There are one or two matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister in regard to his portfolio. The first point I should like to draw to his notice is in connection with the expansion of our military forces, particularly the expansion of the Air Force as such. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would consider the establishment of a civil air commando. Commandos are part and parcel of our military organization as a whole. In terms of the Defence Act, commandos are part and parcel of the military organization, and they have a specific function to carry out. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would not give serious consideration to the establishment of a civil air commando. As the hon. the Minister knows, representations have been made to his Department over a number of years by various pilot associations. As the Minister knows, the new extension of the commando system is, to a large extent, based on the use of personnel who have formerly had military training. If the Minister agreed to the establishment of a civil air commando it would mean that members who have retired will be able to use their training and their experience to train other men in these civil air commandos to fit in with the military aspect of the commando system as a whole. As the Minister also knows, the commando system is intended primarily for internal security. They are as much in need of air support as any other arm of the military services. Let me put this to the hon. the Minister. Civil air commandos could be used for patrol work in areas where there is need for security forces, for liaison work, spotting work, for light bombing work, and for the marking of military targets in areas where there may be trouble; they could also be used in regard to transportation, such as the carrying of stretcher cases, for doctors, nurses, etc. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to give some consideration to these representations which have been made over a number of years. Because, if those men who have gained their training and experience in the military field are not given an opportunity of continually putting that experience into practice, their experience will be lost to the country from a military aspect. The costs will not be too high, because, if the Air Force had to place three or four trainers at the disposal of such a commando in order to train a squadron, it would be of inestimable value if, in time of need, you could have the trained personnel for these commandos who could immediately be used in an active military capacity. Under the new system the men who are balloted receive this training as airmen on a full-time basis, and I do not think it is right that the civilian who has not been balloted should not receive that essence of military training such as we give to the normal commandos in regard to air training. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not give serious consideration to that aspect of the matter.

On the question of the commandos as a whole, the Minister has indicated that he is reorganizing the whole of the commando system. There will now be Afrikaans-speaking commandos in the country areas, and commandos will be established in the urban areas which will be predominantly English-speaking. I would like to ask the Minister whether we cannot get away from this concept of either an English-speaking commando or an Afrikaans-speaking commando. Can’t we simply have South African commandos irrespective of the language which is spoken?

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) also raised that matter. I am considering it.

The hon. member for North-East Rand raised it in respect of our forces as a whole, but I am referring specifically to the commando system. In both the urban and the rural areas there are many thousands of South Africans to whom it does not make any difference whether they speak English or Afrikaans. So why draw this distinction? I would, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister to get away from the idea that the commando system should be based on whether the men are English- or Afrikaans-speaking. I appeal to the hon. the Minister in that regard.

There is one other matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. If it is the policy to set up an effective defence system, an effective South African army, as we are doing now, the women of our country also have their part to play. The Minister’s predecessor on one occasion stated that the Government were giving consideration to the establishment of women gymnasiums. Many conflicting views were expressed on that idea in general upon which I do not wish to go into to-day. But what I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the women of our country, as in any other Western country, also have an important part to play in the defence organization. During the last war, Sir, many women played a very important part as technicians, for example, in the manning of our radar stations; they fulfilled many technical tasks, such as, for example, cipher work at defence headquarters, and in many other spheres. But the most important part which they did play was in regard to the medical services. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given consideration in the general development programme of the Defence Department to the establishment of medical nursing services where the women of our country would be given an opportunity of playing their full part. I know it is the Minister’s policy at the present time of using such organizations as the Red Cross and the Noodhulpliga as supplementary services. But the Red Cross fulfils a completely different function in time of war, so, I would imagine, in the case of the Noodhulpliga or any other organizations such as St. John, for instance. I feel that the women of our country feel that they are as much part and parcel of the general manpower of our country in regard to our defence services as the men. Will the Minister, therefore, consider extending the military medical services in establishing a definite arm where the young daughters of our country will have the opportunity of receiving training even in a part-time capacity in the general nursing services and the medical services? Can’t they also receive a measure of training in cipher work and other technical training at defence headquarters as volunteers? They must volunteer for it; it must not be on a conscription basis as in the case of the men. If there are women who wish to volunteer for these particular arms of the service, the Minister should afford them the opportunity to do so by establishing such units. I would ask the Minister to give that suggestion favourable consideration.*

