in the public interest. I think after listening to the hon. the Minister, the House will realize that everything that he has said about the Bill indicates the concern of the profession and of the Minister for the protection of the public. The Minister has referred to clause 5, which allows the controllers of the fund to set aside money for educational purposes but only when the fund is financially so strong that it is considered that it can meet all possible claims that may be made against it. After the fund has reached the sum of R2 million, then the board will be able to allocate moneys to different universities and individuals in the interest of the education of the legal fraternity. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, this is all to the good, because it is always to the advantage of the public to have their lawyers properly trained. He has also pointed out that there is provision for the fund in these circumstances to provide for premiums to be paid for group insurance. The public may not realize this, but at the moment the only liability attaching to the fund to pay anybody who has suffered through the acts of an attorney, is where the attorney has been dishonest or where he has stolen money. The fund then comes to that person’s assistance, but if the attorney should make some mistake through negligence or oversight, then the fund is not responsible in any way for compensating the client for any loss that he may have suffered, and this becomes important when one considers the time limits prescribed by law within which claims for damages must be instituted. I am thinking mainly of the Third Party Motor Insurance Act. If an attorney should slip up, his client would have no claim for compensation for any damage that he may have suffered. I think this is a most important concession. Most attorneys do take out policies of their own and they are indemnified, but it is a very costly form of insurance, and as I say, it benefits the public by allowing the board to contribute towards this insurance so that all attorneys will eventually be covered.

The hon. the Minister has also referred to clause 9, which makes it obligatory on the claimant to put in his claim within a certain time. I think representations have been made to the Minister, not by the Jaw societies but by this side of the House, for an amendment to be introduced to the proposed section 26 (b) (i), which provides that no person shall have a claim against the board in respect of any theft committed after the commencement of this Act unless notice of such claim is given in writing to the council of the society concerned and to the board of control within three months after the claimant becomes aware of the theft. That is the law as it is at the moment. Now, as amended, it will read “becomes aware of the theft, or by the exercise of reasonable care could have become aware of the theft”. I think this should read rather that he should have become aware of the theft. That will give the client more protection, because it might easily be said that he could have known. Had he gone to inspect the attorney’s books, for instance, then he could have known that there was something wrong, but the ordinary client does not go and inspect an attorney’s books. But if it is found that he should have become aware of the theft, because of some action that he knew of, committed by the attorney, then he should take action within the prescribed period. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the amendment which we propose to move in the Committee Stage. I think that is all I wish to refer to in this Bill.

The rest of the Bill is largely administrative, providing for the better working of the board and also, of course, as the Minister has pointed out, for South-West Africa to be brought into the ambit of the Act. We on this side of the House will support the Bill.

I just want to thank the Opposition for their support of this measure. It is a fact that this fund has fortunately reached an amount where these steps may be taken, and one is grateful for that. One is grateful that the stage has been reached where allocations may be made to universities and to individuals. One is also grateful that the fund has reached an amount where provision may be made for the bank ledger fees of attorneys to be paid, and not only their ledger fees, but also their auditors’ fees in respect of the certificates which they have to submit annually. One is particularly grateful for the fact that the fund has reached an amount which enables it to pay the premiums of the professional indemnity policy of an attorney, because it is a fact that the responsibility of the fund, as laid down in the Act, is very limited. In actual fact it only covers theft and dishonesty in connection with moneys which have been given in trust. But there are many other cases which arise in the case of attorneys, and where people may suffer losses which are not covered. I think the provision which is now being made, i.e. that a professional indemnity policy may be taken out, is one of the outstanding features of this measure. I thank the Opposition for their support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Export Credit Re-insurance Amendment Act (Act No. 78 of 1957), empowers the Government, with a view to the promotion of the foreign trade of the Republic, to re-insure contracts of insurance in regard to export transactions, and also provides that the Government itself may insure certain risks which are involved in such transactions.

In insurance it often happens, and this is also deemed to be essential, that existing contracts of insurance are amended with the consent of the parties concerned. Moreover, such amendments to these contracts must often be made with retrospective effect. The Act was in fact implemented on the basis of these principles right from the beginning.

However, uncertainty has now arisen about the question of whether the powers which the Minister of Economic Affairs may, in terms of the Act, exercise in consultation with the Minister of Finance, also authorize him to amend with the consent of the other interested parties contracts of insurance entered into in terms of the Act, and to make, if circumstances require, any such amendment to a contract of insurance, once again with the consent of the other interested parties, with retrospective effect.

Secondly, experience in the implementation of the Act has shown that doubt exists as to whether goods and services from countries other than the Republic may also be re-insured under the export credit re insurance scheme established by the Minister in terms of the Act. The Act does not provide specifically that only South African goods may be re-insured under this scheme, but the question that has nevertheless arisen, is whether, when the Act was passed, it was in fact the intention of the legislature that goods and services of other countries should also qualify for the facilities created in terms of the Act.

There is no doubt that under specific circumstances the re-insurance of foreign goods and services may be beneficial for the export trade of the Republic. In this regard a few examples may be mentioned in support of the preceding statement.

Some of the agricultural products produced in our neighbouring states, are marketed abroad as forming an integral part of South Africa’s own exports of these products under distribution arrangements put into operation by the relevant agricultural control boards in our country. The joint distribution of our own products and those of the neighbouring states is beneficial for the orderly marketing of our own products in export markets.

In addition there is the case of foreign construction projects, which are awarded to South African tenderers and which only can be completed successfully with the aid of goods and services obtained in part from sources outside the Republic.

In both of these cases the availability of re-insurance facilities in respect of such goods and services obtained from sources outside the Republic, is a prerequisite for the promotion of our exports as well as our successful participation in foreign construction projects.

The Bill which is before the House at the moment, merely seeks to remove the measure of uncertainty prevailing in respect of the above-mentioned two points, and to put beyond any doubt the validity of the powers which the Minister of Economic Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, exercises in terms of this Act.

We have no objection to this Bill and will support it, because it merely improves the technical implementation of the legislation as it has been administered up to date. As the hon. the Minister rightly says, it is merely regularizing the actions of the Minister more clearly in the general terms of insurance contracts. Clause 1 deals with retrospective amendments which are not uncommon in the insurance business. Clause 2, as the hon. the Minister points out, deals with subcontracts which may not originate in South Africa, but which are an essential part of the main contract which originated in this country. We have no objection to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, when we concluded last night, I was referring, lastly, to the hon. member for Constantia, and I should like to proceed from that point again. He held it against me that I had raised two matters in respect of importers. His first was that I had objected to importers who were importing totally unnecessary goods, and the second was the comments I had made in regard to excessive profits made on imported goods. I discussed the second matter last night. Nevertheless, I want to say that I cannot agree with the hon. member. I feel that in a case involving an action in which the department has a share and for which the department grants permission, as it does in the case of imports, surely it is proper for the responsible Minister to comment on it. I feel that in so far as the hon. member and I still do not see eye to eye, we should simply leave the matter at that. In cases where I have to exercise control over certain matters, I regard it as my duty to comment on them if it seems necessary to me to do so.

Allow me, Sir, just to refer to the hon. member for Vasco, who spoke here about diamond cutting in South Africa. I just want to comment briefly on the fact that at the end of last year a committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. C. J. Greeff, to enquire into and report on all the aspects of diamonds, including the cutting of diamonds. I believe that this committee will in due course make the necessary recommendations in this regard.

I find it hardly necessary to discuss the fishing industry any further, because I am fortunate in that I am being assisted by the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, who has so much experience of this industry, He has had, so to speak, life-long experience of this industry, and he has done a great deal in this regard. To start with, I could perhaps make a few general observations. The view I take is that, wherever we have resources which can be beneficial for South Africa, be it in the form of available fishing resources or anything else, it is our task not only to develop those resources, but also to develop them to the maximum benefit of South Africa. In so far as we exercise control over and administer the fishing industry, it would be quite correct for us to be criticized if we did not utilize and exploit those resources properly. For instance, if our fishing industry were in a position to yield a certain quantity of fish every year and we only permitted half of the fish to be caught, hon. members would be entitled to criticize me by saying that I was acting to the detriment of South Africa, for these are resources which are available to South Africa and we are not exploiting them properly. On the other hand, it would be as correct if we were criticized, if it were true, for over-exploiting those resources. I want it to be appreciated that in a matter such as the fishing industry, it is from the nature of the case not so easy to be able to determine precisely where the maximum advantage of those resources is to be found. It was for that reason that we granted over the years, as the fishing industry developed, permission for these resources to be developed further. However, over the past number of years there were indications that these resources were probably being overexploited, and then we curtailed the exploitation substantially, as it is today. We conducted negotiations with the fishing industry itself, for these are after all the people who are most directly concerned in the fishing industry. Within the industry itself there are still serious and marked differences of opinion today about the question of whether or not we are over exploiting these resources. The steps taken by the Government in recent times to restrict the exploitation of our fishing resources, did not by any means meet with the full cooperation of the industry itself. There are real, influential elements in the industry who still differ with us today and who say that we have imposed unnecessary restraints on their industry as there is sufficient fish for permitting them to exploit these resources freely. I mention these aspects merely to indicate that this is indeed a difficult task. On the other hand, we also have these hundreds of people— about whom the hon. member for Omaruru, with his knowledge, also spoke yesterday—who are dependent upon the fishing industry for their livelihood. One cannot simply deprive them of their whole livelihood by simply allowing the fish to rest for a year and forbidding them to catch any fish. It is not as simple a matter as that. I have very duly taken cognizance of Dr. Lochner’s views on this matter, and it is unfortunately true that Dr. Lochner’s views are in conflict with those of other scientists. With the aid of all the good advice we are given by Dr. Lochner and all the other scientists, we should find a way to exploit the fishing industry in such a way that it may be to the best advantage of South Africa. The hon. member wanted to know why we did not subject Dr. Lochner’s theory to scientific testing. We asked Dr. Lochner in writing whether he was prepared to submit his theory to world-famous scientists in this sphere, but he did not want to do it.

In what sphere?

In the sphere of fishing research. I am not saying that they are experts in the sphere of the fishing industry on the West Coast of Africa, but surely Dr. Lochner’s theory must be based on certain principles acceptable to world- famous people in respect of this matter.

Why do you not submit it to mathematicians, and not to marine biologists?

As we did ask Dr. Lochner in writing whether we could make his theory available to scientists all over the world for comment, he could have suggested that these people should have a knowledge of mathematics. He did not want to do so and did not want to subject his theory to such tests. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Simonstown. Unfortunately I cannot pursue the matter any further.

Why must you obtain his permission?

In all fairness we should, after all, obtain his permission for submitting his theory to the comments of scientists all over the world; otherwise he can do so himself.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to submit the theory to Dr. Bleksley?

Order! The hon. member should give the hon. the Minister a chance to reply, and subsequent to that further speeches can be made.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am prepared to have all the advice given by the scientists of the world on the fishing industry in South Africa investigated by our own experts. As far as knowledge and experience are concerned, there is nothing I would run away from. If possible, I should like to collect all the knowledge and make it available to our scientists.

We have conducted a very fruitful discussion on this Vote. It has been a pleasant discussion. However, here and there the hon. member for Simonstown was, once again, as they say, “the fly in the ointment”, and he once again introduced an unpleasant atmosphere into this debate. I carried out a great deal of investigation, and this afternoon I could occupy the time of this House ad nauseam with information about the fishing industry as it is today. I could also furnish hon. members with accurate information about the fishing industry as it was in 1948, when the National Party took over. The major complaint made by the hon. member for Simonstown was that we had handed out favours to “pals”. But he should take a look at what the position was in 1948. But I do not wish to raise that argument again. I do not ask these people, be they the Silvermans or the Ovenstones or whoever, what their political convictions are. There are certain conclusions which one draws from time to time. But I can say that amongst the numerous groups that existed in 1948, there was only one group that was controlled by Afrikaners or, as it would seem, consisted of supporters of the Government, namely the Marine Products group. Apart from the Marine Products group there was not one other group in the entire fishing industry that seemed to consist of Nationalists or Afrikaans-speaking people. But I really do not want to occupy the time of the Committee by mentioning all those details here. Those who are interested in them, can obtain them from me. I would need approximately one hour to furnish all those details.

But what do the Ovenstones and such people have to do with the United Party?

The charges laid here by the hon. member for Simonstown, were based throughout on the premise that in the fishing industry this Government had granted favours to its own people. The other day the hon. member wrote me a letter, which inter alia read as follows—

The reference here is to the three speeches he made—

I have told “ ’n ou stink skinderstorie”.

It is unnecessary for me to prove it. Surely, the House knows that it is an unsavoury piece of gossip. After all, everybody knows that. Now I should like to mention just a few examples to the hon. member. I could take numerous examples from the hon. member’s speeches, but I only have a few that I want to mention. In regard to the commission of enquiry, the hon. member said—

That is recorded in the Hansard of 2nd February, 1971, in columns 182/183. Why did the hon. member not refer to the fact that the adjustment was made as soon as the Government had obtained jurisdiction over the fisheries of South-West? He concealed that fact. He followed a method here, or he made an insinuation here, from which one could draw an ugly conclusion; otherwise he told one part of the story whilst keeping quiet about the other part of the story, the part which exposed the truth. Then he had the temerity to ask me to point out to him where misrepresentations occurred in his speech. Last night the hon. member for Bellville mentioned to him a few examples of misrepresentations, and he sat perfectly still and could not reply to them. Then he suggested that the South-West M.P.s had neglected their duty. Amongst other things, he said the following, and I quote from column 183 of the Hansard of 2nd February, 1971—

He concealed the fact that at that stage Parliament still had no jurisdiction over the fishing industry in South-West Africa, I shall give hon. members another example: The hon. member referred to allocations of quotas in South-West Africa. In column 186 he said, 201C;They gave them, of all people, to the Trust Bank at Luderitz and to Volkskas at Walvis Bay!201D; Surely, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs told him that this was not true, and it was accepted as such. It is untrue that the quota was allocated to Trust Bank or to Volkskas. In regard to the factory ships, he suggested that the South African Government had granted licences to them, i.e. to the Willem Barendsz and to another factory ship, the Suiderkruis. What was extraordinary, the hon. member said, was that both licences were granted by the South African Government without consultation with the South-West African Administration. That is not true. Consultations did take place in the case of the Willem Barendsz and in the case of the Suiderkruis the identical conditions were made applicable.

I am going to give hon. members another example. On 17th February, 1971, the hon. member said (column 1028), “The hon. the Deputy Minister asserted that the Trust Bank, Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor only supplied the financial backing for the two fishmeal concessions.” The hon. the Deputy Minister never said anything of the kind. There is no question of his having said anything of that nature. He made allegations which threw suspicion on the Deputy Minister, but they are untrue. He did a great deal of research work in order to find out how many shares Trust Bank, Volkskas, Bonuskor and Federate Volksbeleggings had obtained (Hansard, column 1029). If his research work had been thorough, he would have been able to ascertain readily that the South-West Administration wanted to be satisfied that there would be no bartering in these allocations and that the assurance had to be given that the interested parties would remain in effective control.

Then he proceeded to stir up suspicion, and he did so throughout his speeches. I want to give hon. members an example of this. For instance, in referring to the Deputy Minister he asked, “Did he also go to see the present Prime Minister to demand Mr. Jan Haak’s resignation, as a result of what happened off the coast of South-West Africa?” This quotation comes from the Hansard of 14th April, 1971. The hon. member is good at stirring up suspicion and making insinuations and allegations, from which an ordinary person must infer that they are removed from the actual truth.

That big fish exploded in his face.

Order!

He even insinuated— and with this I should like to conclude: this is the most ridiculous one of the whole lot—that the National Party had been allocated a concession. He said—and I am quoting his words of 14th April. 1971—“I searched his speech in vain .. —he was referring here to Dr. Diederichs—“ … for any explanation of the fact that the registered address of Paternoster is the same as the registered address of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province. I want to ask him frankly tonight: Was it a concession allocated to the Nationalist Party …” Mr. Chairman, is it not outrageous to stir up the suspicion that a concession was allocated to the National Party because, according to him—and rightly, too, for this is the case—the address of Paternoster is the same as that of the National Party? I know they are the same, for I am one of the trustees of the National Party. Like the Piketberg Lime Company and other organizations, Paternoster was a tenant in the building of the National Party. Because of the fact that they rented offices in the same building, the hon. member wanted to create the impression here that concessions had been allocated to the National Party. What else would he be doing? Does he think that to carry on in such a manner is something to be proud of? I told him the other day that if one wanted to grow up, one had to do so through one’s own intelligence and ability. But apparently the hon. member only believes in breaking down everything within his reach. As far as I am concerned, I shall leave him at that. If it is his philosophy to want to live, survive and make progress over the dead bodies of those whom he destroyed, he can try to carry on with that process of destruction. But I want to assure him of one thing: in that process he himself will be destroyed.

[Inaudible.]

A great deal has been said about the motor industry, and I now want to proceed to expressing a few thoughts in that regard. The question of the number of models that should be allowed, is one that dates back to 10 years or so ago. At the time there were two points of view. They were known as the Norval group and the Viljoen group. The Norval group in the Board of Trade and Industries held the view that the number of models in the motor manufacturing industry should be left to the normal operation of the market mechanism. In the process of manufacture and as the South African content percentage grew, the market mechanism itself would ensure that the number of models was reduced to a number which would be acceptable to the market. The Viljoen group, on the other hand, held the view that it had to be determined from the top that every motor manufacturer should market probably one or two models, and that the authorities, as it were, had to decide what models were to be assigned to each group of manufacturers. After a lengthy discussion the Norval idea triumphed. It is on that basis that we have developed our entire motor industry. Hon. members will perhaps think that this does not have much bearing on the matter, but it is fundamental to our entire motor industry as regards our efforts to increase the South African content.

Sir, in looking at the position as it is today as compared to what it was before—and this forms part of increasing our South African content—you will see that in 1961 there were 101 basic models and 254 variations. By 1965 this had been reduced to 75 basic models and 146 variations. This figure has dropped to 44 basic, manufactured models in phase III. That merely goes to show that this forms part of the whole pattern. As the South African content is increased, now in the third phase as well, so the large number of models will be reduced.

I may just add in passing that this is a matter on which I think all of us are agreed —the hon. member for Gardens, the hon. member for Yeoville and others. All of us are agreed that there should be fewer models and variations. The industry in South Africa is not so extensive in scope that it can carry so many variations. Phase III was decided upon after discussions, which lasted for a period of two years, had been held with the motor manufacturing industry and the component manufacturers. It goes without saying that the component manufacturers are very anxious for the third phase to be introduced and carried through. To my mind this is only to be expected. This is, after all, one of our manufacturing industries, and therefore we should not ignore their eagerness for phase III to be introduced. After all is said and done, this forms part of our progress in the industrial sphere. The agreement concluded with the motor manufacturers and component manufacturers, was effected, as I said, after discussions which lasted two years. In terms of the agreement there was to be a period of standstill during 1970, and phase III was to extend over a period of six years as from 1st January, 1971. In other words, this phase will extend over the period from 1971 to 1976. Phase III must be introduced during this period. At the end of this period the South African content of motor vehicles will therefore be 66 per cent.

Now, I can say, especially to the hon. member for Yeoville, that in South Africa motor vehicles usually cost more. Recently a certain professor made an analyzis of this matter, and subsequently this was raised at a recent congress of the S.A. Handelsinstituut. According to that analyzis South African motor vehicles cost, on an average, 10 per cent more than do imported models. Of course, this is a complicated calculation, since so many factors are involved, factors such as tax, for instance. But if we continually had to look to what was cheaper, we would never have had any industrial development in South Africa.

But this is a period of inflation.

The hon. member for Yeoville may as well restrain himself a little. I am still going to discuss that with him as well. I know his argument is that at present we find ourselves in a state of inflation and that the previous phases were introduced in more favourable circumstances, but surely we cannot adjust our motor industry according to the economic tendencies we are experiencing. Phase III is going to extend over a period of six years. How does the hon. member know that there is still going to be inflation next year?

You are adjusting the industry to the wrong period.

If the hon. member co-operates with us, we may perhaps have inflation under control by next year. Then the industry will have another five years during which they will be able to adjust to this phase. Without prolonging the argument unnecessarily, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that there are actually two sections amongst the motor manufacturers, sections that have a say in the matter. There are those who are in favour of the implementation of the programme as it was decided upon, especially Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen. They have already made major capital investments for the implementation of this third phase.

Is it not a fact that the three groups you mentioned represent only about a third of the output, and that there are nine other companies who do not share their viewpoint at all?

That may be true. However, the three manufacturers I mentioned, are probably the largest ones in the country. I do not want to argue on the basis of figures, but Volkswagen and Ford and Genera) Motors have already made major capital investments with a view to phase III. If we were now to relax and, for the sake of the said circumstances, prolong phase III unnecessarily or even throw it overboard, we would completely destroy the object we have been pursuing over the years, i.e. the rationalization of the motor industry. I am definitely not in favour of that, and I say that we must continue with phase III. If prices that are 10 per cent higher, are the price we have to pay for achieving our object, then it is most certainly not such a high price to pay.

Why, in the light of the Government’s enforcement of phase III, is the hon. the Minister allowing thousands of fully assembled Toyota 1700 sedan vehicles to come into the country?

The number of fully assembled vehicles has been considerably reduced in recent times and will be reduced even further as we make progress and make concessions in respect of excise duty. The value of the fully assembled passenger cars imported in I960, amounted to R15,6 million, and by 1970 this figure had been reduced to R10,6 million. In other words, as a result of the implementation of our programme over the years, there has been a downward trend in the number of fully assembled cars entering the country.

Therefore I say that we are proceeding with phase III. If, after a year or two, we see that there are problems, the matter can be reviewed in the light of such problems. At the moment, however, any departure from the programme is out of the question.

The hon. member for Springs also discussed the motor industry and the workshops. In this regard I say that if any irregularities occur, whether in workshops or in shops or wherever, if any irregularities and instances of exploitation occur, they can be brought to the attention of my department in order that the necessary investigation may be carried out.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about television and also about films. He wanted to know who the representative of my department would be on the technical advisory committee. It will be Mr. Kitzhoff, the Secretary for Industries.

As far as the manufacture of television sets are concerned, I want to point out to him that in last Friday’s Government Gazette a questionnaire was published, a questionnaire containing a list of questions to prospective manufacturers of picture tubes and of television sets. We could conduct a lengthy debate on the question of how many manufacturers there should or should not be. We should like to make a survey of all interested bodies as regards the manufacture of picture tubes and television sets. The picture tube is, of course, a very important component, and I understand that it represents approximately 40 per cent of the entire set. It would appear that this tube is of such a technical nature that it would probably be in the best interests of South Africa to have only one manufacturer of such tubes. However, the same is not being envisaged as far as the set itself is concerned. As we make progress and ascertain how much interest there is in this regard, we shall guide this matter along the course we should like to follow. Sir, the hon. member believes in a free economy; we also believe in a free economy; that is quite correct, but gone are the days when the economy was regarded as an invisible force that moves along without its being possible for one to do anything about it. Today we manipulate our economy wherever it is manipulable, and we believe that we should apply a measure of manipulation in this regard as well.

The hon. member spoke here about films and the subsidies on films, and wanted to know why there was a minimum and not a maximum. There is a minimum of box-office revenue, and it is only after that that a subsidy is paid on films made in South Africa. There is no maximum. Initially we considered the possibility of introducing a maximum subsidy, but we decided subsequently, after negotiations during the course of which we were convinced that film makers showed a profit on one film and then again a loss on another, that we would rather not lay down a maximum. Furthermore, in the case of the Cape Province the position is different from that of the other provinces, because the Cape Province has done away with entertainment tax. The position of the Cape Province is different from that of the other provinces because of the fact that entertainment tax is not included in the box-office revenue of the Cape Province.