Mr. Chairman, seeing that we are voting the largest amount we have ever had on a Defence Vote, we find the attitude of the Opposition particularly gratifying. I want to say that in the dangerous circumstances in which we find ourselves, we consider it encouraging to hear their speeches and to note their approach. I am referring particularly to the speeches made by the hon. members for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and now the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) as well. I am sorry the hon. member for Green Point is not here, but I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the speech he made here last Saturday. I just want to add that we can say of the hon. member for Green Point: “An old soldier never dies; he just fades away.”

But I want to turn to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). The hon. member has the right to raise the case of Commandant Söderlund here. We find no fault with that. If he thinks that Commandant Söderlund has been unjustly treated, then it is his duty to raise the matter here, nor do we have any objection to his reading the personal correspondence of Commandant Söderlund to this House. But, Mr. Chairman, what we do object to is the scornful and uncalled for remarks which the hon. member made at the end of his speech when he said that the dismissal of Commandant Söderlund bears out the fact that commanding posts are being kept for Nationalists and members of the Broederbond. Such a remark is not worthy of the hon. member for Benoni and he should be ashamed of having made such a remark. He also knows that such a remark is not true. The hon. member and I know most of the commanding officers, and I can point out to him commanding officers who can scarcely speak Afrikaans and who we know are supporters of the United Party. But they have been appointed to commanding posts. I want to refer the hon. member to the list of officers who received decorations at Ysterplaat on Saturday. I do not know whether the hon. member was there; I do not know whether he knows what their names were. I do not want to read the list to him, but I have it here. We can go through this list and see who received decorations on that occassion. Just as many English-speaking persons were decorated as Afrikaans-speaking persons. Why must the hon. member use this Defence Vote as an opportunity to engender racial hatred? No, Mr. Chairman, I think the behaviour of the hon. member is scandalous. I want to tell him this. He is one of the members of the United Party for whom we still had a measure of respect, because he is one of those members who took up arms for his convictions; unlike so many of the heroes opposite who have never crossed the Limpopo, except perhaps to tour the Federation. We respected him for the fact that he was prepared to join the Army out of conviction. But if the hon. member intends persisting in this type of attitude and in sowing racial discord in our Army, where it does not belong, then he deserves the contempt not only of this side of the House but of the House as a whole. I hope and trust that the hon. member will cease this type of remark. I hope and trust that after his speech, the hon. the Minister will see fit—whether it is in the interests of that officer or not—to reveal all the facts as to why that officer was dismissed. I hope the hon. the Minister will see fit to do that. I do not think there is any better proof of the incorrectness of the hon. member’s submissions than the celebrations held during the past week. The events of the past week have shown that there is unprecedented unity in our Defence Force. I think it is fitting. Mr. Chairman, that I should read this independent opinion—if we can call it independent—which appeared yesterday—

This was yesterday said by a paper like the Sunday Times which is not very well disposed towards us. Here is evidence of what the actual position of the South African Defence Force is. The hon. member for Benoni has now sown suspicion and claimed that the commanding and important posts are merely reserved for Nationalists and members of the Broederbond. I think it is a scandal.