Sir, the hon. member for Parktown spoke about a number of things, and I should like to make an announcement here in regard to the question of exports. Yesterday the hon. member had a great deal to say about exports, and wanted to know whether the Export Promotion Council was still in existence and whether they were continuing their activities. The answer is “yes”. Safta, which, as the hon. member knows, receives a subsidy from the Government for the promotion of South Africa’s exports, is still in existence, too. Sir, I should like to make an announcement with a view to all the problems which the exporters are experiencing.

I can tell you, Sir, that problems do exist. One of the major problems, which we did not mention in our discussions here yesterday, is the question of shipping freight rates, which have increased sharply in recent times; that is inevitable, and actually we cannot do anything about it. As shipping freight rates increase, it is of course more difficult for our people to compete with other organizations in the markets of the world. There are many considerations which we can take into ac. count in regard to the question of how we may promote our exports to the best advantage, I assume that we shall also have to find means, on the basis of which it will be possible for the Government to grant more assistance to exporters. With a view to all these problems that are facing us, the Cabinet approved of a commission of inquiry being appointed to investigate this whole matter. The terms of reference of this commission will read as follows—

Sir, I hope with all my heart that this will prove to be beneficial for and conducive to our exports.

Finally, I should just like to reply, Sir, to the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member spoke here about decentralization, and wanted to know what our policy was; what industries had to be decentralized, etc. With reference to the particulars for which the hon. member for Pinelands asked here, I should now like to make the following statement.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the Government’s policy in regard to the decentralization of industries, and mentioned alleged uncertainties which had arisen in the minds of industrialists.

As hon. members know, the Government appointed an interdepartmental committee last year, under the chairmanship of Dr. Riekert, its terms of reference being to make an assessment, on the basis of the experience gained over the past 10 years, of the progress that has already been achieved with the policy of decentralization, and to make recommendations on how this policy could in future be implemented further in as positive and profitable a manner for our country as possible.

I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that the Cabinet recently considered the committee’s recommendations and took its decisions in that regard. These decisions will, by way of a White Paper, be made known to hon. members shortly, and therefore I do not want to try to give on this occasion a brief summary of all the decisions.

However, I consider it desirable to refer briefly at this stage to some of the decisions which are of direct interest to the industrialists.

As hon. members will know, it has always been one of the basic objects of the policy of industrial decentralization to create more and more opportunities for employment in the Bantu homelands and in the other decentralized areas, but to pursue this objective in a manner which will not result in restraints being imposed on economic growth in the metropolitan areas.

The implementation of this policy has given rise to several complaints on the part of the industrialists. To my mind some of these complaints were unfounded and others were exaggerated. But apparently, in the course of time, a feeling of uncertainty developed amongst industrialists, a feeling which gradually started feeding on itself. In particular, industrialists claimed that there was uncertainty in their minds as to the norms applied in deciding whether or not a specific industry could be decentralized or whether compulsion was going to be exerted on any industry to move to a decentralized area.

As the Government appreciates that economic growth and industrial development are harmed by a feeling of uncertainty, it should like to remove any uncertainty as far as possible. With this end in view it laid down certain guide lines.

As a first guide line, the Government has once again made it clear that it wants to divert industrial activities to the decentralized areas, not through compulsion, but in fact through inducements. The concessions have therefore been extended considerably, as was announced by the Minister of Finance and will be explained further in the White Paper. At the same time it will only be on very rare occasions that any compulsion will be exerted on existing enterprises to move. Moral persuasion will be applied, but not compulsion. In fact, the main emphasis will be laid on attempts at diverting to the decentralized areas a part of the developments that are undertaken and the new enterprises that are about to be established, rather than on trying to induce existing enterprises to move.

In this process of diverting industries the P.W.V. area (the Pretoria-Witwatersrand- Vereeniging area) will have to make the greatest contribution. The reasons are obvious: The Durban-Pinetown area borders on a Bantu homeland; as yet the industrial complex in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area is not a particularly large one, whilst there is no justification for curbing industrial development in the Western Cape, as long as it is not based on Bantu labour.

As far as the P.W.V. area is concerned, the Government has decided that industries which are definitely location-orientated may settle and/or expand freely in this area.

As far as the remaining industries are concerned, it was decided, after mature consideration, to draw a dividing line for the next two years at a labour ratio of one White person per 2,5 Bantu persons. Those industries which have a labour ratio not exceeding 2,5 Bantu persons per I White person, or which can bring down their ratio to this level, will be permitted to settle in the P.W.V. area and/or expand there freely, on the condition that this ratio may not be exceeded. On the other hand, new manufacturing enterprises, which are not location-orientated and which have a ratio of more than 2,5 Bantu persons per one White person, will not be allowed to settle in the P.W.V. area; they will have to settle at a suitable place in the homelands or in the other decentralized areas. Similarly, it will be expected that all substantial expansions of existing industries in the P.W.V. area which are not location-orientated and which have a ratio exceeding 2,5 Bantu persons per one White person, will have to be undertaken in the homelands or in the other decentralized areas.

I said that this ratio would apply for the next two years. After June, 1973, all new enterprises, which are not location- orientated and which have a ratio exceeding two Bantu persons (please note: two and no longer 2.5) for every White person, will no longer be allowed to settle in the P.W.V. area. However, enterprises which were settled prior to 1st June, 1973, and which have a ratio not exceeding 2,5 Bantu persons per one White person, will still be permitted to expand in the P.W.V. area, as long as the ratio of 2,5 to 1 is not exceeded.

In the White Paper a number of refinements as well as further comments are furnished in regard to the implementation of these ratios.

The Government also took certain decisions on the more effective training and utilization of labour, both White and non-White, but I do not wish to elaborate on them now. These aspects will be explained further in the White Paper.

In addition, decisions were taken on coordinating and expediting procedures and eliminating red tape in order that by those means the programme of decentralization may be expedited in general.

As I recently remarked on another occasion, I am convinced that the decisions that were taken, will still not satisfy everybody. Something of that nature is, in any case, unattainable. At the same time I want to repeat the appeal to industrialists to accept these decisions as an honest attempt to assist them without departing from the Government’s declared objective or jeopardizing the attainment thereof. I trust that the Industrialists of our country will now rid themselves of all this talk and writing about uncertainty; that they will now assist in a sincere and purposeful manner in causing this programme of decentralization to be implemented successfully and speedily, and in causing the industrial structure of our country to develop strongly and solidly, and to its full potential.

This White Paper will be tabled as soon as it has been published—it is hoped that this will be done towards the end of next week.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 35.—“Police", R104 422 000:

Allow me at the very outset to stand up and make just a few observations about the retiring Commissioner of the South African Police and the new Commissioner. The retiring Commissioner, as you all probably know, is Gen. J. P. Gous, S.O.O. He is retiring from the Service on pension on 30th June, 1971. If I may say a few words about the life and the career of Gen, Gous, I must begin by stating that it is a very fine and long career in the service of his people and his fatherland which will be terminated on 30th June this year. Gen. Gous was born at Calvinia in the Cape Province on 28th June, 1909. He went to school there. He took his B.A. Degree in Law at the University of Stellenbosch in 1931. He entered the service of the S.A. Police on 18th February, 1932, so you see, Sir. it is almost 40 years ago now, and he has served as an officer since 1st October, 1946. He was appointed Commissioner of the S.A. Police on 1st October, 1968, with the rank of general. He received the following medals: The S.A. Police Star for Merit, the S.A. Police Medal for Faithful Service and the S.A. Police Star for Distinguished Service, the S.O.O. Gen. Gous married Miss Smit in 1937, and happily they are both still in very good health.

I should like to take the opportunity to thank the General most sincerely for the long years of service he has given to the State, and I want to thank him particularly for the pleasant time he and I have worked together. During this period, over the past number of years, when we got to know each other, I heard many anecdotes about Gen. Gous. Sir, this is surely not too big an occasion to mention just one of those anecdotes to you as an example of his success in life. Hon. members heard a moment ago that he was born in Calvinia. where he also grew up. Initially he tended sheep until he was about 12 years old, when he went to school for the first time. He went to a farm school. When, in September of a particular year, he passed standard five at the farm school and had to go to standard six, it was necessary for him to go to town. Hon. members can understand that when he arrived he was, of course, already much older than the other children in standard six, having begun at so late a stage because of the fact that he grew up tending sheep. He went to the principal of the school, Dr. Van Rhyn, and said: “Doctor, may I please have an interview with you?” The doctor then called him to his office and said: “Yes, my boy, what is it?” He then said to Dr. Van Rhyn; “You see, doctor, I am a little on the oldish side. I have just been chatting to the other boys. I have only been in standard six since September, but I am now asking you to put me into standard seven. I think I know just as much as the fellows in standard seven." “No,” Dr. van Rhyn said, “that we really cannot do, my boy.” Then he said: “Doctor, I give you a guarantee that I will do my duty.” The doctor replied: “Very well, we'll try it for three months.” He then put him into standard seven, instead of standard six, and at the end of the first quarter little Gous stood first in his class. That is proof to me of his perseverance and his ability, and why he reached the top of the ladder in the position he occupied in the South African Police. I should like to pay tribute to him today and to thank him very much for his valuable services. I hope and trust that the mature experience he has today, and the knowledge he has gained over the years, can still be used to advantage for his people and his fatherland. I want to wish him and Mrs. Gous a very pleasant period of rest.

A new commissioner for the South African Police has been chosen in the person of Gen. G. J. Joubert, S.O.O. Gen. Joubert was born at Deelpan in Lichtenburg, Transvaal, on 1st December, 1912. Here we now have a Transvaler. He entered the South African Police only a few years after Gen. Gous, on 23rd June, 1932. He married Miss van der Westhuizen and has already been awarded several medals in the South African Police, i.e. the Police Medal for Faithful Service, the South African Police Star for Merit and the S.A. Police Star for Distinguished Service. I should like to wish Gen. Joubert the best of luck in the very difficult task as Commissioner of the South African Police. We know that the head of this Force has already had to lie awake many a night, and definitely that he is kept awake many nights in connection with the responsible service performed by him. I should like to wish him a successful period as Commissioner. I know that, as Gen. Gous received the good support of this House where it was necessary, Gen. Joubert will also receive it whenever necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I would like immediately to associate this side of the House with the sentiments ex pressed by the hon. the Minister in connection with Gen. Gous. We have known him as a very pleasant, efficient and amenable head of this department. He is an officer who has always been in touch with the problems of his department and in touch with the members of the Force. We also wish him and his wife well and a very pleasant and well deserved retirement after a lifetime of service to South Africa. We also wish to welcome at the same time Gen. Joubert, his successor, and hope that we will have the same pleasant association with him as we did with Gen. Gous.

The Police Vote is one which is quite different from the normal departmental Vote in the sense that the Police Force belongs to everybody. It is not a department of State in the normally understood term and has had, since time immemorial, various functions to perform including the detection and apprehension of law offenders. When one looks at the Police report which is tabled every year, and especially this year's, one sees just how much more the South African Police is called upon to do, than is the traditional role of a police force in most countries. They fight a real war on our borders against well trained and well equipped guerrillas. As we sec in the latest report they have to deal with the drug abuse scene which the report indicates is escalating especially as far as juveniles of both sexes are concerned. Indeed. one is alarmed to find that as regards the prosecutions for the possession of dagga in the last year they have increased by 36 per cent, never mind those who have not been detected and apprehended.

On top of this, the Police Force is required to perform certain extraneous duties. On page 9 of the report one finds the following:

In view of the fact that services previously regarded as purely departmental are being performed for other Government departments and increased requests in this regard are continually being received owing to staff shortages experienced by such other departments, this department expended over 2 113 031 man-hours on extraneous services during the year under review.

I may say that in the year before it was nearly one million man-hours. Last year a lot of it may have been due to the elections, but this is an enormous burden to have placed on the Police. In addition they have to administer mortuaries and perform many other duties. In the words of the popular song, “If you want to know the time, ask a policeman”. In South Africa, whatever goes wrong the Police are called upon and they are expected to fix it up.

When one considers this situation against the background of other facts in this report, namely that there is again another rise in the number of crimes of violence and that there has been a concomitant decrease in the establishment of the Force especially where it matters, namely at the grassroots and especially in the number of White constables, then one really gets worried. As the report indicates policemen spend much of their time dealing with extraneous matters like influx control, for example. They have to apprehend offenders and then appear in court and also have to bring these persons from prisons to the courts.

One wonders whether the time has not come, as we have pleaded over the years, for a new look to be taken at the Force and for the Force to be taken away from the purview of the Public Service Commission. It is a completely different entity with completely different factors attending it. If we do not have a proper complement in our Police Force South Africa can look forward to serious difficulties. We have to rely on our Police Force every year in respect of almost every matter and every crisis which arises. During this debate we will suggest ways and means of improving the use of the manpower and ways and means of attracting recruits to the Force, and also ways to combat this increasing wave of crimes of violence.

There are a number of matters which I would like to deal with in the short time at my disposal, and especially with two matters. Although there is a question on the Order Paper for Friday the hon. the Minister’s Vote comes up today. We would like to have from him some explanation as to the apparent detention, as reported in the Press, of a visiting United States judge and two clergymen at the Fordsburg Bantu Commissioner’s Court. I know that a gentleman called Flynn apparently did the detaining. These men were taken to an office where they were questioned while inquiries were made about what they were doing there. It is this sort of thing that does the country such great harm. They were at the Fords burg Bantu Commissioner’s court. One wonders why they were arrested there. They had every right to be there. Our courts are places to which the public has access. Obviously, justice is done and justice must be seen to be done. Why on earth, when they were apparently visiting the court, they could possibly have been detained for questioning, one would like to know. One would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to how this happened. We should also like to have an assurance from him that incidents like this will not happen in future. Whoever Mr. Flynn was, we are not blaming him. One wonders whether there is any supervision in this regard and whether there is any sort of directive that goes out to these people.

The second matter which I should like to raise in the short time at my disposal, is the question which was avoided by the hon. the Minister of Justice, namely that persons are detained for interrogation either under section 6 of the Terrorism Act or under section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act. The hon. the Minister of Police obviously has anticipated that this matter would be raised under this Vote. In fact, we were invited to do so by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Prinshof, his heir presumptive, has also indicated that it should be raised under this Vote.

The hon. the Minister of Police will recall that when section 6 was introduced in the Terrorism Act for the purpose of interrogation, he was the only person who spoke from the Treasury benches in the Committee Stage. The only case he made was that the section 22 provision, under which a person has to be brought before a judge within 14 days, could be applied on the borders. That was the only case the hon. the Minister made.

No, that is not so.

Yes, that is so and Hansard will show it. That is the case the hon. the Minister of Police made. Never mind the hon. the Minister of Justice. He does not know what he said. We will deal with this case which the hon. the Minister of Police made. The only other case that could have been made, is that apparently one could not make out a case within 14 days to satisfy a judge that you could detain for interrogation. If that is the other case, surely you do not detain a person if you do not have the facts. That is the only implication there is, namely that you do not have the facts to go to a judge, but despite the fact that you do not have the basic facts to prove your case, you nevertheless are prepared to detain for interrogation.

The hon. the Minister of Police owes this House an explanation as to why it is that in the three years since the passing of the Terrorism Act, only five people were detained under section 22 of the 1966 Act in terms of which a person has to be brought before a judge who, after having heard your case and the other side, determines the conditions of interrogation or may release the person if there is no case. The evidence is that the Security Police are a law unto themselves. They just interrogate anyone they like. There is no control whatsoever. But there is apparently no direction whatsoever given either. It appears quite clearly from the evidence that is available, from the questions that have been answered, from the newspaper reports and from the statements issued by the Police that the overwhelming majority of persons taken into detention in the urban areas within walking distance of a judge, are detained in terms of section 6 and not in terms of section 22 of the 1966 Act which provides that you should go to a judge. This is the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. Let me say that it does not do the image of the Force any good at all when you have the Security Branch acting as it does without any control whatsoever. The responsibility in respect of this sort of legislation is so great that it should at least be shared by our judges to whom our law has given that responsibility in certain circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the speech that has just been delivered by the hon. member for Durban North, I should first just like to refer to page 1 of the Police Report which is before the House. The role of honour appears on this page. I should like to congratulate the persons mentioned in that role of honour on the medals they received and on the honour bestowed on them by the Police Force. We also want to express our sympathy for those of our Police Force who died while they were protecting us, the South African public. In this respect I am thinking, in particular, of the two persons who died recently on the borders while they were fighting for our country against terrorism. We in South Africa are privileged in the sense that we can sleep soundly at night, in the sense that we can rear our children in peace, that we can come and speak to each other in this House, that we can have our differences of opinion outside the House, that we can enjoy our lives, that we can go to the cinema and to the threatres because there are boys in blue uniforms keeping watch over South Africa within and on its borders. We want to tell those men that we are aware of the big task resting on their shoulders. We are aware of the responsibility with which they are performing that task, and from this House we want to express our thanks and pay tribute to them.

The hon. member for Durban North has just made an attack on the hon. the Minister of Police, in connection with the detentions in terms of the Terrorist Act. The hon. member will no doubt excuse me if I say that his attacks almost border on wilfulness, as far as I am concerned. The hon. member is a legal man, and he knows just as well as I do that we cannot only combat terrorism on the borders of South Africa. The hon. member knows that terrorism and communism work together as one group and that one is simply an outcome of the other. He knows that it takes place in small cells, and that those cells move from South Africa’s borders to the interior. He knows that our police must have the power to apprehend people, because the very people who are caught, are the people who must give evidence and the people who are accused. The police must decide which people can act as witnesses and which of those people, who are being detained, will be the accused. The hon. member must not think that it is merely a movement taking place on the borders of South Africa, South-West Africa, etc. These things are taking place in South Africa. That is why I want to tell him today that even if he speaks about this Act a hundred times, we on this side of the House are glad the police have so much power. We trust the police not to exceed those powers, because they can use those powers for a good purpose. I see the hon. member shaking his head as if he does not agree with that. I say that the police are going to use their powers to make South Africa safe, for me as well as for that hon. member. I want to give the hon. member an example, and I want to show him how irresponsible he really was in his attacks on the two Ministers, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police. In the last debate the hon. member referred to the Imam Haron.

Yes.

Yes, very well. We shall refer to him, I know the hon. member thinks that we are a little afraid to speak about the Imam. We shall speak about the Imam. Since the hon. member is the shadow Minister of Police and Justice on the other side of the House, I want to ask him to answer a few questions. The hon. members will remember that the Imam was detained for the following reasons. The reasons were furnished at the judicial inquiry that took place after his death. It was slated under oath that there was reason to believe, firstly. that students going abroad or to Mecca were recruited by the Imam for terrorist training in Red China. Then there was a strong suspicion that he recruited members for the P.A.C. and that he received thousands of rand from overseas for illegal application within South Africa. There was a suspicion that he had contravened the foreign exchange control by taking thousands of rand from the Republic of South Africa for political refugees abroad. There was also a suspicion that he had visited the terrorist headquarters in Cairo and that he was in contact with overseas terrorists. I now ask the shadow Minister of Justice and Police on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Durban North, to tell me whether, under these circumstances, he would have let the Imam Haron go free or whether he would have allowed him to be detained in gaol. What does the hon. member for Durban North say? I should like to know what the hon. shadow Minister would have done.

Why did he die?

We shall have a look at why he died. He died in prison- I concede as much to the hon. member— but now he must tell me where the irresponsibility lies, as he stated in the Sunday Times last week. Where is there irresponsibility on the part of the Minister in this case? What happened after the Imam had died? A full judicial inquest was ordered, and the magistrate found that he could not charge anyone with having been the cause of the Imam’s death. There was a full investigation, hut the magistrate made certain statements. He said that he could not ascertain further why certain things happened to the Imam. What did a responsible Minister do? Now the hon. member, as shadow Minister, must tell us what he would have done after a judicial inquest if the magistrate had said that he could not find anyone guilty. What would that hon. member on the other side of the House have done? A responsible Minister on this side of the House ordered a further investigation. Because the Security Police had detained the Imam in prison, they obtained a detective officer from another division of the Security Police to institute further investigations in order to ascertain whether there weren’t perhaps problems which the Security Police had not brought to light. The information, which the detective discovered, was submitted in full to the Attorney-General of the Cape. The Attorney-General certified that he could find no evidence to charge anyone with any crime. The hon. member must now tell us: What must, what can a responsible Minister do after that? Is it now fair to go and write this kind of article in the Sunday Times?—

Mr. Mitchell said that if the Minister discharged his duty properly, the tragedy which befell the Imam, who died while in detention under the Terrorist Act, might never have occurred.

I think it is a scandalous statement after everything that had taken place here.

It is nevertheless true.

It is nevertheless true that he just died But it is not true that there was negligence on the part of the hon. Ministers. That is what is scandalous.

1 now come to the hon. member for Wynberg, and I regret her absence from the House. Here we had the other scandalous statements. Thereafter the Imam’s wife sued the State for R22 125. There was subsequently a R5 000 settlement. What does the hon. member for Wynberg say about that? According to the Argus of 19th May, 1971—

ex gratia payment to the widow of the Imam was tantamount to an admission on the part of the authorities that he did not die a natural death,

Quite right.

I think that is a scandalous statement to make, for this simple reason. I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg knows it, but the hon. member for Durban North should know it, and he has just now supported his co-member. When there is a court case like this, there is usually talk of a settlement. In actual fact, the initiative for the settlement did not come from the State at all. I think hon. members should be aware of that. The initiative for the settlement came from the other side. It came from the legal representatives of the Imam. The State decided to accept the terms of settlement.

Why?

It was laid down in court that it was on purely compassionate grounds and without an admission of liability. That is why. The hon. member should realize this. I think it was virtually impossible for the widow to prove any of her claims. I think it was on compassionate grounds that this settlement was entered into. The United Party are always asking this side to be compassionate, and when we are compassionate on this side, what happens? Then they construe it as an admission of guilt. [Time expired]

The hon. member for Prinshof will excuse me if I do not react to his argument because I have more constructive matters to talk about.

When we discussed the Police Vote last year, we were accused by the other side that we concentrated on matters of administration rather than indulging in politics. But the S.A. Police is not the tool of any political party but the servant of the people. As such they do their duty without fear or favour, irrespective of colour or creed and irrespective of whether you are rich or poor. They perform their duty loyally and with devotion. It is with pride that it can be said of the Police that anybody coming to a charge office is attended to with courtesy and respect. They do not look at the colour of the skin of the person, nor at his status. They perform their duties at all times with impartiality. The Minister knows this because both he and his predecessors from way back have lost no opportunity of thanking the Police publicly for the impartiality they show in the discharge of their duties, and I as one who have served with them know what it is. This has been said at medal parades, at passing out parades and at the opening of police stations and other similar functions. During the past few weeks the Police have received much publicity. Prominence has been given to the conspicuous success they have achieved in their endeavours, and quite rightly so. Those of us who attended the RSA 10 festivities saw the S.A. Police exhibition and when they were presented with The Colours by the Prime Minister. It was a most noteworthy event, one which filled all policemen and ex-policemen with pride. In the circumstances we salute and congratulate the S.A. Police for their loyal, devoted and brilliant work. In his address the hon. the Prime Minister with all justification proudly praised the Police for their loyalty and devotion to duty and for their impartiality in serving the public. Members are proud to serve under the motto of the Force, “servamus et servimus”. As I have said, the hon. the Minister has never failed to praise the Police for what they have done. We agree that that praise should have been given. But is this sufficient? I submit it is not! The time has arrived that something drastic must be done to improve the lot of these policemen, otherwise we are going to see the war of attrition against the manpower shortage fizzling out and the Force coming to a dead stop.

I want to confine my remarks to housing. Long ago I put certain written questions to the hon. the Minister about housing for the three services, i.e. the Police, the Defence Force and the Prison Service. Rentals payable by policemen are based on living rooms. I find that rental paid by men living in wood-and-iron quarters and in brick quarters erected before and since the 1st January, 1945 ranged, for a four- roomed house between R6 and R10 for a constable; R8 to R12 for a sergeant R10 to R14 for a warrant officer, and so on. An officer higher than a brigadier paid somewhere in the region of R42 for a six- roomed house. In the Defence Force a general pays R41, a lieutenant-general R38 and a major general R35. a brigadier R32, a colonel R29 and so on down the scale, to the detriment of the S.A. Police. As far as the Department of Prisons is concerned, and I know in what beautiful houses prison officers live, and according to the reply I received from the Minister, non-commissioned officers paid rental according to the number of rooms in the house whilst commissioned officers paid according to the floor area. In both instances the monthly rental fluctuated between R1-90 to R21-70 for a brick building and between R1-45 to R9-95 for an iron and prefabricated building. Here we have members of these three services living in Government quarters with this vast discrimination in rentals. With whom does this discrimination lie? Does it lie with the Public Service Commission or with the Minister? In any event, I should like to make a strong plea that uniformity be brought about because why should the S.A. Police be discriminated against? After all, they are our first line of defence and as such have to bear the heat and burden of the day. I have here a cutting from the Sunday Express of the 30th May. What tickles my fancy is that the Department of Community Development, which rents houses to East Rand policemen and warders from Modderbee, has promised to make improvements to the homes. This happened after the women had complained. Why did the department not attend to this beforehand and why did the hon. the Minister not see to it that these houses were fit for policemen to live in before they were occupied? Another source of grievance with the police is the difference in rentals being paid by policemen within the Republic as compared with the rentals paid in South-West Africa. In South-West Africa, according to the reply I received from the Minister, the rental for a one- roomed flat was R2-50 and the most a policeman paid was R15, which is for a seven-roomed house. Over and above this to rub salt into the wound, we find that the Police in South-West Africa who do not live in a Government house, get a housing allowance. A married man with no children receives R33 per month, R42 if he has one child and R45 when he has two or more children. A single person receives R11 per month. This is a disastrous anomaly and I would plead with the Minister to see to it that something is done about it. This is a source of friction in the Police Force. How can you blame a man who is stationed in Springbok in Namaqualand looking across the Orange River to his counterpart stationed at Warmbad receiving all these perks in comparison with his own niggardly position? [Time expired.]

This side of the House will, of course, always agree with the hon. member for Umlazi in his plea for more, better and cheaper housing for the Police, subject to what is possible at that stage. We shall always support him as far as that is concerned.

Sir, in the short time at my disposal I immediately want to come back to the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member for Durban North's problem is, of course, that in this debate today he must compete with the hon. member for Houghton; hence his outrageous allegations with reference to section 6 of the Terrorism Act, saying that the Security Police are subject to “no control whatsoever” when they detain people under this Act. But, Sir, the hon. member did not take the basic trouble to read the entire section 6 of the Terrorism Act. At all times the police must, in the first place, consult an independent Minister about the matter—not their own Minister, but the Minister of Justice.

And what does he care?

In all important aspects the Minister of Justice has the final say. Does the hon. member now want to tell me that the Minister of Justice is merely a puppet who will endorse everything the Security Police do in that connection? Sir, I scornfully reject the hon. member’s allegation because it is not based on fact.

Sir, in addition I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Prinshof and say that we make no excuses for section 6 of the Terrorism Act. With what type of person are we dealing here? Let me refer to a very excellent book which a policeman, Michael Morris, wrote, a book which has just been published and which is called “Terrorism”. With what type of person are we dealing here, I refer to page 183 of this book, where he quotes a portion of the statement of a terrorist who had been caught; he states—

40-A.H Vol 3

Sir, on our part we also say to these terrorists: “A war is a war”, and we are not as apologetic to these people as the United Party is.

But they protect the communists as well.

In addition I want to say that as far as this kind of thing is concerned, there are numerous items of proof of what is being done in other countries. I just want to refer the Committee to what is happening in hallowed India, the country which cannot do any wrong in the eyes of any U.N. powers. In India they have the Preventive Detention Bill of 1950, and what did the relevant Minister say at the time when the measure was introduced? He said—

I say that this is precisely what we say and what we are doing in this country.

Then further, in the short time at my disposal. I want to express my appreciation, as far as cases of robbery are concerned, for the high percentage of cases that are solved. And now I want to ask the hon. the Minister this. I know it is a difficult case. The case is still sub judice, but the fact remains that all the money has virtually been recovered. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not want to lift the veil of secrecy slightly about the excellent work done by the Police and the Detective Branch in the Trust Bank incident. I think it would be very interesting to lift that veil of secrecy a little.

In addition, as far as training is concerned, I would like to say that I have the utmost appreciation for the fact that quite a few additional bursaries for academic training have been granted and that there has been a demand for even more. But I want to allege that quite a bit more can be done about this, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that continuous efforts should be made for increasingly more police to take additional academic examinations over and above their normal Police examinations. I think that this would increase further the prestige of our excellent Police Force. One is especially proud when one reads on the next page of the report, page 4, of the excellent percentages of pupils who passed certain subjects, particularly subjects such as common law, statute law and criminal procedure. It is there for everyone to read, but there have been excellent improvements in the percentage of passes, and I want to tell the Police that we are proud of the Force for it.

Before I resume my seat, I want to broach this question of the police uniforms. and say that in my humble opinion it is time for the uniforms of the Police Force to be renewed. It is probably not the job of a humble member of Parliament, and perhaps not even the hon. the Minister’s job, to say that something like this should happen, because it remains a matter for the senior police officers to decide about. But I think that since other services, for example the Army, are working along these lines, it is time for our Police Force to also do something about this. Since we specifically have a problem in connection with insufficient young Whites joining the Police Force, I think it would be a factor to help recruiting if a more modern uniform is made available for the younger men.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by saying that I wish Gen. Gous a happy and peaceful retirement and that I wish his successor a very successful term of office. I can assure him now that he has taken over that I will continue to ply the department with the same questions that I have troubled his predecessor with. I was interested to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Prinshof about the Imam and section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I am astonished that he. who is after all an advocate and has surely been trained to know that a man is not guilty until he has been so proved, should have assumed that all the charges which he believed were going to be laid against the Imam were in fact proved.

1 only said they had reason to believe it.

No, the hon. member has no reason to believe anything, because the Imam was never charged in a court of law. I do not know whether he was guilty or not, but nor does the hon. member for Prinshof know whether the Imam would have been found guilty or not guilty. Therefore I am astonished that he should have pre-judged the case long before it ever came to court. That is the first thing I want to say.

The second point is that, if this were a compassionate grant given to the Imam’s widow, I would suggest the State take the same steps in regard to the other people who have also died in detention under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. To the best of my knowledge there are at least seven such people. Maybe the hon. the Minister would like to consider giving compassionate grants to the dependants of other people who have died while in detention under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Nobody really knows how many people are involved under this Act, since it is never in the public interest to reveal these figures. One does not know whether there are dozens, scores or hundreds of such people who are being held in detention and nobody knows for how long they have been held in detention. Yet only a few months ago, the hon. the Minister told us that there was not a single terrorist within our borders. I do not know about this war the hon. member behind me was talking about, but all I can say is that it has been very successfully waged and why should it not be? I would like to point out to this Committee that we are spending more than R315 million on defence and we are spending more than R104 million on the Police. If between them with an expenditure of R420 million this year we are not able to cope with a few terrorists, as they are called, on our borders, I personally would be very surprised indeed.

I have raised before and I raise again the question of the sort of people who are being held under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I say again that it is hard to get any information about this, because section 6 itself lays down that no information need be given. That is part of the provision, so there is no point in being surprised that we get so little information about this. It is one of the reasons why I so strongly opposed the law in principle at Second Reading and again when the clause was introduced at the Committee Stage. All sorts of people have been detained in the past under this Act. Eventually the details have come out in the cases where people have been charged.

People have been charged, who were not terrorists, but tribal people who were engaged in faction fights. We have had people engaged in infringements of currency regulations arrested originally under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. This Act lends itself to abuse and is the sort of Act which gives a mighty weapon to the Police. It allows them to take short cuts and I say that they are taking short cuts.

We do not know why the Dean of Johannesburg was ever detained under the Terrorism Act. I doubt if we ever will know that. Twenty-two people were acquitted last year on two lots of charges: one under the Suppression of Communism Act and the second under the Terrorism Act. One of those people has been rearrested under section 6. I refer to Peter Magubane, who has now served something like a year and a half in all under section 6 of the Terrorism Act in solitary confinement. How long is it going to take the Government to discover whether or not this man is in fact guilty of any offence under the Terrorism Act and how long is it going to be before he is charged again? If he is perhaps acquitted once again, are we going to have the constantly recurring scene that a man is acquitted and re-arrested under this Act or acquitted and placed under the most severe restrictions? I think that the hon. the Minister owes some explanation about this one case, if no other case. Some twenty people were arrested earlier this year under the Terrorism Act. Five of those people have been charged already. What have they been charged with? They have not been charged with terrorism. According to an answer the hon. the Minister gave me. they were charged with contraventions of section 24 of Act 22 of 1913. That is an Act which deals with prohibited immigrants, for which the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment. Yet these people were held for months on end under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I want to know about the 20 people who were arrested in February this year. Five have been charged and a few released, but I do not know how many. Certainly some are still held, and I have received anxious letters from their relatives asking me if I can find out if they are all right. Everybody has read about what has happened to the Imam and everybody knows that other people have died while being held in detention under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I do not say they are dead or that they have been harmed, but I want a public reassurance from the hon. the Minister, and I am perfectly entitled to ask for it, that these persons are in fact all right. I would like to be able to assure the relatives of these people that they are all right and that the interrogations which have been held have not done them any harm. Some of them are not very healthy people and I think the least the hon. the Minister can do is to stand up in this House and to give his personal assurances that he knows that the people who were detained in February and are still in detention, are in fact all right. I think one is entitled to know that.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] You just wait until Dr. Treurnicht gets here. Then you can start all your “konkel-ing” in the caucus all over again. I want to raise with the Minister the whole question of assaults by the Police. According to figures which I have been given by him, during 1969 and 1970 480 policemen were convicted in courts of law of common assault. The services of 455 of those men were retained. Of these 455, 62 had previous convictions, 24 of these for assault. During the same two years, 36 policemen were convicted of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The services of 20 of these were retained and of these 20, four had previous convictions, two of them for assault. In 1970, three policemen were convicted of culpable homicide and the services of one of them were retained. This policeman had two previous convictions, both for reckless driving. Also during 1970, one policeman was convicted of attempted murder and his services were retained. Commenting on the fact that the services of 495 policemen convicted of crimes of violence during 1969 and 1970 had been retained, the Commissioner of Police said that if the Police had to fire everyone who committed an offence, or who had previous convictions, it would not show much of a belief in the rehabilitation of the individual. I want to point out that the Commissioner has his ideas somewhat mixed. As I see it, the function of the Police Force is to maintain law and order and to protect the public. It is not the function of the Police Force to rehabilitate policemen convicted of crimes. I would say that that is the function of the Prisons Department and I would like to get this on record. The Commissioner did say that most of the assaults were of a relatively minor nature, but I find this very hard to believe. I understand that before these cases even come before the courts they have to get the sanction of the Attorney-General and I find it very difficult to believe that such cases would be allowed to come before the courts if they were of a minor nature. When one reads of these cases they certainly do not appear to be cases of minor assaults. In 1970 the authorized establishment of the Police Force was 34 378 and the 495 that I have mentioned who were convicted of crimes of violence during 1969 and 1970, are a very small percentage indeed of the total Police Force. I think it is all the more reason for dispensing with their services. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, virtually every year the hon. member for Houghton comes along with the same type of speech she made here this afternoon. I do not blame her for it, because she has her friends. She must look after her friends' interests.

I do not know quite what you are insinuating, but I do not know a single one of these people.

I am not insinuating anything at all. What I want to tell the hon. member I shall do openly. One of the hon. member’s friends is Nusas.

What has Nusas got to do with terrorism?

Just after the hon. member for Houghton receives a reply to a question in this House, that information appears in the newsletters of Nusas as follows, and I refer to a Nusas newsletter, volume 2 of 19th March, 1971—

That is why I refer to certain friends of the hon. member. I should now like to know from the hon. member what she is trying to achieve by putting questions to the hon. the Minister year after year in connection with how assaults were made on the public by the police, and then emphasizing those replies in this House again by the same kind of argument she used this year.

I now want to ask the hon. member why, on occasion, she does not emphasize the other aspects of the matter? Why does the hon. member not emphasize the small percentage of policemen who are, in fact, involved in these assaults?

I have just mentioned it now. Did you not hear me?

Why does the hon. member not tell the public at large that this number is a fraction of 1 per cent of the total force of a little more than 31 000 men? Why does the hon. member not refer to two of the questions she asked this year? I should like to refer to question 320 in column 347 of Hansard, where the hon. member put the following question to the Minister—

Then I also want to refer to question 325 which appears in column 438 of Hansard. Here the hon. member for Houghton asks the Minister of Police the following question—

Why does the hon. member make a distinction in the information requested? Why does the hon. member not tell the public at large that in 1969 ten policemen, excluding those on the borders, were killed in the execution of their duties? hon. members know themselves that last week two policemen were killed on the border, and on previous occasions a further number. Why does the hon. member not say that in 1970 three policemen were killed in the execution of their duty? And why does the hon. member not say that in 1969 1 806 policemen were injured in the execution of their duties? These figures do not include the numbers killed in vehicular accidents or on the borders. I am prepared to guarantee that 99 per cent of these are assaults on the police by the public. In 1970 this figure stood at 1 893. This is a tremendously large number of injuries to the police in the execution of their duties. I am convinced that the absolute majority of these cases are due to physical assaults on the police by the public. One year the hon. member should at least stand up here and emphasize the positive side of the matter.

That is not the purpose of this Committee. Do you not understand the purpose of this Committee?

The hon. member is quite entitled to her criticism. I am sorry, but I only have ten minutes and cannot therefore, listen to what the hon. member is asking me. However. I shall have the opportunity of seeing it. The hon. member now wants to imply that there are not terrorists within the borders of South Africa. I do not want to say that Nusas is a terrorist movement. I also just want to mention that the chairman of Nusas is brave enough to say—

I want to tell him that the day will come when someone else’s pants will be sued off him about communism. It will not be the Minister’s. One does not need to overdramatize these documents. If one just reads these documents that are distributed by an organization that is not banned, one cannot but tell oneself that here we have the blood brothers of the communists. What is the difference between a communist and a terrorist? The hon. member for Houghton knows very well what the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 83 of 1967 are. The hon. member also knows very well that in terms of the definition of “terrorist”, everyone who is guilty of the things mentioned in this provision is regarded as being a terrorist.

The hon. member for Durban North knows it even better than the hon. member for Houghton. He is a legal man. But my impression is that the hon. member for Houghton is an even better lawyer than the hon. member for Durban North. One must censure the hon. member for Durban North on the standpoint he adopted in the Justice Vote and today in the Police Vote. He wants to create the impression that in 1967 we placed an Act on the Statute Book whereby we merely wanted to catch terrorists on the borders of South-West Africa.

That was the motivation.

That was not the motivation. The hon. member knows that I do not have the time to give him the motivation, but he can simply read column 7101 and the succeeding columns in Hansard. Then the hon. member will have to be big enough to stand up in this House and say that he acted wrongly in the Justice Vote, and again here today, and that he created the wrong impression while he knew that this was not the way things stood. This section in this Act qualifies all action throughout South Africa, in the interior and on the borders. Here we sit with the people on our front and back doorsteps. No, now we must not catch the people and arrest them, because the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Durban North, who are so close as far as political thinking is concerned, do not want it.

Certainly not.

Yes, I know the hon. member will object, but the hon. member for Durban North does not object. Those two hon. members continually want to get up on their high horse about the provisions of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I can give hon. members the assurance that all responsible people—I almost said “other” responsible people, because those two hon. members are not very responsible as far as this matter is concerned—in South Africa are very grateful for the provision and for its implementation by the police. I can give hon. members the assurance, and they have heard it repeatedly from this side of the House and from the hon. the Minister, that this side of the House joins those hon. members and the police in wanting the provisions of section 6 to be implemented justly by the police. Now the hon. member must not come along and say …

Why is the hon. the Minister of Justice’s name included in section 6?

I include the hon. the Minister of Justice in my argument. Now the hon. member for Houghton must not come along now and say that people were arrested here and eventually only charged in terms of the provisions of the Immigration Act. The hon. member surely knows that the legal provision has specifically been stated in these terms because we are dealing with people against whom one cannot simply prove everything. It requires weeks and months of investigation. These are clever, cunning and crafty people, crooks and murderers. We must try to get that information, and in many cases we know that we are dealing with a murderer and a terrorist, and one would like to cut his throat, but one cannot prove the fact. The only thing one could possibly do eventually is to charge him in terms of the Immigration Act because he entered the country as an illegal immigrant. Such cases can crop up, and the hon. member surely knows this very well. The hon. member mentioned the 22 accused who were discharged in Johannesburg. The hon. member surely knows that those 22 were not discharged on the merits of the case. They were charged on technicalities.

The first time?

It was the same time and also the first time. The second time they only had more of an opportunity to rely on the technicalities. The hon. member knows this very well.

I want to accuse the hon. members, who objected to section 6 of this Act, of unpatriotic conduct towards South Africa.

However, there is one other pleasant matter I want to mention before I conclude my speech. I want to associate myself with what was said of the two Commissioners, the retiring Commissioner and the new Commissioner. Then I should also like to congratulate the department on the truly lovely report that is published annually. It is a very comprehensive and informative report, a report which redounds to the honour of the department.

I must state at the outset that I agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. We on this side of the House do not support terrorism; we hate it as much as they do. It must be stopped at all costs and every attempt must be made to prevent terrorists from crossing our borders.

You better tell that to Mike Mitchell.

I am delighted to have another ex-member of the S.A. Police with me in this hon. House to support me in Police matters.

I should now like to thank the Commissioner of the S.A. Police and his officers, N.C.O.s and men, both White and non-White, for the wonderful service they have rendered to the country for the protection they have given us during the past year. The present Commissioner of Police is now retiring and we wish him and his wife luck. I sincerely hope that they will enjoy a long period of retirement. Coming to his successor, I am extremely proud this afternoon to be able to say that he is an old colleague of mine and that he actually served under me. I congratulate him for having climbed up the ladder the way he has done. He is now going to occupy the hottest seat in South Africa, but knowing his cool temperament I am quite certain that he will be able to keep this hot seat cool.

From the Police report I notice that numerous members of the S.A. Police have been decorated and commended, and would like to add our appreciation to that already mentioned in the report. I notice with pleasure that no White policemen have been discharged for drunkenness or as a result of a conviction in a court of law. A special word of appreciation must go out to the investigating officers for the very excellent results achieved by them in investigating serious crime, especially in cases where large amounts of money were stolen and ransom demanded. I notice that 5¼ million lb. of dagga have been confiscated and destroyed by them, to the value of more than R20 million.

I am sure that the strenuous laws which have recently been promulgated to suppress drugs will help the S.A. Police so that it will not be necessary for us to pass harsher laws and make it a capital offence. In last night's Argus there was a small news item about the way in which they regard drug offences in Teheran. According to this item an army firing squad executed four drug traffickers in Teheran, bringing the total executed so far to 84. It is stated here that under an anti-drug law in force since December, 1969, those caught with more than 2 grammes of heroin, morphine or cocaine are tried by military courts and sentenced to death on conviction. It does not sound as if there is very much chance for an appeal on conviction in Teheran!

Our own Police have always been our first line of defence. It is their duty to enforce law and order. In the process they continuously move from one trouble spot to another even beyond the borders of South Africa if necessary. From my own experience I can say that these trouble spots can be most dangerous. Evidence of this was given in this House by the Minister a few days ago when he announced that in the Caprivi Strip a terrorist-laid landmine blew up a troop carrying vehicle of the S.A. Police, killing two and injuring seven policemen. We must pause and sympathize with the next-of-kin of these men; but is sympathy sufficient, and are the ex gratia payments and pensions really adequate for the widows and dependants? In view of the danger attaching to the service and the resulting difficulty of recruiting suitable young men, is it not time to think of some way of making this branch of the service more attractive? One notices, especially, that during the year under review no less than 1 311 Europeans purchased their discharge. The question is how to stop this erosion. It has been suggested that on recruitment all police recruits be issued with a free life insurance policy to the value of R10 000 in addition to the normal pension and gratuity that they may eventually earn. This would go a long way to ease their minds as far as their dependants are concerned, especially in the event of a member being killed or seriously injured on duty.

Last year a new medical scheme was introduced. At the time I asked that the proposed monthly contribution be reduced; but when the scheme came into being the fee had actually been increased, preventing many old members and their dependants from joining the scheme. We cannot compare those old members’ pensions with the pensions of today’s retirements. Is it not possible to ask the Government to subsidize the scheme? They are old people and probably they do not have very long to live.

Another matter that is causing dissatisfaction is the housing question, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. I feel that all members of the Force should be given a housing allowance. In the light of the cost of houses and the exorbitant rent for houses and flats, how can the young men of today ever save sufficient money to pay a deposit to get a loan for a house? I feel that all members should be given a subsidy—in the case of younger men, the department can even control it —to enable them to save the money they require for that purpose. I must also mention the older men who had been thrifty in their younger days and paid off their houses. Should they not also receive a house allowance the same as any other member of the Force.

Another question is that of overtime. Very often, when there is a shortage of staff and when they are off duty, they are called out for extra duty. They do these extra duty periods willingly. I say they should be paid overtime for these periods. It is with pleasure that I notice that women police are to be recruited and especially that they will receive equal pay with their male counterparts. But what about the other women employees in the department? Should they not also receive equal salaries, remembering that they are relieving uniformed men for ordinary Police duties? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City must excuse me if I do not follow him up in his argument. I nevertheless want to express my appreciation to him as an ex-police officer for his positive contribution as far as the South African Police Force is concerned. It is to be appreciated.

Before I begin, I also just want to take the opportunity of thanking the retiring Commissioner of Police, Gen. Gous, very sincerely for what he has done for the South African Police Force in the past. Gen. Gous has meant a great deal to me personally, particularly there in the North-Eastern Cape, where tremendous problems cropped up as a result of stock thefts. That is why I want to express my personal appreciation to him. In the second place I also want to congratulate Gen. Joubert sincerely on his appointment as the new Commissioner of Police. We know that he is a very competent police officer. We know that he has come far and that he is also going to achieve a great deal of success as leader of the South African Police. The best of luck and every success to him in the future!

The hon. member for Houghton here mentioned persons who died while under detention, but neglected to mention the two policemen who lost their lives in the Caprivi Strip. The hon. member did not even take the trouble to first express commiseration with the South African Police Force on the loss they suffered in the Caprivi Strip—the two persons killed and seven wounded. But I want to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy to the next-of-kin of those two policemen who died, Mr. Henning and Mr. Dobbin, an English-speaking fellow from Natal, who was buried at Dalton the day before yesterday. Our sympathy is extended to their next-of-kin. When we adopt the attitude of wanting to present people who died accidentally while in detention in such a light that they are ostensibly tragic heroes in South Africa, we are surely going to make trouble for ourselves. Surely those people were not simply taken cheerfully into custody. They gave cause for their arrest. But the hon. member for Houghton also refers scornfully to the South African Police Force; but the S.A.P.—and this includes the South-West African Police —represents a mere 1,56 per I 000 inhabitants. In Israel the figure is 3.22 per 1 000 inhabitants. In other words. Israel is much better protected than this “terrible” South Africa. In South Africa we are quite safe as far as that is concerned. We are proud of our Police Force. They are the symbol of security here in South Africa.