We know that every soldier also has his political opinions, and is also entitled to his political opinions. We also know that in the past it was difficult for many soldiers always to agree with the actions of every Government. But we can say this of the South African soldier, namely that irrespective of his political opinions, he has always been loyal to the Government of the day. I have men in mind such as, for example, the previous Prime Minister who in 1914-18 did not agree with the war policy. I am referring to the late Advocate Strydom. But because at that time he was a member of the Defence Force he did his duty. I am referring to people like the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and others who did their duty. Hon. members opposite must understand that it was not nor is it easy for those people. I could mention thousands who fought in the Second World War of 1939-45. For this reason we want to appeal to hon. members opposite not to refer scornfully to people who perhaps acted differently during that period, people whose political convictions were perhaps stronger than their convictions as regards defence.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it is a gratifying factor for us to think that if there should be difficulties, during which the South African Defence Force will be called upon, there will not be political differences because if we read the signs of the times correctly, then we expect the Defence Force will be called upon to take action against Communism. And we want to give the assurance that the whole South African Defence Force and also the whole South African public will be united in their actions against Communism. Mr. Chairman, if a threat should emanate from the Afro-Asian States as a result of our internal policies for dealing with our internal problems, then I feel that the Defence Force will be united in its actions and that there will not again be political differences which will make the position of the Defence Force difficult. I therefore want to conclude with this thought. The attitude of the United Party Opposition during this debate has been gratifying to us with the exception of the attitude of the member for Benoni, and we hope and trust that speakers who will still participate in this debate will contribute not to disparaging our Defence Force, not to throwing apples of discord into our ranks, not to raising language questions as matters which can eventually cause suspicion amongst the members of the Defence Force, but that we shall act in such a way that it will be easy for every member of the Defence Force to show that loyalty and allegiance to South Africa which we know the members of the Defence Force genuinely feel.

Many of the speakers who have taken part in this debate, have prefaced their remarks by offering their congratulations to the hon. the Minister on the 50th anniversary of the Army in South Africa. I as a representative of the Coloured people, would like to associate myself with those congratulations and to remind the House and the people of South Africa of the gallant part which the Coloured people have played in all the wars in the defence of South Africa. We are all too prone, Mr. Chairman, to forget the Coloured people when we talk about our Army. I do not intend to refer at great length to what I again describe as the gallant part they have played during the First World War and during the Second World War in all aspect of defence of what we call democracy. That they fought in vain for certain things that they believed in is not the subject of discussion in this debate. But it is quite evident, Sir, that the large amount which we are now asked to vote indicates that the Minister and the Government intend to have a strong mobile Army in South Africa. I think I am entitled to ask what part will the Coloured people play? I do not want to embarrass the Minister. I know he has certain ideas; whether they are military secrets at this stage I do not know. I think that the Coloured people are entitled to know, particularly as they, notwithstanding what anyone else may say, regard themselves as part of this nation. And if South Africa is in danger, these 1,500,000 Coloureds are also in danger, and I believe that it is unfair to expect 1,500,000 people in time of danger to be completely unprepared for the defence, if not of the White people, of their own people. They can be used right now in certain branches of defence. If the Government for political or other reasons feel that they should be excluded from being armed for taking part in certain aspects of our defence, there are other aspects and other work they can do. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) spoke about women being trained. The Coloured women should also have the opportunity of being trained. We must not forget the Coloured people in this great effort of building up a strong Army for the defence of South Africa, because it is their country as well as ours, and I want to say to the Minister that despite the political set-up in this country, the Coloured people want to play their part. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is sympathetic. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) took exception to the fact that some hon. members said that the morale of the Army was rather low, but I think we can say to the Minister that he has built up the morale and that it is now high, and I agree with the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) that we must keep politics out of the Army. We must be determined to keep politics out of the Army, and if we do that the Coloured man will also be considered, as a citizen of his country. We cannot permit this debate to go by without making some reference to the Coloured people and the part they have played in the past, and to express the hope that the Minister will soon see fit to consider what part they can play. I do not believe it is right and fair that they should be completely ignored in all aspects of defence, because if danger comes it comes to them as well, and they want to defend the country as well as the White man. I hope we will have some statement from the Minister in regard to this matter. I do not want to take up more time. If there are other aspects I have not dealt with, it is only because the time is limited.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) will forgive me if I start off by replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). I want to thank him heartily for the friendly attitude he has adopted. He mentioned the fact that he was the sole remaining member who took the first staff course. I just want to tell him that the other day at Pretoria Sir Pierre van Ryneveld sat next to me and after the display he said to me: You should introduce an order service for those men who have rendered long and loyal duty to the country and that should entitle that person to call himself “Oom”. [Laughter.] Seeing that we have no such order, I trust you will allow me, Sir, to refer to the hon. member, not as the hon. member for Green Point but to tell him that I trust we will still have “Oom” Piet with us for many years.