But I must make haste. Today I want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister. Today the Department of Police is the biggest department in the Public Service. The year before last the Department of Posts and Telegraphs gained its autonomy. The Railways has been autonomous for years. I want to advocate that the Department of Police be taken out of the Public Service. The Department of Police is a unique department and cannot be compared with other Government Departments. The South African Police is organized on a military basis. They also have military ranks. The ordinary Public Service is not organized on a military basis. They nevertheless also have ranks. But I now want to compare the ranks. There are only four ranks in the Public Service of R6 900 per year. In the Police Force there are seven. The S.A.P. does not fit into the Public Service pattern, I want to point out that according to the yearbook the year’s losses total 1 795. On the other hand, the number of members recruited for the Police Force stands at 1 462. There is a consequent shortage of 333 members. Something is wrong somewhere. Last year the hon. the Minister of Police addressed 990 trained policemen at the passing out parade, and only 90 of those 990 policemen were English-speaking. I want to appeal to English-speaking South Africa to also make a contribution in respect of the South African Police Force. I think it is time they also made their contribution by serving in our first line of defence. It is very important, because 90 out of 990 is not even 10 per cent of the total number of recruits who qualified at the Police College last year. Today I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister for the removal of the Department of Police from the Public Service; for the Department of Police to stand on its own feet and become autonomous under a Police Board, as is the case in Britain, for example. I do not want to play the Police off against the Public Service Commission; that is not my idea, but the Police Force must have its own board. When they have their own board, which will ensure that justice is done as far as the Police Force is concerned, the Police Force will also be functioning along the right lines, and I believe that we shall then also obtain more recruits for the South African Police Force. Since the Police Force is at present under the Public Service Commission, it is difficult to get the necessary recruits for the Police Force, and we urgently need recruits.

Sir, the criticism of the hon. member for Durban North against the Minister is that there is every appearance of section 6 of the Terrorism Act having been misused; that is to say of its having been used for purposes other than that for which it was intended. The hon. member for Potchefstroom tried to make the case that in fact it was always the intention (hat section 6 should be of general application. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the words which he used at the Committee Stage of the Terrorism Bill when clause 6 of that Bill was being dealt with. The hon. the Minister of Police was the only Minister to sneak at the Committee Stage of this Bill. The hon. gentleman piloting the Bill, the hon. the Minister of Justice, did not speak. At column 7096 of the Hansard of 2nd June, 1967, the hon. the Minister said this, and from what I shall quote nothing could be clearer than that this clause was intended to be of limited application in respect of the sphere of terrorism only. The hon. the Minister said this—

The hon. gentleman then went on in the same speech to categorize the peculiar circumstances with which the Police had to deal in relation to terrorists—the type of terrain that they encountered, the distances that they were situated from judicial offices with the result that the provisions of clause 22 could not be invoked. He gave as an example the attack on the Bantu Affairs building at Grootfontein. Every instance given by the hon. the Minister in the pages that follow was designed to support the contention of the hon. member for Durban North that this was a power required to meet a specific circumstance, and that is the charge that we lay against the Minister now. We say that he has gone beyond that and that he is using this Act for purposes for which it was never intended.

Sir, the hon. member for Kroonstad astonished me. He is a lawyer; he is a man who has practised in the courts. He brought up what one might call the primitive argument that because you are dealing with a clause which is designed to deal with terrorists and because terrorists are wicked people, therefore you can do anything you like with them. The attitude is that because a man is charged with murder, you could do anything you like with him because he is a murderer. [Interjections.] That is precisely the argument which the hon. gentleman used. He bolstered his argument by a reference to a book written by Morris —not a reputable publication in my view —to tell us what terrible people terrorists are. It is common cause, Sir. Everybody in this House believes that a terrorist is a wicked person, and if you are satisfied that he is a terrorist and has acted in that manner he should receive the most severe punishment. We supported the death penalty in that regard and there is nothing more severe than the death penalty. The criticism. Sir, is that you are not in these circumstances dealing with a convicted terrorist; you are dealing with a man who is merely under suspicion. You are not yet sure whether he is a terrorist or not. That is why the matter must be dealt with more caution than has been displayed in the speeches by hon. members opposite.

I want to come to a different aspect of the matter. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to restore to a far greater extent the ordinary foot policeman on the beat. You know, Sir, in recent years, not far from this House where I am standing at the present moment, there have been not only a number of attacks but events which could have been circumvented if we had had policemen on the beat. There was, firstly, the instance of the hon. member for South Coast who was attacked by thugs, by footpads, here in the Gardens, before dark, while he was walking from this House to his home. This year there was the instance of ex-Minister Maree. who was attacked and robbed in Adderley Street at eight o'clock in the evening. I myself, this year and last year, experienced similar events here in Adderley Street. The first was on a Saturday morning in a crowded Adderley Street. I observed a young man with something in his hand, something which gave the appearance of probably being drugs, accosting young people up and down the street in an attempt to persuade them, it appeared to me, to purchase what he had in his hand. I looked round for a policeman and there was not one to be found in Adderley Street. Not a week ago I was walking through the air terminal at the bottom end of Adderley Street with a suitcase in one hand and a briefcase in the other. Outside the O.K. Bazaars a respectably-dressed woman shrieked that her handbag had been taken. I noticed, nipping across Adderley Street, a young man, a European with a beard and wearing a sweater, running in a crouched position through the traffic in Adderley Street and up the other side of Adderley Street. Once again there was no policeman in sight.

Did you report the matter to the police?

Did I report the matter to the police? Here I am, Sir, with an encumbrance in each hand walking down Adderley Street. Had I not had that encumbrance I would have chased him myself. The whole point of my speech is that there were no policemen there to report the matter to. This is important. It is important not only that our populace is protected in this manner and that there are people to whom they can appeal for help, but it is important that if there is a policeman on hand in circumstances such as those, nothing does more to create a good atmosphere and a bond between the ordinary public and the Police than the fact that there is a policeman there who can be called on to help, and if he catches the thief, he will be the local hero of the people. It not only protects the individual, which is the primary function of the police—because, after all, they are peace officers; that is their proper appellation— but nothing builds a bond between the ordinary public of the country and the policeman better than if he is on hand to render assistance in circumstances of that kind. He then ceases to be merely an executive arm of the Government, which we are in danger of making our policemen in South Africa into at the present time, and he becomes the friend and the help of the ordinary individual, and those are the circumstances in which I think we wish our Police to be placed in in South Africa. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to say that he has patrol cars patrolling up and down. In a built-up area like Adderley Street they are absolutely useless. The driver of the vehicle is so busy watching the traffic that he cannot see what happens on the sidewalk. He very often has a non-European sitting next to him who is busy looking after the dog that is barking in the back of the car, and he sees nothing either. In wide-flung suburbs and in country areas I agree that the patrol van is useful, but in built-up areas such as the Gardens, where a patrol van cannot go in any event, or Adderley Street on a Saturday morning, there is no substitute for the policeman on foot patrol, the man on the beat. I believe it is absolutely essential, if we are to have safety for the ordinary pedestrian in South Africa. And what is as important is that if you are to build up a good relationship, a psychologically sound relationship, between the ordinary citizen and the Police Force, then those policemen should be there available in time of need.

Now, I do not want the hon. the Minister to stand up and say blandly that we do not have the manpower. You know, Sir, we are in danger of reaching the stage in South Africa where every deficiency in our administration is blandly blamed on the shortage of manpower and we are expected to leave it at that. But we must find a way around this shortage of manpower. We must so readjust our affairs that there is not always the excuse of a shortage of manpower. I should like to see a change brought about in this regard, and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister his views as to how this could be remedied.

This matter of the bobby on the beat has been discussed repeatedly in this House in the past. I think that if the hon. member for Zululand would take the trouble to go through previous Hansards, he would see what the reply was. The hon. the Minister will probably give him the same reply this afternoon as he gave in the past. But what I want to spend some time discussing this afternoon, is section 6.

Various hon. members on the opposite side have now discussed section 6 this afternoon. The hon. member for Zululand also mentioned that the section was not being applied for the purpose for which it was originally introduced. It is very clear to me that hon. members on that side who discussed this section today were trying to make politics out of this section and that they were not speaking about this section out of personal conviction. If they would only penetrate to the core of this section and examine it, they would see that this section was established for the safety of the people in this country, the safety of every individual in the Republic of South Africa. The Police have the power under section 6 to detain people and interrogate them for an unspecified length of time. It is the task of the Police to maintain law and order in this country. They do this on behalf of the individual. They do not do it only on their own behalf or on behalf of the Minister, or perhaps on behalf of a political party. When a doctor, for example, wants to cure a disease, he always tries to penetrate to the core of that disease, and to work from that core towards a cure for that disease, and the Police do the same. When they want to maintain law and order they want to penetrate to the core, where the disturbance is being generated, and from that point they then work towards a cure for that disease, or prevent this crime. Unfortunately we have people in this country, and in this House as well, who always have something to say or write about the powers which are being given to the Police, and about how the Police are exceeding their powers. But have these people perhaps forgotten the Bashee murders. or the Paarl uprising, or the bomb explosion caused by John Harris in Johannesburg, or this incident with the two policemen who were killed in the Caprivi Strip as a result of an explosion? Do these things glide off their backs like water off a duck’s back? I should like to refer to something briefly which the Sunday Timex wrote a short while ago: “Students losing respect for law”. This was in the Sunday Times of 5th July last year. This mode of conduct by the newspapers and by some hon. members of this House, and by people outside, is intended to bring people in this country and in the outside world under the wrong impression. These people are being indoctrinated with the wrong subject matter, and we must rectify these matters before it is too late. There is a pre-planned subversive process, and many people fall unwittingly into that trap by participating in that subversive process. If we were to consider—and we have proof of this—a few trials which were held in this country during the past few years, and tested section 6 against those trials, we would come to view section 6 in a different light. In the first place we can consider the trial of Nelson Mandela, an extremely dangerous man. When he appeared in court he chose not to give evidence under oath, but to make a statement. One asks oneself why he made a statement and why he did not want to take the oath? We must consider the background of Nelson Mandela. He was not caught in terms of the Terrorism Act; he was caught because he left the country without a permit in the first place and for that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. When he went overseas he received training in Algeria and Ethiopia in terrorism, the use of weapons and the commission of sabotage in South Africa. Do hon. members on this side of the House now want to tell me that such a man should not be detained in terms of section 6? He said himself that some of the statements he made were perhaps irrelevant to the case, but the fact remains that in making those statements he made a political speech of the first water to arouse sympathy abroad, as well as in this country. Now one asks one. self why we want such a man detained under section 6 of the Act. Sir, surely that is very clear. This man does not want to take the oath so that he can be cross-examined. Now we want to detain this man under section 6 in order to interrogate him and in that way have an opportunity of obtaining information which would help to protect the security of and maintain peace in this country. That is one of the reasons, and a very important reason, why we should apply that section 6. We can also consider the trial of a man like Bram Fischer, also a man who preferred not to be put under oath, but to make a statement. I want to read to you what he said—

That is why the man does not want to be put under oath; he does not want to be cross-examined, and they prefer to serve out long-term prison sentences. Now why are the people on that side complaining if these people are detained under section 6 for long periods? After all, these people would prefer to serve out long-term prison sentences. If we detain them for long periods of time and interrogate them during that time, surely it can only be to the benefit of South Africa. Bram Fischer himself said that he did not want to acknowledge guilt and then make a plea in mitigation; he wanted to make a statement in court and in that way support his political actions and explain and justify his motives before the world. That is why I feel that one should detain this type of criminal under section 6. Personally I do not think that our Police are being given sufficiently stringent powers. We also find other people who are extremely dangerous to the peace and security in South Africa who preferred not to take the oath. A man like Ja-Toiva, the head of Swapo, which is the terrorist organization of South-West Africa, did not want to be put under oath cither. Only the lesser lights of the communists and the saboteurs are put under oath. These are people who have no information they could disclose in court under cross-examination. Only they allow themselves to be put under oath. That is why I feel that section 6 of this Act is extremely important for South Africa. If there is one section which is to the benefit of peace and security in South Africa, then it is section 6. One can look further as well. To whom was the money sent from the Defence and Aid Fund which was established to help the movement of these people in South Africa? In the first few years it was sent to men like Slovo and Joe Carlson, who are attorneys in Johannesburg. But in subsequent years the method was changed and the money was sent to clerics. Section 6 must also be applied to expose that type of criminal and to detain him for interrogation so that we can obtain the information, which can only be to our advantage and best interests.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably advisable for me to comment now on certain matters which have been raised in this debate. I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who has just resumed his seat, said in regard to one matter he raised, i.e. the conduct of people who appear in our courts. This is truly significant, and I should like the hon. member for Houghton to take the trouble to go into this matter a little one day. Particularly in view of the fact that she speaks so lightly of these people, I want to impress on her that communism cannot be combated with modern civilized methods. The world has learnt by now that there is no doubt whatsoever that communism can only be combated with its own methods; it cannot be combated by using democratic methods. It is precisely because this is the case that we have recently had this phenomenon in our courts. The hon. member for Houghton is making such a fuss about some people who were charged and released, having been detained under the Terrorism Act. She is so concerned about their welfare now, but they were discharged on mere technical points. Those people never tried to prove their innocence. Recently we had the case of a Coloured person who was found guilty at Pietermaritzburg. He did not testify to prove his innocence, but used a democratic court to further the aims of communism. That happens every time. It has been hammered into these people and impressed upon them that this is the task for which they stand. What the hon. member for Potgietersrus has just said here now is so true that it is as plain as day. We find that pattern throughout. If the hon. member would take the trouble to go into this, she would see that they when they take the witness stand they do not testify on their own behalf or to refute allegations, they simply make a speech furthering communism. That is why I say that we must remember that the enemies of South Africa are not just ordinary criminal offenders but that these are people who are imbued with aims which stretch far beyond the boundaries of South Africa. We are not able to combat them with the ordinary measures. If we want to be effective, we must apply methods which can be effective against them.

I should like to begin by commenting on a few points raised by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member discussed the extraneous duties performed by the Police. We have discussed these before and it is unfortunately, or fortunately, the case that when some department or other does not know how certain tasks are to be accomplished, they turn to the South African Police. Because the South African Police are spread throughout the length and breadth of the country—we have more than a thousand police stations everywhere in the country—it is so convenient when surveys are being made for example, to ask the South African Police to do it. One of the best known examples is the “pumpkin list”, when an agricultural census survey has to be made. Recently we negotiated with the Minister of Agriculture and told him that we really do not see our way clear any more to undertaking that work. This “pumpkin list” is a bulky document which requires many particulars. The Police have to deliver it to farmers and fetch it again on a specified day. When the policeman comes to fetch it. the farmer often says: “No, my boy, I have not completed it yet, but why don’t you help me with it quickly”. The policeman then has to sacrifice an hour or so of his time to help the farmer to fill in that “pumpkin list”. This is only one of the numerous examples of where the Police are being used. We are compelled to inform the various departments that we are no longer able to perform the services for them which we previously performed.

The hon. member also said that the crime rate has increased, and that is true. I do not think the increase is alarming, but there has nevertheless been an increase. On the other and, the numerical strength of the Police Force has decreased. When one glances at page 12 of the Commissioner’s report, one sees that during the past few years the number of our Police per thousand inhabitants has decreased considerably. In 1965-’66 there was 1,79 per 1 000 inhabitants. Subsequently the figure decreased to 1,71 the next year; after that to 1,7 and in 1968 ’69 it decreased further to 1,67 per 1 000 inhabitants. In the year under discussion, i.e. 1969-’70 the figure decreased further to 1,56 per 1 000 inhabitants. This shows one that we are finding it difficult to keep the numerical strength of the Police constant. The hon. member for Zululand said this was a general complaint, but it is nevertheless true. If the recruitment of Police had not been so effective, and if the work of the policeman had not been so attractive, we would per. haps not have achieved the success we did achieve.

However, I must admit that substantial improvements have recently been effected in the conditions of service of policemen. I may just mention that we succeeded last year in obtaining approval for conditions which place the policeman in a better position than the ordinary public servant. Approval was granted to the effect that a policeman should receive the same starting salary as any other public servant. After he has completed his police training, and owing to the fact that he has specialized training behind him, he receives a one notch increase. This does not mean that he loses his ordinary annual increase. He receives an increase of one notch when his training has been completed, and receives his annual increase.

Why does he not receive an allowance in the Transkei?

The hon. member has asked that question so often that he need only read Hansard to know what the reply is.

The hon. member for Durban North, and other hon. members as well, discussed the detentions under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I do not agree with the hon. members. If one, in the discussion of this matter, advances the most extreme arguments as to why it is necessary to detain people in terms of this section, it does not mean that this section is going to be used only in those extreme cases. If the hon. gentleman were to read the speech which I, inter alia, made further, he would see that at the time we were requesting section 6 of the Terrorism Act for the purpose of detention for a large variety of practical problems which existed If I were now, right at the outset, to furnish a general definition of when we make use of that section, I would say that it would be in cases where people were either terrorists, or where they liaised with terrorists, or where they had information concerning terrorist activities which it was necessary for us to acquire. In those cases we detain people in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. We must continue to detain these people in this way. In 1967 I also said inter alia column 7102 of Hansard)—

In that way all kinds of practical reasons were advanced. There are in addition many more examples we could mention to indicate why this is a time-consuming process and why we must be afforded sufficient time to make the necessary investigations. I want to differ with the hon. members for Durban North and Zululand, and say that although we use the most extreme examples of the terrorists, it was most certainly never the intention to detain only the man we caught on our borders with a rifle in our hand.

They know it very well.

Yes, they know it. After all, the terrorists are not only to be found on the borders. This man who was convicted in Pietermaritzburg the other day, was a terrorist.

And where was he caught? In Pietermaritzburg!

Yes, in Pietermaritzburg. He was caught there and found guilty of terrorist activities. He is a trained terrorist. He liaised with terrorists. That is why he was detained. That is why I say that if I have to give an over-all definition to this Committee of the circumstances under which we detain these people, then I would say that they are detained in terms of this section when they are terrorists, or when they are suspected of being terrorists, or when they liaise with terrorists, or when they have information concerning terrorists which we must have. Under the circumstances hon. members opposite must please not request me now to detain, in terms of section 6, only those people who are caught on our borders The hon. member for Prinshof spoke about the Imam. The hon. member for Houghton then asked why, if those were then the circumstances, these “compassionate grants” as she called them, had not been given to all the other people? I must say the hon. member for Houghton was somewhat amusing today. She was a little, I can almost say, frivolous, for usually her arguments are at least a little sounder than they were today. One does not go around simply making allocations or grants, as she calls them. In this case the matter came before the court. I was personally consulted and had to give my approval to the settlement which was ultimately reached. But surely we as jurists, and people who have been in practice, know that in every case there are certain risks. I am personally convinced that the claimants would not have got off the ground in proving their case. How could they prove the case? But despite that, there are after all certain circumstances which introduce a degree of risk. The man was detained by the Police and there were certain bruises on his body. There is the possibility of negligence which might have had to be taken into consideration. Taking everything into account, with the risks attached to the matter, we felt, for the sake of the widow and children as well, that it would be better to reach a settlement in regard to the case. The amount involved is from the nature of the case not a great amount. I think it is extremely unfair of any person to try to make people believe, as the hon. member for Wynberg did, that this was an admission of responsibility and an admission of the fact that the police were guilty. This is by no means the case. We who deal with the practical side of these matters know that a settlement of that nature is a reasonable settlement.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Would the hon. the Minister tell us if there are any other outstanding cases where persons have been held under detention and who have died under detention?

AT the moment I am not aware of any such cases. As far as I know there are no similar cases which are at the present moment outstanding. I may, however, be making a mistake when I say that, because I am not quite certain about this. This is what happened in regard to this case, and I think it would be best if we now regard it as having been disposed of.

The hon. member for Umlazi discussed the matter of accommodation. The Government has approved in principle that we should make an attempt to supply the Police with 100 per cent of their housing requirements. Of course, that decision was only taken two years ago. It goes without saying that we will not be able to succeed in doing so within a mere few years. But I do think that at present much more rapid progress is being made by the Department of Community Development, which is building these houses and these flats for the Police in the urban complexes. We shall definitely do whatever we can to supply 100 per cent of the housing requirements of the Police. The hon. member discussed the matter of rentals here, and said that the Police in South-West Africa receive an allowance if they do not live in a Government house. Since the hon. member is objecting to that, I should like to know from the hon. member for Umlazi whether he thinks we should abolish that allowance in South-West Africa.

No, rather give it to everyone.

The difficulty in fact is that I had thought that the hon. member, because there is a disparate position in respect of South-West Africa, was advocating that it be abolished. However, this phenomenon is part of our history. It is not only the members of the South African Police who are receiving house grants in South-West Africa. I think this dates back to the days when South-West Africa was still regarded as being a remote area, where there were not really any amenities, and where there were long distances and some inconvenience. Other public servants in South-West Africa also receive that allowance. I am afraid that it is an impossible task to try to obtain this for all police officials throughout South Africa. We must simply reconcile ourselves to that fact now. Once a concession has been granted, as in the case of South-West Africa, it is not an easy matter for us to take it back again.

The hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned the possibility of more bursaries. He asked that more bursaries be granted. I must tell the hon. member that the number of bursaries we make available from time to time is steadily increasing. In conjunction with the University of South Africa we are at present engaged in trying to establish a Baccalaureus' degree in Police Science. I must say that we have made considerable progress in this direction. I have every expectation that we will eventually succeed in doing so. I think that this will mean a great deal to the Police service. Of course, we already have a Police Diploma.

The hon. member also referred to the case of the recent bank robbery, where a branch of the Trust Bank was robbed. However, this matter is still pending and is subject to the fact that these people still have to be found guilty. If these people should be found guilty, the actions of the South African Police would have achieved great recognition. The investigation took place under the direction of Brig, Buys of Johannesburg, and it is interesting to note that it was a piece of evidence which was found on the scene of an attempted robbery in the Cape which to a large extent led to these people being traced. After the robbery took place, a search was instituted for a Mercedes. However, a matchbox had been found at the scene of an attempted bank robbery in a country town in the Cape. An address had been written on the matchbox. They went to that address and found that the address was that of a neighbour of the man with the Mercedes. The entire Force was then mobilized to solve the crime. It is interesting to note that in this case, probably for the first time in history, every policeman went out that day in ordinary clothes, except of course those at the Police Stations. The Police also made use of helicopters, but it was actually as a result of the vigilance of a Detective-Sergeant Frank in of Bloemfontein that the vehicle in question was traced to Reddersburg. He followed the motor-car to Bloemfontein and then made an arrest. Shortly afterwards two other arrests were made in Harrismith. In the meantime the caravan had been traced. This is in brief the interesting course of events relating to these incidents. I think the actions of the Police are generally regarded as being a feather in their cap.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the 22 persons who were discharged, persons who had been detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. In my opinion the hon. member for Potchefstroom has already furnished the hon. member with an adequate reply. She also made quite a point of the number of assaults by members of the Police Force on the public. She makes a habit of broaching this matter. She referred, inter alia, to the case of a certain Sergeant H. J. Human. During the trial of this person the judge said inter alia the following (translation)—

I am just reading this to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that even the judge in this case …

That is only one out of 485 cases.

The hon. member must not be so hasty now. I shall deal with the others as well. What she must remember, is that the actions of the police are so often in connection with violence. As a result of that it is often necessary for them to use violence as well. The hon. member knows that every conviction is referred to a board. We cannot simply order the summary dismissal from the Force of all policemen who commit assaults, whether petty or serious. This would be foolish, quite apart from our manpower shortage. There are numerous factors which have to be taken into consideration. The hon. member must remember that in so many eases the South Africa Police are required to use violence, and that in most cases their own lives are in danger. In the process of carrying our their duties they are often themselves in danger of losing their lives. Sir, I should just like to draw attention to the number of members of the Force, excluding the members of the Force who have served on the borders against terrorists, and excluding the members of the Force killed or injured in motorcar accidents, who were killed or injured in the execution of their duty; in 1969 10 were killed and in 1970 3 were killed. In 1969 1 806 were injured, and in 1970 1 893. This is the number who were injured, not in motorcar accidents and not on the borders, but in the execution of their duties, the duties we impose on them and which we expect them to execute.

Then I come to the number of charges of assault on members of the force by members of the public and resisting and obstructing police officers in the execution of their duties. I am mentioning only a few figures: In 1969 4402 cases were reported of assaults by the public on members of the Police of the obstruction of Police officers in the execution of their duties. Of these 4 402 cases, 4 219 were referred to court; in other words 95,61 per cent of the total were referred to court. I am now skipping over to 1968. The number mentioned in that year was 5 447, and 5 081 cases were referred to court. In 1970, last year, 8 320 cases were reported, and 7 983 cases were referred to court, i.e. 95 per cent. But that. Sir, the hon. member did not of course discuss because she does not seem to be concerned about assaults on the Police in the execution of their duties which involve dangerous and difficult circumstances. She is not concerned about that, but if a young policeman, who is perhaps only 20 or 24 years old, uses a little more violence in the heat of the moment than the circumstances actually require, then she wants him to be summarily discharged without mercy. The hon. member even said that we were turning the Police Force into a rehabilitation centre by retaining these people in the service. Surely the hon. member could not have been serious in this connection; that is why I said that she was being a little frivolous today.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District …

Pietermaritzburg City.

Yes, Pietermaritzburg City; my deepest apologies. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City said that we should make the Police Service more attractive. He pointed out that many members of the Force were purchasing their discharge. His idea was that the possibility of an insurance policy for the Police be considered. I think this is an idea which has merit and which deserves consideration. Whether it is practicable, I do not know, but I appreciate this new and constructive idea with which the hon. member came forward.

Sir, the hon. member also discussed the medical scheme which, in his opinion, should be subsidized. I should just like to inform him that we are engaged on this at the moment and that I am still negotiating with the Minister of Finance to see whether I can make it easier for those who have already left the Service to join the scheme because the payments they will have to make are very high, and also whether we cannot introduce a system of subsidization in this connection.

The hon. member also discussed the matter of women members of the Police Force. I just want to inform him that they are appointed on the same salary scales and under the same conditions of service as the male members of the South African Police. They will also be entitled to join the insurance and group insurance schemes.

The hon. member for Aliwal requested that the department be separated from the Public Service. Sir, this is a difficult task in regard to which I do not want to say very much. I should just like to mention that this matter has already to a certain extent been discussed by the Cabinet Committee on security matters. The idea was raised there that a service commission for the three services could possibly be established, that is for Defence, the Police and for Prisons. We are thinking along these lines, but at the moment the Police Force still form part of the Public Service. The entire structure of the Police, owing to their duties and the ranks to which they are coupled, are so different to those of the Public Service that I think the proposal made by the hon. member does in fact have some merit. The same applies in the rest of the world. There is therefore some merit in the proposal made by the hon. member, and I took note of it with appreciation.

I come then to the question of foot patrols raised by the hon. member for Zululand. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member about this. I know that the foot patrol renders an exceptionally good service. But I do want to inform the hon. member for Zululand that he must not assume that because he does not see any police officers in the streets that there are no police officers whatsoever. From time to time we place police officers in the streets for specific tasks, but we are really not able to maintain the ordinary patrol service as we knew it in the past. We agree with the hon. member as to the value of foot patrols. I just want to inform the hon. member, since he saw a crime being committed here in the street, that he has the powers of arrest, as he knows. He can arrest such a person …

With two suitcases, one in each hand?

Yes, I understand that but I am merely mentioning this for the information of hon. members who may find themselves in such circumstances. He also referred to the case of Mr. Maree. In this connection I just want to give him the following information: I think it happened at about 7 p.m., and by 10 p.m. the Police had already recovered the stolen watch. Mr. Maree showed me the watch here the next morning. He was wearing it again, and the fellow who had stolen the watch had already been arrested by the Police. I do not think he has appeared in court yet. Sir, we are at present working on a scheme, the details of which I should not like to furnish now, because the success of the scheme I have in mind depends to such a great extent on the co-operation of the other departments. We are working on a scheme in terms of which we will establish a far larger Reserve Police Force. We should like to use the members of the Reserve Police Force, as soon as they have received their training, for street patrol services, precisely because we attach such great value to such a patrol service. I do not want hon. members to conclude from this that we are going to succeed. It is because I agree with the hon. member that I should like to do something in this regard and that I am working on such a scheme in terms of which we can build up a large enough Reserve Police Force to enable us to introduce foot patrol services.

Sir, I think that I have more or less dealt with the matters raised here. The Police came in for quite a good deal of praise in this House today, and for that I thank hon. members. If there is any constructive criticism against the Police, then I shall welcome it, because it will then enable us to effect the necessary improvements.

I do not want to discuss Nusas today, but I do nevertheless want to read out a letter just to prove what we have to deal with in South Africa. This letter was sent to a student who is registered as a member of Nusas, and this is not the only letter of this kind that was sent out, for I have received letters from other sources as well. But, Sir, just to give you an indication of what is going on in South Africa to incite young people and to lead them astray, I should like to read this letter because it affects the Police so closely. It reads as follows—

This is what is now being circulated amongst students, and the information contained in this letter is information which the hon. member for Houghton collected for them. [Interjections.] I continue—

Do you know what the title of this article is? “A Glimpse at the Pigs”.

Who sent that out?

I do not have absolute proof of this, but it was sent to students who are registered at universities where they are automatically registered as members of Nusas.

Was it issued by Nusas?

You say it comes from Nusas?

I am not quite certain, but I suspect it does. This is a suspicion on my part. I am not quite certain, but these are the forces we have to deal with, and these are the forces the Police must work with. Because they are doing their work dutifully, and—are heard this praise being meted out to them today—that is why the people who disagree with what they are doing referred to them as “A Glimpse at the Pigs”. I sincerely hope that our young people whom we are at present, as always, just keeping an eye on, and who are at the present moment again coming into the public eye to a greater extent than before, we shall have greater success than other countries in the world seem to have had.

Since it appears to me as if the hon. member for Durban North is again going to enter the debate, I want to refer to section 6. When there is argument about section 6 of the Terrorism Act, the argument can be conducted from two or three points of view. The one is that of the hon. member for Houghton. She argues for the total repeal of section 6, and let me say immediately in brackets that this places her and her motives under suspicion. Another point from which this matter can be argued is that involving the implementation of section 6, in other words, full retention of section 6, recognition of how necessary it is on the Statute Book, with argument merely centering around its implementation. It is very clear that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City has expressed his awareness to the danger of terrorism, and so too has the hon. member for Zululand. There is no doubt. In fact, we conclude that they strongly support the retention of section 6. But now the hon. member for Durban North has left us in doubt this afternoon. He must tell us whether he associates himself with the hon. member for Houghton, who argues for the removal of section 6, or whether he merely wants to debate its implementation, because there is a world of difference. The big United Party mediator in the Police Vote must explain to us where he stands this afternoon. Does he advocate the retention of section 6, or is he merely opposed to its implementation?

While we are discussing the Police Vote this afternoon, it is fitting that we also pay tribute to Constable Josef Jooste Henning, from our part of the world, who laid down his life to safeguard our borders. We in this Committee all pay tribute to the memory of this young man. We pay tribute to him. The fact that our attention is on our borders, and on the need to safeguard those borders, immediately focuses the Reserve Police Force, because they are destined, perhaps also to an increasing extent, to safeguard hearth and home on the homefront. The hon. the Minister and his department deserve praise for having succeeded, in a short time, in developing the Reserve Force into a substantial wing of the Police Force. In fact, we note that there are about 17 000 Reservists on record as against about 32 000 full-time policemen. Citizens from all levels of the community are silently doing their duty.

It is thus known that every week in Johannesburg a millionaire punctiliously does his turn of duty. While thousands of merry-makers enjoyed themselves in the 1970 Christmas period, hundreds of Jewish Reservists did necessary duty in Johannesburg. It is no longer an unusual sight to see a newspaper editor bringing a drunkard under control, or a Judge of the Supreme Court dealing with a complaint in connection with a too jolly party. The Reservists have in their ranks doctors, artisans, businessmen, artists, lawyers, bus drivers, insurance brokers, etc. Unfortunately I have to state that it would appear as if the majority of them are middle-aged. Young men should also make their contribution. I hope there are considerable supporters of the United Party who can bring that party to its senses.

We also note that Bantu and Coloured Reservists likewise do valuable service in their respective communities. It has not gone unnoticed that an Indian Reservist played a decisive role in ferreting out the terrorist James Edward April, and that an Indian policeman, with the rank of lieutenant, arrested that terrorist here within our borders. The Reservists work hard. That is why I feel myself at liberty to mention a few matters on their behalf in the House this afternoon. Before I come to that I also just want to state that it has come to our attention that the Reservists in Bloemfontein recently accepted all Police duties for a full week-end. They were assisted by only two full-time members to give them advice. I should now like to set out the matters. I want to mention on behalf of the Reservists. Firstly, the Reservists at present have one free practice trial per year with the ,303 service rifle, the sten-gun and the ,38 revolver. The Reservists nevertheless find it necessary, from their own funds, to arrange for additional practice with the ,38 revolver. I think that we must accept the fact that if a Reservist is going to need a weapon, it will be the ,38 revolver. I now want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he give serious attention to considerably extending these practice trials. I note that an additional R75 000 has already appeared under the hon. Minister’s Vote for arms and ammunition. I want to suggest that a portion of this be earmarked to make additional free practice trials possible.

Secondly there is a question of uniforms for Reservists. At present they are issued with a summer and winter uniform. But when they have done parade work and are wet with perspiration, it quite frequently happens—in fact, it is more the rule than the exception —that they subsequently also have to do duty for the rest of the day in those same uniforms. I want to ask whether it is not possible to perhaps issue the people with a cheaper working uniform.

Thirdly I want to mention that the present-day Reservist is exposed to all the dangers a full-time policeman is exposed to. Is it, therefore, not also possible to make medals for bravery and for excellent service available to the Reservists.

I also want to ask whether it is not perhaps practicable to allocate one group of Reservists for crime prevention services. This links up with the idea of the “Bobbie on the beat”. Group B Reservists are set aside to do those services within their own residential area, but my idea is to extend it further. It must also be possible to apply that Reserve Force for necessary safeguarding services on our roads. I do not advocate that they should do the duties of traffic officers, but I refer to the fact that in the past we have already had a conviction, on the grounds of the evidence of an experienced policeman, of a person whipping along a street at a very high speed. In the case known to me, the policeman estimated that the motor-car was travelling at 90 m.p.h. His evidence was accepted and the accused was sent to gaol for four months. Our law of criminal procedure and our rules for furnishing proof make it possible for Reservists to perform those most necessary services without any amendment to our laws being necessary. This could then merely supplement the manpower shortage we are experiencing in the safeguarding of our roads.

This Reserve Police Force can also perform a valuable service in the tracing of drug peddlars. They are people who do and can move in general social circles. Clubs are accessible to them. The fact that they are Reservists does not always need to be known, and they could also deal with a teenage drug addict in a very fatherly way if they receive a little extra training in this field. In conclusion I want to ask that, on the basis of the James Edward April case, which I mentioned, Reservists should receive special training to keep their eyes and ears open for those people who want to disrupt the security and order within our borders.

Mr. Chairman, I want briefly to reply to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member who has just sat down. He suggests that there is some difference of opinion between the hon. member for Houghton and myself in respect of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The hon. member only came to this House last year so he would not have been here when the debate look place. If he looked it up in Hansard he would have found that we opposed section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The difference between the hon. member for Houghton and ourselves is in respect of the 1966 legislation. We were prepared to support the interrogation of terrorists and people suspected of sabotage and terrorism and under the section of the Suppression of Communism Act dealing with the going overseas to train for unlawful organization purposes, such as sabotage and so on. For the first time there was the appearance of a judicial officer, a Judge of the Supreme Court. This person had to be brought before the Judge within 14 days. A case had to be made out for his detention for interrogation. The Judge heard both sides and could have released the person if there was no case for his further detention. He also laid down the conditions of his interrogation. We supported this measure which the hon. member for Houghton did not support.

Of course, There were other factors …

Yes, but I am answering the hon. member for Bloemfontein West as to what the situation is. The only case that has been made out is a modicum of a case in respect of section 6 as opposed to section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1966, namely the case made out by the hon. the Minister of Police in 1967 when we were dealing, in the Committee Stage, with section 6 of the Terrorism Act. At that stage the only member of the Treasury Benches who took part was the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police. The hon. the Minister of justice did not take part. The Deputy Minister of Police then said that there were certain practical difficulties. He said in Hansard, volume 21, column 7100, of 2nd June, 1967 that—

The practical problems that he referred to were- and these are practical problems when you deal with border areas—that—

This is the way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister painted the picture. Later he went on to say—

He is quite right, but what are the other special circumstances? He went on to say—

These circumstances make it impossible for the Police to go to a Supreme Court first to make a formal application. Moreover, all information regarding the person whose services the Police want to employ is not yet available then. I think that it is humanly impossible to submit all the information to the Judge within 14 days or even within six weeks.

That is the case that was made by the hon. the Minister of Police why he wanted section 6 and why section 22, where you had to go to a Judge and state your case and where he laid down the conditions, as not practicable in those circumstances. That is the only case that has been made. The hon. the Minister has not answered the question why it is that the Security Branch of the Police now almost exclusively uses section 6 and not section 22. I am not talking about the border areas; I am talking about the urban areas; I am talking about Durban and Johannesburg and Cape Town and Port Elizabeth where all these people are detained. The hon. the Minister of Justice will give us no information about the people who are detained. To this day we do not know how many people are detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. We have even come to that stage.

I cannot tell you.

The hon. the Minister cannot even tell us how many there arc. The rule of thumb now is to use section 6. The hon. the Minister has not given us an explanation as to why section 22 is not invoked in the urban areas. Surely, before you arrest someone and subject him to incarceration in terms of section 6 for interrogation and solitary confinement, a condition worse than any sentence of court could be if such a person were sentenced by a court having been found guilty …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member has had his turn to speak. It is my turn to speak now. The hon. member must sit down.

†That is the position that we now have in the urban areas. But surely, before the police arrest a person and subject him to this, they have a case. They do not just go along arresting any one they want and subject him to interrogation.

The MINISTER OF POLICE; Of course not.

The hon. the Minister says 201C;of course not201D;. Will the hon. the Minister then tell us why it is that they do not use section 22, but almost exclusively, section 6? We have this information from the Press. Although the hon. the Ministers will not give us any information, we know how many people have been arrested. We know the people who have been arrested. The Police indicate that they are arrested under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Why is the hon. the Minister not prepared to order that section 22 and not section 6 shall be invoked in all circumstances where it is possible, not on the borders but here in the urban areas? That is what we want to know. The hon. the Minister assures us that the Police will not use draconian powers of this sort unless they have a case. If you have a case, you can submit it to a judge. Let us not be churlish about this. The Police can make a mistake as well. The issue, as the hon. member for Zululand has indicated, is that here you have a suspect and surely, one would want in the interest of justice, in the interest of the good name of the Police, in the interest of the funds that might have to be spent if persons are incarcerated wrongly, to have an inquiry as to whether or not that person should be incarcerated for interrogation. If you have a case, this will happen. To the hon. the Minister of Justice it is a matter of monumental unconcern although he gets the names. The Act lays down that the Minister of Justice and not the Minister of Police, must get the names. He must also get a report every fortnight. But the hon. the Minister of Justice washes his hands of the whole matter and he says that it is over to the Police to use whichever section they like. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the justification is for using almost exclusively sec tion 6 here in Cape Town or Johannesburg when a Judge is readily accessible? We have had no answer to this. The other question is whether the hon. the Minister gives any instructions at all to the Police as to which section they should use and in what circumstances? Does the hon. the Minister liaise at all with the hon. the Minister of Justice in this regard? These are the questions to which we should like to have answers. These are important matters not only in the interest of justice, not only in the interest of the good name of the Police and of themselves, but in the interests of the good name of this country in respect of powers like this which bring us more harm than anything else. If I may say so, there is one aspect of our life in South Africa which we are able to defend and which gives us a better name overseas than any other aspect of our life in South Africa, namely the nature of our legal process and the nature of our judiciary. I hope the hon. the Minister will now indicate to us what he intends doing about this. I hope that he will indicate that he will give instruction that in all cases where it is possible, that is to say virtually in all the cases in the urban areas, section 22 will be used and not section 6. We look forward to some sort of reply from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North must please he kind enough to excuse me. Since my time is very limited. I cannot reply to the points he raised. However, he will receive a full reply about them from the hon. the Minister. I should like to take the opportunity of presenting a matter of great urgency, as far as Uitenhage is concerned. to the Minister. In doing so, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have the 'highest regard for what the South African Police at Uitenhage are doing and for the way in which they carry out their work. I am almost in daily contact with them. I should like to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider strengthening the Police Force at Uitenhage. In making this statement to the hon. the Minister, I accept that I shall have to prove two basic facts. The first is that there has been a phenomenal development in the town of Uitenhage—I am speaking only of the town as such—and the second is that there is an increase in crime. I now want to try to substantiate this. There is a tremendously rapid increase in the population in the town of Uitenhage. There is rapid industrial development, and Uitenhage is also experiencing an influx of Whites and non-Whites to the town. They are streaming to the town to supplement the necessary labour forces, since the town offers them several opportunities for work, I am thinking of employers such as the South African Railways and the various factories. We also find that in Uitenhage housing schemes and dwellings are being erected—this is the order of the day. I also want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the number of people entitled to vote, as listed on the Parliamentary voters’ roll, have increased by almost 2 000 from 1965 to the present day. Then I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that crime has increased there. If we consult the statistics, we find that in 1968 there were 8 761 criminal cases, as against 8487 in 1969 and 10405 in 1970. In 1968 there were 3 493 admissions of guilt, in 1969, 3 166 and in 1970, 4219. This ought to prove that crime is on the increase. The records of the South African Police, which the department was kind enough to place at my disposal, also indicate that crime is on the increase. In 1970 the number of offences reported to the Uitenhage police station totalled 7 077 and the number of transgressions of the law totalled 5 774. Then there is another matter I should like the hon. the Minister to bear in mind, and that is that the Department of Justice is investigaging the possibility of supplementing the staff at the magistrate’s office. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that a new magistrate’s office is soon to be erected at Uitenhage. That magistrate’s office will meet the requirements of my voters, and it will be one of the most modern buildings of its kind in the Republic of South Africa. The only question that arises, as far as my voters and I are concerned, is whether the Police, at their present strength, will be able to adapt themselves to that development. This can only be done if the complement of the South African Police is supplemented. I have the necessary statistics with me for the complement allocated and the actual complement. Let me now say here that on paper this compares favourably with other centres, but in practice I think we are going to experience difficulties with our planning for the future. I would consequently appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would also have this allocated complement and the actual complement investigated. I shall be satisfied if he would tell me in his reply that it will receive his urgent attention.

In conclusion I should like to request the hon. the Minister to give attention to the housing of the South African Police at Uitenhage. The Uitenhage Police have just applied for the allocation of 16 detached houses plus six additional houses. Twenty-two houses will therefore be erected at a total cost of R22 000—excluding the land. What bothers me is that only R50 has been voted for that in the present Estimates. The result is that the department can only go on with the necessary planning. I would consequently appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would assist me when I ask that that amount be placed on the Estimates as quickly as possible in order to obtain proper accommodation for the Police Force at Uitenhage.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are left—I hope I will be allowed to continue after dinner —I want to say, first of all, that hon. members in this House do not seem to realize, .. [Interjections.] Well, one of the members complained bitterly that I never gave any credit to the Police or to any other department. They must realize that that is not the purpose of Committee of Supply in this House. It is not meant to give an opportunity to the Opposition or to members in general to sing paeans of praise to the Ministers and departments, although that is indeed the way Government members use the Committee of Supply. The Committee is intended for something quite different. It is intended to give the Opposition mainly, and other members in the House as well, the opportunity of examining the way in which the departments have comported themselves during the preceding year, before the money which the Ministers and departments are asking for, is voted by this Committee. That is the objective of a Committee of Supply. The British parliamentary procedure calls this “redress of grievance preceding supply”. Members ought to learn something about procedure before they come here and make these ridiculous accusations.

The hon. the Minister read out a document earlier this afternoon. I do not know who sent that document out and the hon. the Minister does not know who the author of it is either. I think it is most unfair of the Minister to assume that it had been sent out by Nusas. Now, I do not know; but I would be most surprised if a scurrilous document like that had in fact been sent out by Nusas. It is a document of which I wholeheartily disapprove. It is intemperate in its language. I think it is most unfair on the part of the hon. the Minister who has really no evidence in the matter to assume that that document was sent out by Nusas. I really think that is very unfair of him.

Now I want to come back to the question that I raised earlier on, namely the retention in the Police Force of certain members who have been convicted in the courts of law of serious offences. As I mentioned just before my time expired, the number involved was some 495 out of the whole establishment of the Police Force, a very small number. It is precisely for this reason that I think that these few black sheep, who did such damage to the whole body of the Police Force should not be retained in the Force. The hon. the Minister has mentioned the case of constable Human He said that the court hoped that the constable learnt a lesson by his conviction. the sentence and so on. Sir, there are other cases that I could mention which are much more serious than that case, cases where the court specifically condemned the actions of the policeman concerned and expressed its shock and horror of the actions; and yet these men were also retained. I asked the hon. the Minister earlier by way of a question if he could give me some idea of what criteria are used by the departmental boards of inquiry in deciding whether or not to retain these people in the Police Force who had been convicted of culpable homicide and serious assault. The hon. the Minister said he would like to discuss that under his Vote. We have had no discussion from the hon. the Minister. All he has done, is to cite the case of constable Human and say that there is a tremendous shortage of manpower, and therefore he thinks that these people ought to be retained in the Police Force. I say that such people do damage to the Police Force and that they should not be retained after they have been convicted in a court of law unless there really are some mitigating circumstances which can be found by departmental boards of inquiry. But we have heard nothing from the hon. the Minister on these lines. Having said that he would like to discuss the matter when his Vote comes up, the least he could do, I think, would be to discuss the matter and not simply to tell us that it is cognizancehis opinion201D; that people should be retained in the Police Force.

Now I want to raise one other matter before the dinner break, if possible—I hope to raise one further matter afterwards—namely the crime in the townships, which is a burning source of grievance among Africans, certainly in Soweto, and among Indians in Lenasia, and I am sure the same goes for other cities in South Africa of which I do not have personal knowledge. It is a burning source of grievance that there is so much violence and crime in townships and that so little, apparently, is done about it by the Police, who seem to spend all their time, in the eyes of the Africans anyway, on arresting pass offenders instead of going after real criminals.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned for the dinner break, I was busy raising a matter with the hon. the Minister which I think is very important, namely the question of the control of crime in the townships near Johannesburg. I am sure this applies to other cities as well. But I happen to be particularly conversant with conditions in Soweto and also in the Indian township of Lenasia. The fact that there is a tremendous amount of violent crime in these areas is a source of great grievance to the citizens of those areas. They feel that the Police devote too much of their time to pass arrests and to arresting people who are in fact statutory criminals rather than devoting their time to apprehending violent criminals who make their lives a perfect misery. I do not need to tell the hon. the Minister what happens on Fridays, which is pay day. People are accosted on their way home in badly lit townships. They are robbed of their hard-earned pay. These people feel that they are not given sufficient protection. I think that if the hon. the Minister could enlarge the Police Force which deals with violent crime in the townships, considerable inroads could be made towards good race relations in South Africa. This is really and truly a source of burning grievance amongst Africans and I might add, the Indians in Lenasia.