The hon. member for North-East Rand raised 15 matters of importance to which I must reply. He tabulated all the points clearly and if I replied in detail to every one of them, it would take a great deal of time. First of all, the hon. member expressed his sympathy with the families of the men who were involved in the accidents over the past few days. I thank him for that. It is a tragedy when a young man loses his life. It is a double tragedy when a young man, who is willing to prepare himself to defend his country, loses his life in such a way. I am pleased that he has expressed his sympathy.

The hon. member and many other hon. members congratulated us on the birthday of the Defence Force. I accept that. I only wish those people who may perhaps be harbouring unpleasant ideas in their minds about South Africa could have been in this House during these few days to see the unanimity which exists in regard to the basic principles concerning defence. Naturally we differ on minor matters, but we are unanimous as far as the basic principle is concerned. I also wish to point out that we have had wonderful support from the public during these festivities. There was a wonderful attendance at Bloemfontein the other day, when it was a fine day. The attendance at Pretoria was a revelation and I am really grateful to the public for its support. It is very clear to me that the Defence Force is beginning to develop into the pride and the future hope of the people of South Africa. I attended a parade in Switzerland last year in which 4,000 non-commissioned officers marched; their Minister of Defence invited me to attend the parade. When I stood with him on the platform I really felt jealous. It was clear to me that the people of Switzerland formed a unit with their Defence Force. The pride on the faces of those who marched was a revelation, particularly the pride on the faces of the thousands who stood there and cheered them on. I have set myself the duty of once again building up the public in South Africa and the Defence Force into a unit. It seems to me that with the assistance which I am getting from both sides of the House and from my senior officers, we are attaining success.

The hon. member said that more should be done to bring the Defence Force to the notice of the public. Of course it is necessary to do that, but I want to say that I do not believe we can do more than we are already doing to bring the Defence Force to the notice of the public. We receive hundreds of invitations—last year there were more than 500—for the Defence Force to appear at certain places and the position is getting out of hand and we consequently decided on a fixed programme where the Defence Force would appear. It is being done systematically. Divisions of the Defence Force take part in public functions on occasions which have been decided upon beforehand. Members of the Defence Force, particularly members of the military orchestras, travel thousands of miles annually to perform at public functions. They bivouac throughout the country where the Defence Force is brought to the notice of the public. The Defence Force take part on all important occasions and give demonstrations. I think of the wonderful demonstration which was given at De Brug in 1960. I do not think the Defence Force can be brought to the notice of the public in a more splendid way than is being done at the moment. Celebrations were held throughout the country this year and the Defence Force was brought to the notice of the public on a reasonably large scale. I agree that that must be done; but my contention is that we are indeed doing so.

The hon. member also said that our Air Force demonstrations were excellent and that the men in our Air Force were of the best. I just want to ask this question: If the men in our Air Force are so good, what reason is there on earth why the men in the other arms of the Defence Force should not be equally good? Of course, the hon. member formerly belonged to the Air Force and I can well imagine that his heart gives an extra beat of pride when he sees the Air Force but I can assure him that all three branches of the Defence Force are of the same standard and if he believes that somebody who joins the Air Force will not have such an easy time, that person will for the same reasons not have such an easy time if he joins any one of the other sections of our Defence Force.