I want to raise one final matter with the hon. the Minister in the few minutes at my disposal. This matter concerns the question of a judicial enquiry into the events that took place at Gelvandale in Port Elizabeth on 7th March. The hon. the Minister will know that a meeting was held to protest against the rise in bus fares between Port Elizabeth and Gelvandale. The figures vary; there could have been anything between 10 000 and 30 000 people who attended this meeting, which initially was a peaceful meeting. Ultimately however it turned into an extremely disorderly meeting. The police opened fire and nine people were shot. The hon. the Minister has refused to have an independent judicial enquiry into the events at Gelvandale. I want to ask him why he has made this decision. He gave a statement to the Press in which he said the following—

Of course he was not.

The information I gave was information I received from my Department of Police. I have no reason whatever to believe this was incorrect.

Now, Sir, does he have any reason to believe that it was absolutely correct? After all the hon. the Minister has only heard one side of the story. What about audi alteram partem? What about hearing the other side of the story? Now, the other side of the story has been very well articulated by seven signatories to a statement. These signatories were priests who were present at the meeting. They claimed that the official version of what happened at Gelvandale on 7th March, 1971, is completely at variance with the true facts. I do not know who is telling the truth. But I also say that the hon. the Minister cannot possibly know, because he did not have the opportunity of testing the statement which has been made by seven eyewitnesses of the events at Gelvandale, According to these people there are many discrepancies in the official version of what happened and of what they say happened. I will only mention two or three of them. One is of course that the police used tear gas before they used their revolvers. According to these people, revolvers were used before tear gas was used. The other is that the meeting was a per fectly orderly meeting until the police vans arrived and drove into the crowd. They did not keep to the outskirts of the meeting but drove into the crowd and arrested a man who had been found drunk at the meeting. According to the signatories of this statement, had the police van simply disappeared from the scene at that stage, the chances were that the meeting would still have ended in an orderly fashion. The police vans, however, blocked the exits to the ground where the meeting was held. They stopped the crowd from dispersing; stones were thrown, batons were drawn and revolvers were used. The statement that the Police fired over the heads of the crowd is cleary untrue because nine people were wounded. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall first deal with the matter which the hon. member raised last. It relates to Gelvandale. The reason why I said at the time that it was not necessary for a judicial commission or enquiry to be appointed—and I am still of the same opinion—was that I had information about the conditions which were prevailing at all times during that episode to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. In regard to this matter I should like to say to the hon. member that there is no doubt at al) in my mind that White persons are behind the trouble which has arisen and which has arisen and which may possibly arise in that area. [Interjections.] Sir, the first statement I want to make is that I am convinced that there are White people who are trying to cause trouble in the vicinity of Gelvandale. I have sufficient information in this regard at my disposal. Those people want bloodshed. That is what they are endeavouring to achieve. I want to say the following to the hon. member for Houghton: If the clergymen to whom she referred want to disclose their information, there are cases pending in which they may testify. For example, there are cases pending in respect of eight persons who have been charged with riotous behaviour. They may act as witnesses for those people In that case they will have an opportunity of telling their stories if they want to. There is no doubt about one thing, however, and that is that there are certain White people who are trying to cause trouble. If I may give the hon. member for Houghton some sound advice, she should rather keep out of this.

Another matter the hon. member raised was in regard to the crime rate in Soweto. I do not want to argue with her about this matter, because it is a nest of crime. On the other hand, I must say that we have a police force and police reinforcements there which, under the circumstances, ought to be justified In addition, we have a substantial force of reservists in that vicinity, but in spite of this I must admit that it is a nest of crime. With the best will in the world one will probably not be able to eradicate that nest of crime, but I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the designated Commissioner of Police, Gen. Joubert, and I have already discussed the matter. When I return to Pretoria, I shall set aside a day or an afternoon in order to visit Soweto and the Bantu townships personally in order to see whether we can do something to combat crime in those areas more effectively.

The hon. member raised a third point as well. She said I had said, while replying to a question, that we could discuss on my Vote the criteria applied by the various boards appointed to consider whether the services of a member of the Police Force should be retained. I should like to apologize to the hon. member, which is the proper thing for me to do. for not having raised the matter, but the hon. member will also realize that I have to listen to all the various points raised here. I had thought she could just raise the matter, as she did in fact do. and that we could discuss it then.

Good anticipation.

The various circumstances which are taken into account when a police officer has been convicted of a crime, as in the case of assault to which she referred, are more or less the following: In the first place, the general conduct in the Police Force of official concerned; in the second place, the relatively minor or serious nature of the offence. This afternoon I pointed cut how difficult it was for an ordinary policeman who had to perform the physical work in the Police Force, to decide exactly how far he should go in the matter of using force. Often it is a case of the court finding that he went just a little further than he should in fact have done under the circumstances, and in such a case he is convicted. In the third place the particular capabilities and conscientiousness of the particular member of the Force, as revealed during his career in the South African Police, are taken into account. The hon. member will probably agree with me that the capabilities and conscientiousness a member of the Force reveals, should be taken into account. In the fourth place the degree of provocation which, in most cases, has led to the offence, is taken into account. There is probably no need for me to give any explanation in this regard. Hon. members are aware of the degree of provocation to which members of the Police Force are subjected from time to time. The members of the Police Force are also human. A member of the Police who is in full control of himself under all circumstances, in spite of all provocation, is, of course, an ideal member of the Force, but, of course, everybody is not ideal. Surely the extent of the provocation is a factor which should most decidedly be taken into account in considering whether or not the services of an official should be retained. In the fifth place the difficult circumstances under which members often have to execute their duties are taken into account; surely this, too, is a consideration. The task of a policeman is not always an easy and pleasant one, and the circumstances under which he has to execute his duties often have an effect on the way in which he does so. For that reason the circumstances under which the policeman has to execute his duties are also taken into account. I think these are the five most important considerations the board takes into account in deciding whether or not the services of a particular member should be retained.

Now I want to reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, who dealt with reservists in his speech. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West made the particular plea that the reservists should be issued with two uniforms, one in which they could do their drilling exercises and a second in which they could execute their duties, if I understood him correctly. I just want to tell him that we shall give this matter the necessary attention. I appreciate his keen interest in the reservist movement, because it is very valuable to us. I have here a telex from the Quartermaster, which reads as follows (translation):

The Quartermaster is at present investigating the possibility of increasing the issue of cartridges for pistol shoot ing to reservists. It appears that reserves have more interest in pistol shooting than in the others.

We should like to equip the reservists, who make their services available, better for the task they are performing.

The hon. member for Uitenhage referred to the police station at Uitenhage and requested an increase in the numerical strength of the local force. He said the magistrate's office was being enlarged and that the numerical strength of the force should be such that it could keep the magistrate’s office, which was going to be so much bigger, occupied. I do not think this was exactly what he meant, but the idea was more or less that since the magistrate’s office was being enlarged, the necessary adjustments should be made and that the shortcomings which might exist, should be eliminated. I should like to ask the hon. member for Uitenhage to what extent the reservists are helping us at Uitenhage. If he is of the opinion that the police services there are not adequate, he may assist us a great deal by promoting the reservist movement there. The numerical strength of the various police stations is determined according to a large variety of criteria, inter alia, the number of cases dealt with at a station, the extent of crime, etc. We determine the numerical strength of the various police stations in the country on a certain basis, but as far as Uitenhage is concerned, I shall pay personal attention to the matter and ascertain whether the numerical strength of the force in Uitenhage is sufficient to meet all the demands made on the Police in the particular circumstances.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban North, who again dealt with the question of section 6 in his speech. The hon. member read out here from a contribution I had made in the Committee Stage of the Bill concerned. He quoted what I had said with regard to all problems we were experiencing in respect of terrorists on the borders and he read no more than that, whereas previously I had read out and explained to the Committee—I do not want to repeat it now—that there were other physical circumstances as well which were making our position very difficult and making it essential for us to do detentions in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The intention was not—at least, that was not how I saw the matter—that terrorists caught on the borders were to be the only ones who would be detained in terms of that Act. I think the hon. member’s argument was that in the case of a detention within the borders of South Africa, whether at Cape Town, in the rural areas, at Beaufort West or wherever, it would be possible to contact a judge of the Supreme Court and that in those circumstances the detention should rather be in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act, Sir, in this case, too, there are a whole number of difficult practical circumstances with which we are faced. A person is detained because he communicates with terrorists, because he has received training in terrorism, or because be is a terrorist for all practical purposes. He is arrested at, say, Beaufort West, but he communicates with someone in Pietersburg or in Pietermaritzburg. In the particular circumstances a wide-spread investigation has to be made. Sir, surely one cannot go to a judge if one does not have a case to settle before the judge …

But you can arrest him without having a case.

Take the case of April who was recently convicted in Pietermaritzburg. Does the hon. member want to suggest that we should have detained that man in terms of any other Act than the Terrorism Act? Investigations have to be carried out which make it essential for that person to be detained not merely for 14 days, but often for much longer than 14 days so that the necessary investigations may be completed. I should like to reassure the hon. member in one respect: There is close liaison between the Minister of Justice and I as far as this matter is concerned. I cannot tell him how often the Minister of Justice and I have discussions about this matter. He must not be under the impression that the Minister of Justice or I adopt a careless attitude towards this matter and that we simply give a blank cheque as it were, to the police, so that they may do just as they please. Actually the hon. member was not painting the true picture when he created the impression here that everybody was simply detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I must admit readily that in recent times we have been detaining persons, but they were in fact persons who had communicated with terrorists and who had information about terrorists. But this does not mean that we detain everybody in terms of section 6 In fact, we still make use of the other section when it is possible to do so in the circumstances. I want to reassure the hon. member in this respect: The Minister of Justice and I are just as concerned about these matters and we regularly have consultations and discussions concerning the persons who are being detained.

Is that your reply?

May I ask a question? Would a judge not have approved of April’s detention on the evidence he already had when April was arrested?

I cannot say whether the evidence was good enough at that stage, but April was a terrorist out and out. He was nothing less and nothing more. He was a communist and in fact revealed this while the case was being heard. I do not want to tell the hon. member now that I did not have the evidence, but in cases of that nature it is possible that I did not have the necessary information at my disposal for going to the judge at that stage. For that reason I have laid down a general provision here this afternoon. I said that in terms of the provisions of the Terrorism Act we would arrest only terrorists, not only terrorists caught in action with guns in their hands but also people who communicated with terrorists or had information about terrorists. This, however, does not mean that we shall not use the other provisions any longer. We are still using them and shall continue to do so.

Lastly I should like to inform the hon. member for Durban North on the so-called alleged detention of the Americans at Fordsburg. I should like to start by saying that they were not detained. It transpired that people wearing robes and carrying cameras were present in court. Warrant Officer Flynn received a telephone call that an offence was being committed in terms of the Prisons Act in that people were taking photographs of prisoners. As a result of this telephone call which the warrant officer received, he went to the court where he found the people with the cameras. He then asked them to come to his office so that he could identify them. In his office he identified them and established who they were. One of them was Bishop Creighton of Washington, and then the officer spoke to them and asked them what object they had in mind. They sat in his office and he discussed the matter with them. After that he told them they could go back. They did go back and he pointed out to them that they were not allowed to take photographs there. They entered the court, took their seats and continued listening to the court proceedings. The allegation made to Warrant Officer Flynn, was to the effect that they had taken photographs. Now I am not quite sure whether or not they did take photographs, but I suspect that that was probably the case. But there is no doubt that they did have cameras with them. They returned to the court and the hearing continued. This is the full story in connection with which so many attempts are being made to kick up a fuss, to the detriment of South Africa.

I think we have discussed all the matters now, and I should like to thank the hon. members who spoke in the debate for their participation.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 36.—Water Affairs201D;, R17 000 000, Loan Vote E—cognizanceWater Affairs", R101 500 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 20.—cognizanceWater Affairs201D;, R13 256 000:

I rise at the beginning of this discussion in order to introduce a matter with reference to the Auditor-General’s Report for the financial year 1969-’70. I am doing this, because after the publication of the Report of the Auditor-General, the Press came forward with a series of stories in regard to the report. I just want to tell you with reference to what remark contained in the Auditor-General’s Report, these newspaper reports appeared. They appeared with reference to the following. With reference to the investigation he had to undertake in respect of examining the documents relating to the Orange River project, the Auditor-General said the following—

In pursuance of this the Treasury appointed a Committee which consisted of the following persons: Mr. E. G. Kemp, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. L. D. Hobbs, Managing Engineer of Works of the Department of Water Affairs, Mr. I. S. Kaufmann, Director of Quantity Surveying Services of the Department of Public Works, Mr. D. L. Krogh, Director of Roads, Transvaal Provincial Administration, Mr. K. Neethling of the Office of the State Attorney, and Mr. K, R. Pretorius of the Treasury, who acted as Secretary of the Committee, I want to refer to the newspaper reports which had the following headings. On 9th February an article appeared in the Cape Times under the heading, “Blunders by State: Wasted R2 million, Auditor-General201D;. On the same date, the following heading appeared in Hoofstad (translation), “Orange River, R1 million wasted201D;. On the same day an article appeared in the Pretoria News under the heading, “Orange River planning spending scandal201D;. The Star published an article under the heading, “Nearly R2 million wasted on Orange Dam201D;. The Cape Times published an article under the heading, “Investigation on cost of Orange River project201D;.

Before any further explanation, I want to tell this House that I categorically deny that any money was wasted on the Orange River scheme. I am very pleased the Auditor-General recommended in his Report that a committee be appointed, especially in view of the fact that the newspaper reports which were published created the impression that the Department of Water Affairs had been negligent, had incurred unauthorized expenditure and had wasted money on a large scale. What I regret in particular is that the articles appeared in this form, because they created the impression that the officials of the Department of Water Affairs had been careless in handling the funds of the State. I particularly regret that such a reflection has been cast on the officials of the Department of Water Affairs, because they are the very people who have had to work at very high pressure during the past few years in order to bring to finality an enormous programme for the execution of works in South Africa. I want to point out that over the past few years the expenditure of the department has increased as follows I shall give the amounts to the nearest million. In 1968 it was R48 mil lion; in 1969 it was R62 million; in 1970 it was R80 million, and in 1971 it was R100 million. If there is such an increase in expenditure without a corresponding increase in the number of people who has to cope with that expenditure, one can understand why it is that the officials of my department have to work under very high pressure. I regret that the newspaper reports appeared in this form, because, in the first place, they are not true, and, in the second place, they create the impression that the Auditor-General allegedly uncovered major misspending in recent times. I want to point out that the reference of the Auditor-General goes back to the first days of the Orange River project. His reference is mainly to occurrences in the years 1962 and 1965 to 1968. Only one of the items to which I shall refer in a moment, actually comes under the period 1968 to 1970. Moreover, I must point out that the Auditor-General in his handling of this matter came forward with queries concerning the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1968 to 1970. In other words, the queries were made five/six years after the amounts had been spent. Now, as this House can understand, it is difficult for a department to check through such a mass of material so many years later, and to do so as expeditiously as possible, especially if the department is working under great pressure. Consequently it is very difficult under such circumstances to provide the Auditor-General himself with a fast service to his queries.

In addition I want to point out that the staff of the Department of Water Affairs who dealt with the project in its initial stage has changed considerably. The position is that senior officials of the Department of Water Affairs who dealt with the project in its initial stages, have been lost either through death or through retirement. These include the then Secretary for Water Affairs, who was intimately concerned in the matter, and who is no longer with us. The person who had been specially designated to deal with these matters, viz. the senior engineer, the late Mr. Armstrong, died in 1966. Mr. Potgieter, the Parliamentary Officer, who handled the matter initially, has also died, as you all know, because you all knew him. Furthermore. I want to point out that it is unfortunate that Mr. Boshoff, the senior accountant, who had been very closely concerned in the Orange River project, died in 1969. In addition, I want to point out that Mr. Myburgh, who had been very closely concerned in the project, left for South-West Africa in 1966 where he accepted a post with the South-West Africa Administration, This also applies to Mr. Truebody, another official who had been very closely concerned in the project, who was transferred to the South-West Africa Administration in 1968. In other words, I have to point out that my department was placed under very high pressure to reply to the questions at a late stage when some of the key people who had been very closely concerned in the matter, were no longer there.

I should like to tell this House what we are concerned with here. I want to tell the House that a whole number of items are involved in this matter. I cannot discuss all these items fully and thoroughly with this House, but I do want to deal with some of them. I want to say that the committee appointed by the Treasury to investigate this matter, scrutinized the various matters mentioned in the Auditor-General’s Report. The Auditor-General referred to a few heads, inter alia, to variation orders. The impression was created that the Department of Water Affairs had recklessly issued variation orders in connection with the Orange River project. In regard to the variation orders, reference was made to various schemes, inter alia, to the Venterstad Water Scheme in respect of which an amount of R23 789 was spent under a variation order. Reference was made to another scheme as well in regard to matters which had arisen from the building of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the provision of water from the Verwoerd Dam. As an example, I should like to discuss with this House the handling of this particular item. I do not want to adopt an attitude of self-condonation in respect of the department, but I want to allow this Committee which was requested by the Controller and Auditor-General himself, to speak in this regard. As I have said, this matter concerns a variation order to the value of R23 000. There was a crisis in Venterstad. The Department’s decision to provide Venterstad with water, arose from a critical water shortage in the town. The provision of purified water to Venterstad definitely was an emergency which had to be dealt with by the department as such on the instruction of the Minister of Water Affairs. The procedure of not inviting tenders, but of awarding the work to a contractor already engaged in executing another contract in the vicinity, was the most expeditious way of meeting the emergency. In other words, these were steps which had to be taken hastily as they were prompted by an emergency. I want to point out that the committee investigated this matter and reported as follows in this regard—

The committee went on to say—

What happened here was that a wrong procedure had in fact been followed, but that a choice had to be made between either acting immediately in an emergency or having a delaying action by first obtaining the approval of the Tender Board, which would arrest all work and lose money. The committee found that this matter had been dealt with to the best advantage of the State. The following is also stated in the report—

The Treasury commented on this as follows—

The committee said the following in this regard, cognizanceThe committee associates itself with the Treasury’s point of view in so far as this specific case is concerned.201D; It would be possible for me to proceed to dealing with these particular items one by one, but I do not want to take up the time of this House for such a length of time. I want to tell this House, however, that in regard to these variation orders, the committee agrees that not a single order was dealt with in a way which was not in the best interests of the State, and no other decision could in fact have been taken at that stage.

Now I should like to refer to another standpoint which was adopted in regard to fruitless expenditure. The Controller and Auditor-General remarked that fruitless and avoidable expenditure had been incurred. It was probably because of this fruitless and avoidable expenditure that the newspapers saw fit to write these articles which incriminate the department. In this regard I want to refer to what happened at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. The Controller and Auditor-General reported as follows in his Report—

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that what the newspapers described as a scandal relates to the action taken by the department with regard to a residential scheme at the Orange-Fish Tunnel, in respect of which expenditure had been estimated at R709 000 originally, but in respect of which the actual expenditure incurred amounted to R179 349. The department decided, however, that this scheme of almost R¼ million was too expensive and then decided to drop the scheme and to construct in its stead a cheaper scheme of R179 000. But it will be understood that if architects are instructed to lay out a scheme and a subsequent decision is taken not to proceed with the scheme, the architects’ fees at least should be paid. But now unauthorized expenditure amounting to R21 000 is reflected. But this amount of R21 000 had to be paid in any event in order to save more than R½ million. The committee investigated this matter carefully and reported as follows—

The second reference was in regard to the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam in which an amount of R1 009 289 was involved. The Cabinet decided in 1967 not to proceed with the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam and to delay expenditure as it would have meant a saving for the country at that stage. But this also afforded the Department of Water Affairs the opportunity of re-examining the project. After the department had considered the matter, it became clear that it would be possible to redesign the dam, which would result in major savings for the State. On that occasion the Secretary for Water Affairs reported to me that if the dam were to be redesigned and if more time were to be devoted to it, there would be a possibility of effecting a saving of from R9 million to R13 million for the State. I then personally instructed the Secretary for Water Affairs to proceed with redesigning the dam. The decision to design the dam was a very sensible one. The Treasury Committee which investigated the situation, reported as follows—

Now I want to say that this amount of plus-minus R1 million, which was described in the newspapers as being a “spending scandal201D;, has not gone to waste, because part of the work would have had to be done in any event. I want to say that the fact that the officials of my department took the initiative of reinvestigating this matter, and did not leave the matter as it was and in that way brought about a saving of more than 20 times the amount spent, deserves the praise of us all. If it were to happen again that it was left to me to decide that minor expenditure should be abandoned in order to bring about a major saving for the State, as happened in this case, I would always act in the same way again, I find it a pity that people were left with the impression that unauthorized expenditure had been incurred in this regard, that money had been wasted, that that had happened because of the foolish action of the department, and that the words “spending scandal201D; were used. All this was done while in actual fact the actual amounts in question were less than R2 million and the saving to the State almost R20 million. It would be possible for me to continue in this vein; it would be possible for me to dwell on each item and to occupy the time of this House by telling it how the committee found that in no single case had the Department of Water Affairs wasted the money of the State on the Orange River project I want to make the categorical statement, however, that it is a pity that one side of the matter was put while the other side, that of the large saving which had been effected, was not put at the same time. At the end of the report the committee said the following in general terms—

I agree with the committee. My department also agrees with the committee that it would have been easy to settle the matter. As the committee said, there was in fact no single case which could not have been settled through the normal channels and inquiries. Hon. members will allow me to say that the committee also remarked on the statements made by the Press on that occasion. After a thorough investigation of the matter, the committee said the following—

For this reason I have raised this matter at the beginning of this debate. In this way I was able to inform this House of the findings of the committee requested by the Controller and Auditor-General himself. I am pleased, that it has not been necessary for me to have tendered any apology on the part of the department, but that I have been able to speak through the mouth of the committee, appointed at the request of the Controller and Auditor-General, itself. I am pleased I have been able to say by these means that the contrary of what was alleged in the newspaper headlines, is true, and that the Department of Water Affairs, in fact wasted no money as regards the expenditure of funds for the Orange River project.

Mr. Chairman I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. The hon. the Minister has put us in a very awkward position this evening. He has opened the debate on his Vote before anybody on this side has said anything whatsoever. There has been no debate at all in regard to this Vote. He made some complaints regarding Press articles about the Orange River scheme. He then referred us at length to the report of the Auditor-General, which has been tabled in this House and which is therefore presumably a public document. From there he went on to quote at even greater length from another document. This document, if I have heard aright, is a report of the special committee of the Treasury which was appointed to investigate certain matters as the result of the Auditor-General having complained to the Treasury that he could not get satisfactory replies from the department in respect of certain expenditure. The Auditor-General in his report says in effect—

Which he then set forth. That committee was appointed, if I understand it correctly, its report is today before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, a Select Committee of this House. It has not reported. That document the hon. the Minister is quoting from is not before us. It is a privileged document at this stage. I have not got a copy. Members of the Select Committee have a copy, but they cannot quote from it. They are prohibi.ed as members of the Select Committee from using it until such time as the Select Committee has reported. J do not have the document; how can I deal with the Minister and say whether the expressions of opinion from a committee which he quotes to me and which he extracts at will are germane to this discussion and proper. Is it proper? I do not know what the hon. member for Paarl, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, thinks about the matter, but we on this side of the House now are at an extreme disadvantage in having to deal with a matter like this, which is still before the Select Committee. I repeat that in respect of this document, from which the hon. the Minister has quoted.

They have one set of rules for themselves and another for us.

Order! Is the hon. member for Durban Point reflecting on the Chair?

No. Sir, I am stating a fact. The Minister quoted from a document from which he is entitled to quote as the Minister, whereas we in the Opposition are not entitled to quote from that same document. I was merely stating a fact. It has nothing to do with the Chair, Sir. Apparently the Minister is entitled to quote it, but we are not, by the rules of the Select Committee, and the Minister is not a member of the Select Committee.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that, with respect, you will appreciate the position in which we are placed when we come to a debate on the Minister’s Vote, because that is what is before us. The shortcomings or otherwise, and difficulties in respect of the Orange River scheme, or any other scheme, may well be matters for debate when we are dealing with the Minister’s Vote. But we are, as I say, hopelessly prejudiced when the Minister, in defence of his own policy and as a rebuttal of the charges brought by the Auditor-General in his report, quotes to us on the authority, he says, of a special committee appointed by the Treasury, certain views which, according to him, are in that document.

Sir, how can we deal with a situation of that kind? I say it is most improper. If the Minister is to have a fair debate on his Vote, let him give us the documents which he is going to use. We will be playing with open cards if we have the documents and can refer to them. When he quotes from them with a clear statement that it is authoritative, because it comes from a special committee of the Treasury, where are we? We want that same authority. We will quote from that document. It may be that we will find something in rebuttal there. But as the matter stands at the moment, we cannot use the document before the Select Committee until the Select Committee has reported.

Now I want to come back to the Vote for a moment. We have enunciated the principles of water conservation from this side of the House previously. We do it every year under the Minister’s Vote—and one by one the Government accepts the principles of the United Party because it has no written principles in regard to a water policy or water conservation. It has no written policy. There is not such a thing. They simply take over one by one the principles which they have heard us enunciate. They take them from our Hansard reports, and bit by bit they are using those principles. [Interjections.] It is quite clear from the plaudits with which my remarks were received by Government members that we have gained many recruits for our point of view in regard to the five principles of water conservation.

Sir, let me very quickly and briefly enumerate them. From this side of the House in this debate we will be dealing with various aspects of these principles. We do not want every member to have to enunciate the principles to which he is sticking. I propose to enunciate them. Now that the hon. the Minister has opened the matter of the Orange River scheme that matter will be dealt with from this side of the House. He has chosen to come into the debate right at the start—before he was ever attacked—and defended himself in regard to the Orange River scheme. We shall therefore deal with it.

Firstly we say that there should be a safeguarding of supplies for existing communities. Existing communities, whether they be urban or rural, are entitled first and foremost in our opinion to get their water supply safeguarded. It should not be jeopardized by newcomers, however important the newcomers may be and however important the activities in which they may engage. Secondly, we believe that there should be a grid system of storage. I am indeed very pleased to see that only recently we have had one of the top water engineers in South Africa supporting the idea of the grid system. The only difference is that he comes with the authority of his professionals standing behind him and is therefore made to look very important. But we have been preaching it for six years. We advocated the application of the grid system in the Highberg, the latter being briefly those areas where snow normally falls in a normal winter. From there water can be taken by gravity. This will enable us to avoid the kind of proceeding where we have to build the Spioenkop Dam or its amended plans so as to get water across the Drakensberg into the Wilger River for the purpose of increasing the supply in the Vaal Basin.

We believe that with the funds we have we should develop our own water resources in South Africa. Let us use the funds we have to develop our own resources. Our own people can see the end of the road as far as fresh water supplies are concerned. They can see that the time is coming when we are going to be short of fresh water supplies. Let us spend our money to the best advantage to protect and safeguard our own water supplies.

Then there is the question of apportionment. We believe the time has come when South Africa is sufficiently developed and that we ought to be able to look at the overall picture of our water supplies in South Africa, our rivers, snowfalls, and underground and other water supplies and to decide how we are going to make apportionment so that areas that are getting water at the present time and areas which it is planned should get water in future shall know how far they can go without having to call upon water supplies from a different part of the country. Let each part of the country develop within the limits set by the available water supply or let a special plan be made to provide them with water, even at cost to the country. If it is of prime importance that these areas should develop then we must spend the money to give them water.

Last year we made the point that we believed the time had come for scientific research into all aspects of our water supply. I am not going to detail those particular matters, such as desalination, underground water supplies, clearing polluted water and making it usable, recycling it and so forth. There are a multitude of these matters that can be the subject of scientific research. Vast sums of money should in our opinion be spent on scientific research so as to augment and preserve the supplies of water which we have in this country.

We have been doing that since 1950 in South-West Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Can the hon. member for Etosha see now what his interjection has led to?

Here we are dealing with the question of pollution, and particularly the pollution of our water supplies. We see terrible examples of this pollution in other countries. The perils of the pollution of water supplies are brought to our notice month after month. For that reason I again appeal to the Government to create a department for the protection of our environment, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. The task of this department should be not only to protect our water supplies, but also to protect all aspects of our environment—the air we breathe, our water, the very soil upon which we are growing our crops, and the sea around our shores. This environment with its biological processes, in fact the whole ecology of our country, is endangered today because of a lack of proper care by a centralized authority. The Minister of Water Affairs is, for example, also the Minister of Forestry, but they are two departments. Then there is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is in charge of the Departments of Commerce and Industry. All these Ministers deal with certain aspects of pollution. We feel that the time has come, and is in fact over-ripe, for the establishment of a department for the protection of the environment, with a Minister in charge.

I now come to a question which has been plaguing this Parliament for as long as I can remember, and I have been here for 23 years. For 23 years I have sat on the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters, and for 23 years we have been writing off, year after year, sums of money in respect of loans, interest charges, and so forth. These were moneys borrowed by various irrigation boards and irrigation settlements, and the people falling under these boards or living in these settlements were burdened with the repayment of these loans, usually by means of the payment of a special rate. These people have had to repay their capital sum as well as interest charges. Sir, droughts come, and these financial arrangements break down, or there is a drop in the market and the financial arrangements break down. In the 23 years that I have sat on that Select Committee, we must have written off many millions of rands. Now, we on this side of the House want to suggest that the time has come for the Government to take a fresh look at the whole question of irrigation schemes in South Africa. We feel that the position of all the schemes should be investigated. Let us see whether we cannot wipe the slate clean. We have today hundreds and possibly thousands, of irrigation farmers who are working very hard. They are honest, decent, sincere and industrious people. They battle, sometimes against drought and on occasion with a shortage of water for the purposes of irrigation. They just cannot obtain enough water. Sometimes they cannot obtain reasonable prices for their product because market values drop. These people deserve a better lot. They are in many cases married men with families, and hanging over them is the knowledge that at the end of the year they have to pay an account in respect of water rates. They have to find that money somewhere, because that account hangs like a black cloud over their heads. When they are stricken by drought they do not know where to find the money, and yet they have to continue. They hope that their irrigation board may obtain another loan, but this is merely another piling up of debt, a further accretion of capital and of interest payments. These repayments have to be made some time. Sir, this is not fair. It is not even good for the socioeconomic situation here in South Africa.

I should like to make a suggestion in this regard, and here I should like to speak for the other side. Very rarely do I commit myself as regards the views of hon. members on the other side, but this time I am going to stick my neck out. This is what I believe: If, after a full inquiry, a schedule were presented to Parliament in which it was suggested that we should write off a certain amount, however many millions of rands it may involve in capital and accumulated interest, and that, in the case of every one of these irrigation settlements the financial burdens on the irrigators should be brought to a level which was within their means so that this everlasting threat of debt were removed from their shoulders, I venture to suggest that hon. members on both sides would be unanimous in deciding to write off all that money. They would agree to it. My hon. friend, the member for Etosha, in spite of all that he believes, in spite of suffering from hallucinations, would also vote for it. Then we would start with a clean slate, instead of coming year by year to the Select Committee with special petitions which require the attention of the Department of Irrigation, which, heaven knows, has its hands full with its own troubles, but nevertheless have to go and investigate these petitions; they have to put up reports from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or Agricultural Marketing and their own reports. They have to undertake financial investigations and then come forward with a request to the Select Committee and year by year we write off these sums of money; year by year there are further difficulties; year by year the thing goes on building up. Sir, I ask the Government please to take into the account the possibility of our making a clean start with a clean slate. Let us bring every one of these irrigation boards within a financial context which is within their capacity, something which they can reasonably be expected to deal with and to handle, so that we do not continually have to put them in the position of having to come with petitions to Parliament, asking us to write off the interest and capital sums, the cost of which they can no longer carry. Sir, I want to make an appeal to the Minister that he should do this.

Sir, I want to come back to the Orange River scheme. All our schemes today, in eluding repairs to existing schemes—and I do not lay all this at the door of the Minister—are costing far more than was ever anticipated at the time when those schemes were first initiated. As the years go by and you have to make alterations and improve schemes, the cost rises higher and higher. The result is that the cost of building State dams is rising, I was going to say, almost by the day, I think it is forgotten very often that when the cost of living goes up for those of us who are ordinary citizens, for the man in the street, for me walking up the Avenue—I am the man in the street—it also goes up for the people who have to build State dams, because they are the contractors who contracted to build those dams and the cost is rising against them the whole time. They have the difficulty of getting adequate labour, properly qualified to do the job, for schemes running into millions and millions of rand, as the hon. the Minister has said. The cost keeps on rising against us. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that those schemes be brought within the purview of any inquiry to look into the existing financial conditions of existing settlements. Do not let us go on building these dams where the cost is rising and rising and then at the end of it all turn round to the irrigators, who are going to be provided with water from these schemes, and say to them: “We thought that this scheme was going to cost R8 million, but we find that it costs R53 million.201D; The difference between R53 million and R8 million is now going to load the cost of the water to the irrigators who are going to get it. Sir, let a committee of inquiry investigate the cost of all these schemes and never mind what we have to write off. That money will have been spent with the best intention in the world. I say: Let us cut these schemes down so as to bring the new generation of irrigators, who will be getting water from these schemes, down to the same level as those old- established irrigators whose load we hope to lighten. One of the schemes, of course, which would be brought under review in that case, would be the Orange River Scheme in all its various aspects. The indications are that these rising costs will rise to a certain level; we do not know where it will stop. I do not want at this stage to enter into the argument as to whether the department is justified in not putting up to tender a certain contract, the cost of which, according to the department’s estimate, is R8 million. I believe that that is the figure; I am speaking without the book and I may be wrong. The department has said, cognizanceThe lowest tender that we have received is so high that we simply cannot put this out to tender any longer and accept prices like that, but the work must go on. We will do it departmentally; our estimate is that we will do it for R8 million201D;. Sir, once upon a time I was a contractor, at the time when I was standing close to the dock, like the hon. member for Potchefstroom ...

What kind of dock?

… giving evidence against those who were trying to do me down. Sir, of all the pastimes to which a human being can devote himself at the present time, the most dangerous one is this classical pastime of a calculating in advance what it will finally cost to build a dam which is now estimated to cost R8 million. It is a most dangerous pastime, Sir, because if the man makes a mistake then the difference comes out of his pocket. But what are we to say when the Minister says, “I am not going to ask the contractor to stand the racket; we will do it out of public money; we will do it departmentally?201D;

At a saving.

How do you know?

Sir, the Whip who is present on that side should chide that hon. member. He has never been a contractor, and for him to stand up here and to stake his reputation as a member of Parliament on a saving on that particular job of R30 million, is to enter upon that most dangerous of pastimes to which any human being can lend himself at the present time. However, let that pass; it is in Hansard and we will remind him of it a little later on. Sir, let us review the whole situation, not only in respect of existing irrigation settlements, but in respect of dams which are being constructed, in respect of works which are under construction at the present time. Let us take a fresh view; let us review the whole situation and try to bring the cost to those who are going to have to pay within their capacity to pay. Let us bring it down to a reasonable price within their capacity to pay, even if we have to write off hundreds of millions of rand. I want to make it clear Chat we are not attacking the basic principle of the Orange River Scheme. We believe that it is something great and that it is something very important for South Africa. It is something of immense importance, so we are with it in principle but, Sir, we see the costs rising against us continually.

I now move on to another point and that is the question of the farmer who builds himself a dam. I am going to appeal to the Minister to review the whole of the procedure. Let him make it simple so that the man can get his dam built and get his subsidy. That does not happen today, Sir. I understand that the department was short of technical, professional people. I do not know what the position is today. I have an idea that I heard the hon. the Minister say not long ago that the shortage was being made up to a very great extent; that he was not nearly so short of technical and professional people as he was a year or two ago, that he had made up the leeway to a very great extent. Sir, if that is so, then it may help us, but at the present time there is no hope whatever of a farmer complying with all the regulations and getting the technical or professional officials from the Department of Water Affairs to help him through to the end where he is certain as to what the cost is likely to be and of the subsidy within anything like a reasonable time of many months. Sir, we want water and we will build our dam or get it built quickly so that we can catch the late rains. The water is what we want, not the subsidy. The difficulties and the delays in complying with all requirements before such time as the work can be started, are overwhelming. But I want to add this—and now I am speaking from my own personal experience having gone a certain length with the assistance of the department—and it was freely given, but from time to time they did not have anybody there and I just had to whistle for the time being until somebody else could come along—I went to the contractor and the first thing that I was told by him and subsequently by two others was, “Mr. Mitchell, if you are building this dam to the specification of the Department of Water Affairs, then we put up our price by one-third201D;.

Why?

Because of those high specifications. But, of course, Sir, it was not because of the high specifications; it was because they knew that I was getting a subsidy of one-third.

They wanted to make money out of this.

Yes, of course, they wanted to make money out of it. Mr. Chairman, how right the hon. member is. You see what a bright intellect he has, Sir. [Interjections.] I am speaking the language that hon. members on the other side understand. I am not saying “die taal201D;, but the same language. [Interjections.] The hon. member is showing a bright intelligence. He gets the idea. The contractor puts on one-third extra on the price because he wants to make money out of it. The contractor, being an ordinary businessman, says: That is the price I will charge, which the farmer, Mr. Mitchell, will have to pay, but he has to get a subsidy from the Government and it will not cost him anything because he takes with one hand and pays out with the other. So he puts up his price. So eventually I cut my price by a third and built the dam myself, I did not owe the Government any money and I did not get any subsidy, but I had a dam full of water. Otherwise I would just have been sitting still on blueprints and cross-sections and heaven only knows what. And that is not the worst of it. I would have been sitting on a clay bottom, which is also very necessary in our local dams. But I do suggest to the Minister that all this is unnecessary. He cannot throw away public money. In the conservation of water by the farming community and others who are entitled to get the subsidy, local authorities and others, a risk should be taken if necessary so as to ensure speed of completion of the work. It is the speed and the completion of the work which is necessary. The six or seven years of drought we have behind us have made every one of us supremely water conscious on our farms. We are conscious of the need to conserve water wherever we can get it, and we cannot afford to wait. So I suggest to the Minister that he give thought to this. I am sure he will be able to get people who can work out a very much simpler scheme, but it will fall down if the department is still woefully short of technical and professional personnel. If he has not got those people, I can foresee that he will still be in difficulty. But I ask him to see whether he cannot bring about a simpler and a quicker method of getting acceptance and getting the work actually done than is the case at present.

The hon. member for South Coast raised quite a number of interesting matters here. Unfortunately I shall not have the time to go into all of them, because the hon. member had the privilege of the half-hour and I do not have that privilege. At the beginning of the hon. member’s speech, however, I could not help gaining the impression that this evening the hon. the Minister had taken the wind out of the hon. member’s sails, as it were, by giving a survey of the re-designing of the P. K. le Roux Dam. about which quite a fuss had been made in the newspapers. Now I just want to say that I for one have the greatest appreciation for the fact that the department and the Minister have taken the trouble of giving thorough consideration to the design of such a big scheme and effecting a saving, where possible. I think a very real danger exists in that it may happen in Government Departments or public bodies that schemes or projects which have been designed are simply accepted in good faith and passed on as they are. This applies not only to the Department of Water Affairs, but also to other Government Departments. This is a vitally important matter, and for that reason I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the department and the hon. the Minister have given thorough attention to this matter and that this saving has become possible for the department and the Government.

The hon. member referred to the necessity of research, broad investigation and broad planning, by the department, and for that very reason we are pleased that we may say that during the past few years the department has been drastically reorganized, and that the department and the C.S.I.R. have been conducting very thorough research in respect of various aspects of water development; and that that work is being extended to the extent to which trained staff are becoming available. I know the hon. member is someone who studies the activities of the department. but he need only consult Chapter 3 of the latest report of the department. In that chapter he will find a review of what the department is really doing or having done to make a proper survey, to take readings and to do research in regard to various aspects of water development so as to develop and deal with the water situation in South Africa as fruitfully as possible.

Another point to which the hon. member referred, and one in respect of which I am in sympathy with him to a large extent, is this question of the writing off of loans of irrigation boards by the Select Committee, and consequently, in the final instance, by Parliament. Now I should like to point out, however, that it is very difficult to make a survey and a general write-off or concession in respect of all possible irrigation boards, because the circumstances of the irrigators at the various irrigation schemes differ so widely. The histories of the various schemes differ very largely. The sizes of irrigation holdings also differ to a very large extent, and there will probably be a big difference between the tariff which someone farming on 10 morgen of land may be able to pay with ease and that of a person irrigating 30 or 50 morgen of land under the same circumstances. What is more, there is one factor which no-one can control, neither the Minister nor the department, and that is the question of rainfall in a particular year or in a particular area. Cases considered by the Select Committee in recent years, were in most instances applications by irrigation boards for relief because of exceptional conditions of drought. What can an irrigation fanner afford to pay if he does not get his regular turn to use water from the particular source or dam? He is completely dependent on the water supply which is available. Therefore, we must bear in mind that we shall never be able to eliminate those conditions altogether, and that such periods of drought will occur from time to time, as history has taught us, periods in which we shall have to assist certain irrigation boards in certain drought-stricken areas. In other words, this is a matter which should enjoy level-headed consideration. There is no uniformity. There are circumstances beyond our control. If we were to assist certain irrigation boards to a great extent, the question would immediately arise, “What about the others paying far higher tariffs?201D; What is more, future irrigation boards, which are still prospective builders of schemes, will then possibly find themselves in a position where the funds cannot be made available to them if funds have to be made available to them on the basis of a very reasonable repayment or hardly any repayment at all. These are problems which are very real, and I am convinced of the fact that the department and the Minister will make this matter as streamlined as possible in due course. It is the task of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters to give consideration to individual irrigation boards from time to time, when warranted by exceptional conditons, and to deal with them in the best interests of all. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that he will never solve this problem by means of one final arrangement. He will do so for this year, but after a period of three or four years he will find that irrigation boards will again come forward with special conditions. Then he will have to give them a hearing again, consider their problem again and probably assist them again.

In conclusion, I want to mention a matter here today which to me is not only interesting, but also very important, and that is that in regard to the development of our water resources and the economic utilization of water, particularly in the agricultural industry, we should take a very serious look at the development of drip irrigation as a new system which is relatively new in the world and completely new in South Africa. There are irrigation farmers who are already asking the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to subsidizing drip irrigation through plastic pines. Now I want to concede that it is difficult to subsidize drip irrigation for temporary crops, because that kind of system does not have a long life. But as far as orchards are concerned, such as peach orchards, citrus orchards, etc., plastic pipes have a relatively long life, as in the case of, stock-watering schemes, and the irrigator is able to lay those pipes permanently. The indication is that a considerable saving of water—the estimate is some 40 per cent —may be effected, that a considerable saving in labour may take place, and that a considerable increase in production may be brought about. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and his department to give urgent attention to this matter at an early date, if it is at all possible. If necessary, we should even investigate the matter in countries in which this system has been developed and in which considerable experience has been gained in this respect. I have in mind, for example, Israel and Australia. In Japan something is being done, and in America much is being done in this regard. I am mentioning only a few of the most important countries. I think circumstances in Israel are such that we shall be able to learn a great deal in that country. I know that in Japan there are certain desert regions which are actually coastal sand-dune projects, where work is in progress at present, work which is very interesting and informative and which is producing good results.

As we in our country have major problems in regard to the best utilization of the available water resources, and as we shall have to feed not 20 million people but 40 million people in South Africa in 30 or 40 years’ time, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to encourage this development and to see in our planning ahead, even in regard to the development of the Orange River project, whether we cannot divert certain sections of this large scheme in this direction. After all, it is expensive to bring water through irrigation canals to a particular point. By means of this system we may even be able not only to irrigate more morgen of land, but also to reduce our water losses by a high percentage to a very large extent. I trust the hon. the Minister, with his department, will keep up the good work they are doing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the hon. member for Piketberg on having finally discovered that there is such a thing as drip irrigation. It is something which has been well known in America, Australia and Israel for a long time; in fact, it has even been the subject of commercial advertisements here in the Republic. We agree that it is a marvellous system of irrigation and I want to compliment him on his discovery and say that, in fact, we agree with everything he said about it. Apart from that I want to tell the hon. member that later in this debate we shall be raising the question of fruitless expenditure in connection with the P. K. le Roux Dam and similar matters relating to the Orange River scheme as a whole.

I propose to raise one particular aspect of the Orange River scheme which has been worrying us for some considerable time. Before I do so, I want to invite the hon. the Minister and other speakers on the Government side of the House to listen carefully to what we have to say so that when they reply to us, they will reply to matters that have actually been raised by us and not to some distortions that they might try to invent. Last year, for example, we had a classic example of a red herring being used by the hon. the Minister during the Water Affairs Vote, a red herring without foundation which could only have emanated from some far-fetched flight of fancy on the part of the hon. the Minister. He knows what I am talking about because it is something which crept into his newspapers. We then had to take steps to correct it. I trust that we shall not see anything of that nature during this debate.

This is why I want to make it quite clear at the outset in dealing in detail with the Orange River development project, that we of the Opposition are as strongly in favour of the principle of the Orange River scheme as ever. There can be no question of that and I want to say quite bluntly to the hon. the Minister and to others on that side of the House that to suggest anything to the contrary would be nothing more than a malicious distortion of the facts. Furthermore, I want to say that we are proud in one respect, namely that a former member from this side of the House, Tom Bowker, is now at last being recognized, even by people on that side of the House, as the real father of the Orange River scheme. As far as I personally am concerned, the name of Mr. Tom Bowker should have been honoured before the name of, let us say, Mr. P. K. le Roux, in naming a part of this project.

Hear, hear!

I suggest, too, that it is perhaps not too late for the Government to make amends. My suggestion is that the hon. the Minister might well consider naming the Orange-Fish Tunnel the Bowker Tunnel.

Our main charge against the hon. the Minister is that in the last few years the Government seems to have been far from frank with Parliament or with the people of this country about some of the financial implications of the Orange River scheme. We can only deal with phase I of the scheme in meaningful terms for most of the second and subsequent phases of the scheme are still too far removed from us and the details are still too unknown for us to have any meaningful debate at this juncture. What we have to face up to as far as the first phase of the scheme is concerned, is that the cost of this scheme has skyrocketed almost unbelievably. It is be coming more and more apparent that something has gone seriously wrong with the financial planning of the first phase of the Orange River scheme or with its execution or both, and that the Government has been most reluctant to tel! us and the public exactly what is going on. On 8th September, 1970, for example, I asked the hon. the Minister what the latest estimate of the cost of the first phase of the scheme was. He told me that it was R240 million. That is the cost mentioned in the White Paper of 1968. On 18th May this year, eight months and ten days later, I again asked the hon. the Minister what the cost of this scheme was estimated to be. He then told me that it had risen by R145 million to R385 million, an increase of just over 60 per cent in the course of eight months.