The hon. member also said that too little was known about the acts of bravery that were committed by our men during the Second World War. I might just say that it is difficult to keep individual acts of bravery alive in the mind of the nation. That is somewhat difficult; even when the names of those men are recorded in history, because people do not read about it every day. We still hear episodes of bravery which were committed during the war but that is in the form of anecdotes that are handed down. We have our publication Commando and I think it will be a very good idea if an article on acts of bravery during the war could appear from time to time in that publication. Something like that will encourage our people and inspire our young men and that will mean a great deal to our country and to our Defence Force.

As far as our internal security was concerned, the hon. member said he was fairly satisfied that the State would be able to maintain order. I just want to say to the hon. member that where he feels happy about the ability of the Defence Force to maintain order he is in good company. An article appeared about South Africa in the French paper La Horizon in which the writer said various things; inter alia, he said that in the military field the country was independent. Its Defence Forces and Police Forces were so strong that they would probably be able to meet any internal or external threat. That shows that even overseas people are realizing that our Defence Force is reasonably strong. The hon. member said that in the event of a world war we could play an important part. I agree; we can make a big contribution but I want to add that it is our duty to make a big contribution. The Western world is seriously threatened by the communist world and that position can only be handled by the combined efforts of the West in time of war. The time is past when one state could shield behind his neighbour. It would be an act of betrayal on the part of any Western nation if he did not at this stage develop his defence force to the fullest extent. We must accept the fact that if the West were to go under, that would be the end of us and of our way of life. For that reason we must do everything in our power to build up an independent Defence Force so that we can play our full part in case the strength of the West is put to the test. We in South Africa accept it that we are of geographic value to the West, but that is by no means enough. We should also make whatever physical contribution we can for the maintenance of the West. The West is already spending far too much money in an effort to gain friends. It is all very well to try to get every part of the world on to the side of the West, but I believe that in these difficult times in which we are living, it will be far better to know who is on the side of the West. I believe that in these days it is essential that every individual Western state should prepare itself to the utmost, but I also believe that it is essential for the West to make a joint effort to make every individual state as strong as possible. I want to tell the hon. member for North-East Rand that in order to make this contribution we are, of course, building up our Defence Force in all possible spheres. We first of all tackled the question of manpower and we are giving our young men a much better training than they received in the past. I have already said a great deal about that and I do not want to repeat it. He asked me about the numbers. During the last war 300,000 Whites took part in the war effort and since that time South Africa has progressed. Our potential is over 250,000. We are training our young men and we are preparing our reserves more than in the past; in general we are getting our manpower in order. In addition we have improved upon our weapons. We have provided the land forces with the most modern guns and machine guns. We have purchased large supplies and we have the right to manufacture those things in this country and we are already doing so. New divisions have been established. We have built up our supply of ammunition on a very large scale over the past two years. I wish to report to the House today that as far as our supply of ammunition is concerned, we are reasonably well supplied. I, as Minister of Defence, feel reasonably happy as far as that is concerned. We have also bought the best weapons which are available. I want to tell the House this morning that I am not prepared to reveal the nature of the weapons we have purchased before those orders have been executed or are on the point of being executed. It is simply an agreement that no mention should be made of the orders which have been placed with the various countries but once those orders have been executed it can be revealed, it would be farcical to continue to keep it secret after that. As far as our land forces are concerned, we have also purchased the most modern armoured cars available and we have also acquired the right to manufacture them. The first car has already arrived. It was dismantled, tenders asked for and a start will shortly be made to manufacture it in South Africa, if they have not already started with it, and a great number will be delivered during the course of the year.