This rather startling disclosure raises some points which I feel must be replied to immediately by the hon. the Minister. When he replied to my question last September was he not aware that there had been this staggering rise in the cost of the first phase of the scheme? Did he have no Inkling of what was going on in his department or, if he did, why did he not take Parliament into his confidence and tell us that the cost was likely to be far more than estimated and that the 1968 estimate was hopelessly out of date? We are also entitled to ask exactly at what stage between September of last year and a few weeks ago, during the intervening eight months, he became aware of this huge increase in the cost of the scheme.

Was it only when he received notice of my question that his department told him what was going on? Whatever the answer is, we are entitled to it. We are entitled to have some reason for it We want to know, for instance, whether his department had kept it a secret from him that the costs had risen to the extent that they have. If not, we want to know from him why he did not tell Parliament timeously that the costs had risen in this way. Here we must remind the hon. the Minister that it is Parliament that has to vote funds for this project, not he and not his department. It is Parliament that is responsible to the public for the funds voted. In case he should take this amiss, I want to tell the hon. the Minister quite bluntly that it is the Opposition whose constitutional duty it is to safeguard the rights of the public in the voting of funds.

The radical cost changes in the entire first phase must now, I believe, be properly examined by Parliament. What we need now is a new full White Paper that will deal entirely with the actual costs of the scheme and ail its financial ramifications. When this scheme was first mooted in the White Paper of 1962, the cost of the first phase was given at an estimated R85 million. I suggest that we do not, for the purposes of this debate, dwell too long on that figure, because as we all know, there were modifications to the two main dams and even to the plans for the Orange Fish Tunnel before the second White Paper was produced in 1964. These provisions included, as we all know, the increase in the capacity of the two main dams, among other things. The revised cost in 1964 was given as R130 million which cost also included such things as “unforeseen eventualities”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

But you don’t have dams in the Free State.

It so happens that this dam is in the Free State. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the unpleasant remarks made by the hon. member for Kensington in comparing a former member of this House to a former Minister. I think they were quite distasteful. Neither do I believe that the hon. member can expect me to reply to his entire speech, which consisted of a number of specific questions.

He looks like a holy monkey.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may one hon. member refer to another hon. member as a holy monkey?

Order! Did the hon. member for Carletonville refer to that hon. member as a holy monkey?

Mr. Chairman. I said the hon. member reminded me of a holy monkey.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, 1 withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, the conversation we have just had here was a rather unholy one. I do not think the hon. member can expect me to reply to specific questions in connection with specific amounts which he put to the hon. the Minister. It was quite obvious to me that he was not talking about the same phases as the Minister, or at any rate, not about the same amounts. So I leave the matter at that. What I found interesting, however, was that the hon. member for South Coast, in stating his policy here tonight, told the Minister that he had to have quite a number of matters investigated. I found it interesting, for just before he said that, he had objected seriously to a document which the hon. the Minister was alleged to have in hand, and to which he did not have access. If the hon. member does not have this Blue Book, the report of the Water Planning Commission, I would be glad to let him have one. Everything that the hon. member inquired about, everything and much more, was fully investigated and fully dealt with by the Water Planning Commission, ted by Prof. S. P. du Toil Viljoen. It was dealt with brilliantly. I want to tell him …

Douglas has never read a book in his life.

He also said that their policy, would be to have special scientific inquiries conducted into everything relating to water. I know the hon. member has been ill. but I think that his colleagues should really have kept him better informed. While he was ill, this House passed an Act, a special Act making it possible to conduct scientific inquiries into all aspects of water research and also voting the funds for that research.

Then the hon. member addressed a plea to the Minister for the debts of those irrigation schemes that are no longer profitable and where the irrigators can no longer make a living to be written off. He said he was prepared to stick out his neck and say “Write off.201D; I want to tell the hon. member that he need not stick out his neck; we shall not chop it off. The very policy the hon. member is advocating is already being applied. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department of Water Affairs has already cleared up some of these schemes. I want to mention to him, i.e. the one at Pienaar's River. I take it the hon. the Minister will have more to say about it, but that scheme has virtually been cleared up completely. The hon. the Minister has even gone so far as to create a name for that specific procedure. He refers to water slum clearance. I cannot understand that the hon. member …

Is the Pienaar’s River scheme a water slum?

The hon. member does not understand what it means. I would rather leave the hon. member at that. I was talking of a process that has been developed and I did not say that the Pienaar’s River scheme was a water slum.

I should like to refer to a few other matters, In connection with the report of the Department of Water Affairs, there are two matters which I find particularly gratifying. In the first place mention is made of the large number of senior engineers who have rejoined the Department of Water Affairs in the past few years. It gladdens one’s heart to see that some of these engineers who have been appointed to senior positions, have returned to the department from as far afield as America. In the year 1964-'65 the department experienced an absolute dearth of professional staff, the loss of staff amounting to no fewer than 85 qualified engineers in that year. Consequently one finds it gratifying indeed that the department has now succeeded in having in re-employing such a large number of those engineers, some of whom returned from as far as America. It is also gratifying to see that the recruiting has borne fruit since those lean years from 1965 to 1968. The loss of staff has been halted and there is now an increase in the technical and professional staff of the department.

One is also glad to see, on taking a further look at these figures, that the professional staff of the Department of Water Affairs is setting the entire South Africa and its labour pattern an example by the amount of work they are doing. It should be noted that in the year 1953 every engineer was proportionally responsible for the expenditure of R116 600. In 1970 the amount controlled by that professional engineer, for the expenditure of which he was responsible, was R529 000, In other words, seen in those terms, every engineer in the Department of Water Affairs did almost five times as much work last year as in 1953, if one does not make allowance for real terms. This is a source of gratification to us.

But there is another matter about which I should like to say a few words, namely the Orange River project. I want to congratulate the department on having, in the words of the hon. member for South Coast, taken the bold steps of deciding to undertake the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith was perfectly reasonable when he suggested that he should not be expected to answer the specific questions which I bad put earlier to the hon. the Minister. I agree with him. These questions are directed solely to the Minister. As regards other remarks made by him. they will be dealt with at some later stage. So. if he will forgive me. I want to proceed with what I was dealing earlier on.

Sir, 1 want to say that perhaps the original estimate of R85 million for the first phase of the Orange River scheme should be disregarded by us in this Committee in examining the whole scheme. The modifications, as we know, included the decision to construct the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam to its full supply level. There were various modifications to the Van der Kloof Dam which is to be named the P. K. le Roux Dam. They provide for greater expenditure on hydro-electric power installations through the raising of the major dams and other ancillary works. As I have said, Sir, the cost given in the White Paper in 1964 took account of all of this and what the White Paper referred to as “unforeseen eventualities201D; in fixing the cost at R130 million. Then, coming to the 1968 White Paper, we had minor modifications to the scheme again, which included the damming of the Caledon River at Welbedacht and the piping of water from the weir there to Bloemfontein and certain Free State towns as an alternative to earlier proposals to supply them from the main dam. In 1968 the revised cost of the scheme was given as R240 million. The reason then given for the rise in the cost of the first phase from R130 million to R240 million was then—and I quote—

In other words, Sir, at the time the estimate of R240 million was given three years ago, the department was in possession of what should have been accurate estimates in respect of two of the three main parts of the first phase. It had received the tenders for the construction of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and for the Orange-Fish tunnel, and the only major unkonwn quantity remaining was the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. Even in the case of this dam, it already had what was then thought to be a realistically revised cost estimate. Now, without advancing any further reasons, the hon. the Minister has told us that the cost has risen again by R145 million. I say “without advancing any further reasons201D; advisedly for when I asked the hon. the Minister on May the 18th this year what the reason was for the increase from R240 million to R385 million, he gave me exactly the same reasons as had been published in the White Paper of 1968. This is what he said, and if you will recall my words of a few moments ago when I quoted from the White Paper, you will see that they are verbatim—

What he told us on the 18th May was that the increase of R145 million was due to exactly the same factors that had caused the cost to rise from R130 million to R240 million, namely the nature of the tenders already received before 1968 for the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the first section of the Orange-Fish Tunnel.

Surely, Sir, there is some missing element here, something that the hon. the Minister has failed to explain to us and to the people. On the face of things the hon. the Minister should have been able to tell us of the R385 million estimate as long ago as 1968 for the last two estimates have been based on precisely the same facts. He has told us nothing to justify any further increase. What, Sir, is the explanation of this? This, I suggest, bring us to the crux of the problem. The hon. the Minister and his department will now have to be far more frank with Parliament than they have been in the past. Now that we have been finally told what he and his department believe will be the final bill for the first phase of this scheme, we want a clear idea, for instance, of what is being done to justify this expenditure on economic grounds. If one looks, for instance, at the amount of new irrigation land to be developed under this scheme, one sees, going back to 1962, that it was originally planned that 55 000 morgen of new land should be brought under irrigation in terms of the first phase. Now, it is virtually impossible to strip out exactly what the capital cost per morgen would be, because there are other aspects of this scheme that cannot be costed precisely. I am referring to capital expenditure on the hydro-electric aspects of the scheme and to the supply of water for urban and industrial purposes. If one were to strike an actual cost figure … [Interjections.] hon. members might not think it is important, but I suggest that when we are dealing with sums of money of this nature they should wipe the smiles off their faces and listen in earnest. This is no joking matter. This is a matter of deadly seriousness for this Parliament and the public. [Interjections.] Let them laugh about the millions; the public outside do not laugh about them. If one strikes a figure in respect of the actual land being placed under irrigation, one finds that it would work out at approximately R1 500 per morgen. If, however, allowance is made for hydroelectric works and other works it would probably be less. But what is the position now? We have not been told by the hon. the Minister of any plans to increase the amount of new land to be placed under irrigation in terms of phase I of this scheme. This is something in respect of which I feel we should have a direct answer from the hon. the Minister. At the moment there are no disclosed plans to increase the amount of irrigation land to more than the 55 000 morgen envisaged in 1962. But the cost of 1he scheme itself has risen from R85 million to R385 million which brings a profoundly different complexion on the whole matter. If one were to strike a figure of what it now would cost, excluding hydro-electric and urban water supply factors, one sees that the capital cost of irrigation has risen from something like R1500 per morgen to R7 000 per morgen. Again of course the cost would be less if allowance is made for these other factors. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the hon. members of the Opposition and to the questions they put to the hon. the Minister, it is clear that it is almost impossible to reply to all those questions. For the past 20 minutes the hon. member for Kensington has tried to make a point. That point remains an extremely weak one to me. The reason for this is that we have to deal with an Opposition which wants to have a fit because the Department of Water Affairs is itself going to make an attempt to build the P. K. le Roux Dam. To me that great undertaking by the hon. the Minister and his department, an undertaking of such magnitude as the P. K. le Roux Dam, is proof of the unshakeable confidence placed in the technicians, engineers and workers of the Republic. We on this side of this House are not so much concerned about what it is going to cost. To us the main concern is the confidence placed in our artisans, technicians and domestic manpower. For that reason this side of this House is not so much concerned with what awaits us overseas, but rather with what human material is available to us on our own soil. In that confidence the hon. the Minister and his department has taken the grand step of announcing that we are going to tackle and complete the P. K. le Roux Dam ourselves.

I should also like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Piketberg said in regard to the assistance given by this department to various irrigation schemes. I want to express the thanks of my constituency in the form of a declared fact, namely that two irrigation boards in the constituency I represent have benefited greatly by the sympathetic treatment which the hon. the Minister and his department have given them by means of meeting them to the tune of R1 600 000 in respect of the Sundays River Valley and R22 000 in respect of the Fish River Valley. For that reason I have the wonderful privilege of stating that we have here an extremely competent Minister and a wonderful department. I get the impression that hon. members opposite are extremely embarrassed this evening because the hon. the Minister caught them on the wrong foot by mentioning the facts to them at the outset. This completely deprived them of an argument. They have been deprived of their gossip which they wanted to continue here this evening as well.

I want to discuss the more positive steps this department is taking at present, namely the saving of water. On the basis of research it is predicted that the population of the Republic will double itself within 29 years. If we consider the fact that the present consumption of water is 3,8 million morgen feet per year, one becomes extremely concerned about the population increase, in the light of the extremely limited water resources which the Republic has available to it. But in spite of what the Opposition wants to allege here this evening, this department is engaged on research of an unparalleled magnitude. They are planning for years ahead and in the light of our limited water resources they are taking into account the population increase up to the year 2000 and beyond. This department has indicated very clearly to us that in the light of the population increase as determined by research, they are going to plan ahead in order to meet the shortage of water facing us. We know that the Republic receives an average rainfall of 18 inches a year. Of this, 91 per cent is lost through evaporation. Of the rest, 50 per cent runs off to the sea. A fact which we must therefore take into account, is that we have to deal with a very high percentage of water evaporation. But on the other hand we must also take into account the fact that we have a population which must still learn how to use water to the best advantage, in spite of the fine results achieved by the past Water Year, To give an example in this regard, it was determined that the per capita water consumption per day of Whites on the Witwatersrand amounted to as much as 87,3 gallons in 1965. Furthermore, it was established by the commission of inquiry into water affairs that people living in flats, where their water consumption is not measured, have a much higher water consumption than persons living in houses, because the house owner has to pay directly for his water. Therefore there is the factor of saving water. We will have to save water. In this respect I am thinking especially of saving in the agricultural sector. If one bears in mind that in 1965 the water consumption of the Republic already amounted to 80 per cent of the total supply of water available, one realizes that we will have to cut down very drastically. The department is conducting research in this regard as well. The importance of better utilization of irrigation water is borne out in the documents I have before me, which show that by utilizing irrigation water more carefully, we can in fact bring about a saving of 25 per cent according to present standards. However, it is not only in the sphere of agriculture that we can save water, but also in the sphere of industry. For example, it was proved that after a chemical industry on the Rand had increased its production by 70 per cent, taken over a certain period since 1962, its water purchases, had increased by only 20 per cent. This is very clear proof that we can save water even in our industrial sector. It is estimated that such a saving can amount to between 50 and 90 per cent of the present consumption. Thanks to the department of Water Affairs and to the hon. the Minister, we also have a possibility of saving water by way of desalting sea water as well as by re-using water in large cities. We already have a beautiful example of this in the installation at Windhoek. I believe that by re-using water we can bring about a saving of 50 per cent.

The Republic therefore has its problems in regard to the supply of water, but we believe that the hon. the Minister, with the energy he displays and with the enterprise of his staff, of which I personally can testify in respect of my constituency, will be able to keep the public water conscious and that by saving water in a positive way, we shall in fact be able to meet the increasing demand for water.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague from Somerset East will forgive me if I do not follow him fully, but there is one matter which I would like to remind h m of, namely the point he made in reply to the hon. member for Kensington about the cost of the P. K. le Roux Dam and the Orange River Scheme. He said during the course of his speech that the cost does not concern us today. I should like to remind him that from 1948 up to 1961 this scheme was far too expensive for this Government. It was only when the White Paper of 1962 was laid on the Table that it became part of their policy. Furthermore, since 1962 the costs, due to inflation, have increased considerably. How ever, I will leave the hon. member there and carry on with other matters.

In introducing the discussion on his Vote the hon. the Minister volubly defended himself with a well marked copy of the Auditor-General’s report and extracts from a certain confidential document which is not available to this side of the House. It seemed to us that he was defending himself rather against the Auditor-General and the Press than against the members of the Opposition. In the process of his defence, he said that it was difficult to answer certain queries on schemes under construction and those that have recently been completed, because so many officials had passed away. We on this side of the House have the deepest sympathy with the families of those officials who passed away. They were probably overworked in the cause of South Africa. In the course of his speech, the hon. the Minister did not tell us one word about what he was doing to improve the working conditions of his staff or to increase his staff. This shortage is very apparent on the first page of the latest report we have.

I should like to deal with a specific scheme which is indicative of what is happening in the department today, namely the Doorn River scheme which is mentioned in the latest report and which to date, has cost R1 961 319. In the original White Paper this cost was estimated at R1 million. Certain questions were put on the 25th May by the hon. member for Kensington in connection with the scheme. We do not find the answers to those questions satisfactory at all. The hon. the Minister was asked whether it was the intention of his department to construct a canal system for irrigation purposes as outlined in White Paper WPL of 1963. His reply was “No. the land can be irrigated more economically by pumps from the river.201D; We should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he means more economically for the farmers or for the Department of Water Affairs. These farms are all small farms. In the original White Paper each of them was to get 25 morgen under water. The total size varies from 110 to 250 morgen. Owners of farms of this size are not financially able to buy the pumps which are necessary to pump water. My information from all people and from my own experience is that pumping is the most expensive form of irrigation that you can get. Furthermore, not all the farmers in this area border the river. The canal system would have brought water to all the farms. There are second row farmers and if they have to pump, they have to take their pipelines over other people’s land. This is not always so easily arranged. I believe the farmers in this area were notified by a circular letter that the canals were not to be built, But in 1967 we had an additional White Paper, WEP 67. The hon. the Minister had to amend the scheme and come back to Parliament for additional funds because of inadequate planning of the original dam wall. One wonders why in that particular White Paper, provision was not made for funds for the building of this canal, or, if it was not made then, why an additional White Paper could not have been laid before Parliament for the building of these canals. The canals were definitely envisaged in both those original White Papers, but nothing has been done about them since. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that a firm promise in both the White Papers and by word of mouth was made to those farmers that the canals would be built. For the reasons which I have given, which are obvious and elementary, the dam without the canals is nothing but a white elephant as far as the farmers are concerned. I can quote the chairman of the farmers’ association of that area. I phoned him this morning. There has been no move made to encourage and assist those farmers to use the water for irrigation. There has been no move to encourage industry in that area.

It is very important in this particular area of the Doorn River which is in the Indwe area and lies virtually between the Ciskei and the Transkei, that industry should be established there. According to the figures which I have obtained from the local authorities and the people in that area, in the Ciskei area bordering on that district, there are 250 000 Bantu living in the homeland. In the Transkei area there is a similar number. Therefore, there are half a million Bantu which could provide adequate labour for industry in that area. I believe that when the canal system was still under consideration, a certain big cooperative in this country, namely “Die Langeberg-kooperasie"—I am quite free to mention the name because they are open about it—undertook to the farmers’ association and the farmers in that area that if the canals were built, they would erect a vegetable processing factory in that area to process vegetables which could be grown under this scheme. The ground there is exceptionally fertile and could yield a high return in vegetables and fruit if the canals were built.

I should like to turn to other points made by the hon. member for Kensington in the same question. Parts (2), (3) and (4) of that question, the hon. the Minister will remember, dealt with the question of trees that were expropriated. But the hon. the Minister was under a misconception, because when he replied, he dealt with trees in the municipal plantation. The trees the hon. member for Kensington referred to, were actually the trees on the farm of Mr. McLeod, the farm which was expropriated and was going to be inundated by the dam. According to the information we have from the area, there were approximately 300 poplars and gums in this area for which—and perhaps I can assist the hon. the Minister here—the expropriation price was approximately R2 per tree. Certain offers were certainly made for these trees, but none of them were accepted. Ultimately these trees were bulldozed and burnt on the site, This is a small amount, but when a dam’s price is increased from R1 million to R2 million and one is prepared to burn something that can bring a small return to the department to help cover these costs, one wonders what is happening in the case of other schemes. One feels that this should not be allowed to happen again. I believe that the Minister should investigate this matter further in order to find out what really happened there. This is one matter I have raised here just as an example.

This year we have again had numerous White Papers before Parliament. Parliament passes these White Papers without discussion, because none of us is fully all fail with what is happening in a particular area under a particular scheme. We have the greatest faith in the department, but as I said earlier, there is a lack of sufficient staff. As is stated in the department’s report, the department is at the moment busy increasing its numbers and training new staff. We feel that something should be done about this and that there should be more discussion on all the aspects of these various schemes. Discussion should take place as to what ground should be irrigated, where the schemes should be built, and so on. At the moment the White Papers are merely laid before us. We feel that we should be able to discuss these matters with the department,

and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to listen very carefully when the hon. member for Mooi River deals with this subject further. He has certain positive suggestions to make to the hon. the Minister and I hope that the Minister will pay earnest attention to what he has to say, With the position as it is at present, these White Papers are read, but there is no time to discuss them. There is no way in which one can go into them in detail. The Minister himself, in his introductory speech, said that it is difficult to answer queries in connection with schemes under construction or which have recently been completed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not even have seven minutes available to me, and therefore I cannot react to the previous speaker. I want to start by congratulating the Secretary for Water Affairs and his department on this fine annual report they have once again published this year. It is a very interesting and informative report. One could talk about and debate it for hours. However, I just want to refer very briefly to one aspect of this report. On page 50 mention is made of the various irrigation districts and the number of irrigation farmers in those districts. By the end of last year, according to this report, there were 243 irrigation districts in the Republic which covered 363 945 morgen of irrigation land. On this irrigation land there are 11 901 irrigation farmers. What strikes me in this regard and makes me feel rather concerned, is the fact that of this large number of farmers, only 141 made use of the scientific advice and information of the Department of Water Affairs last year. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is the result of a lack of interest on the part of the farmers or whether it is the result of a lack of technicians and experts in the department.

Sir, since this competent Minister became Minister of Water Affairs, final shape has been given to water affairs in South Africa. I always think that in the same way as a previous Minister of Bantu Affairs, the late Dr. Verwoerd, placed our Bantu policy and our policy of separate development on a firm basis and gave it direction, this hon. Minister has done this in regard to water affairs. I want to congratulate him on that, because he has succeeded in making all the people of South Africa conscious of water and of conserving it. South Africa is a large country which does not have ample supplies of water, and therefore it is necessary that in the future every man, woman and child in this country should appreciate the value of water. They should know how to conserve water. If people appreciated the value of water, it would not be necessary for the department or any other organization to tell them how to conserve water. Every person would, if he realized the value of water, conserve and save water in his own way.

It is interesting to see how much water one uses in one’s lifetime. I have here a scientific work written by Dr. F. Kahn. It is a German work entitled “Das Leben der Menschen201D;. Dr. Kahn based his figures on the case of a person who reached the age of 70. When I look around the Chamber, it seems to me that the person closest to that age is the hon. member for South Coast. A person who reaches the age of 70, will have eaten 6 000 loaves of bread in his life; 6 000 loaves of bread represent a large quantity of water. Furthermore, Dr. Kahn states that such a person will have eaten 4 000 kilograms or 8 800 pounds of meat in his lifetime. Scientists tell us that one needs 1 600 gallons of water in order to produce one pound of beef. You will therefore understand, Sir, that if, in a lifetime of 70 years, one eats, inter alia, 6 oxen of 770 pounds each, it represents 7 392 000 gallons of water. Furthermore, Dr. Kahn states that according to his formula the same person will have eaten 11 calves of 80 pounds each and 26 pigs of 100 pounds each. This represents 4 160 000 gallons of water. Dr. Kahn says, furthermore, that such a person will also have eaten 10 large sheep each weighing 66 pounds, which represents 1 056 000 gallons of water. In addition, he declares that if such a person lived according to the German pattern, he will have eaten certain birds as well. A person in Germany, for example, will have eaten 300 chickens, 75 geese and 100 doves. He goes on to say that such a person will have eaten 3 000 sardines and 2000 other fish in his lifetime. It requires a total of 12 508 000 gallons of water to produce all this meat.

Mr. Chairman, I see you want to interrupt the proceedings. I shall continue this speech next year.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.