As far as the Air Force is concerned, that has been extended enormously. We have purchased modern aircraft for the Air Force. We have the French helicopters. We already have a few squadrons of them. We have placed orders for the most modern transport aircraft. We hope to take delivery of the first consignments within the foreseeable future. We have also purchased the French Mirage III. We conducted an investigation. A team was sent overseas, and I myself went there—not that I understand anything about aircraft but I had advisers with me and we eventually decided to buy the Mirage III. The NATO countries use them. Those planes are generally recognized as the best fighter planes in the world and the price is such that we can afford them. Seeing that the hon. member for North-East Rand is interested in our pilots I can just tell him that when I was in France where they build the Mirage III, they showed me the plane and I said that the thing was so complicated that I wondered whether anybody would ever understand it. The person looked me up and down and said: “What? a month ago we had three of your men here and after a 20 minutes’ lecture on the ground, they got into the planes and every one of them went through the sound barrier twice. You know, Sir, you have pilots.” Look how heartily the hon. member is laughing now.

We are smartening up our fleet so that it will be equipped with the most modern equipment possible. I must admit that there has been a disappointment. When we purchased those ships, the President ships, they should have been equipped in a certain way, to chase submarines, but because submarines have changed their techniques, very big alterations must be effected to our ships and that costs a great deal of money. However, we have decided to effect those alterations so as to make them effective. We have decided to modernize the other two ships, the Jan van Riebeeck and the Simon van der Stel, because they can be put to very useful work in the changed circumstances. A few years ago we thought they could no longer serve any purpose, but with the changed submarine technique, they can be used very effectively and I am very pleased that we did not sell them.

Are they being sent overseas?

No, we are effecting the alterations here. The hon. member for North-East Rand said that prior to the war we had batteries and radar stations along our coasts and he wanted to know whether they were still necessary. I can just tell him that during the last war we used them to defend ourselves against a conventional attack. But that conventional war is by no means over. We cannot ignore the possibility of an attack with conventional weapons and that is why we still require them and why we are still using them, because there is still a need for them. In all circumstances of warfare an inspection battery will always be necessary. Some of our defence units are being trained to operating them. The hon. member also said, as well as the hon. member for Turffontein, that they did not like the idea of English-speaking commandos and whether we would not at this stage change over to bilingual commandos. My reply is that hitherto we have had our English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking regiments but only Afrikaans-speaking commandos. At the moment all the ballotees receive their training in both languages. All our regiments are, therefore, being strengthened by bilingually trained men. In four years’ time, therefore, our Defence Force will consist of men who have been trained in both languages, and only the reserves will be unilingual. The question which arises is whether we can change over to bilingual commandos at this stage. Can we at this stage cause confusion by telling all our commandos that they must be bilingual? That is unthinkable. That cannot happen. It will cause the greatest confusion imaginable. As far as the new commandos are concerned, my conscience and my way of life does not justify my saying that we have English-speaking regiments and Afrikaans-speaking regiments, we have Afrikaans-speaking commandos, but we do not have English-speaking commandos. Furthermore we must remember that our commandos will be strengthened more and more, particularly the urban commandos, by people who have undergone prior military training. How can we expect the English-speaking people in Natal and elsewhere, elderly people, who received their military training through the English medium suddenly to respond to bilingual orders? I think it is clear that we will reach the position where our armed forces will receive their training in both languages and that we should not be in too great a hurry. Let me first have an opportunity of establishing English-speaking commandos. Young men are allotted to our commandos. Within the foreseeable future they will consist of young men who have been trained in both languages, and then the time will be opportune to introduce bilingualism. In his objective speech the hon. member for North-East Rand touched one matter of a personal nature and that was the case of Captain Campbell who would have gone overseas on an artillery course and all arrangements were cancelled a day or so before he was due to leave. Allow me to say that I have nothing whatsoever against Captain Campbell. I and my officers regard Captain Campbell as a first-class soldier, but we are living in dangerous times and it is essential that I send as many men overseas at this stage to undergo training in modern warfare as possible, and at the present stage I literally have hundreds overseas, men belonging to both language groups. It was brought to my attention, however, that it was very doubtful whether Captain Campbell would remain in the Defence Force. It was brought to my notice that it was very doubtful whether he would complete his career in the Defence Force and I had reason to believe that that was the position. Had we sent him overseas on that course and had he decided to remain there and to join the British armed forces, he would naturally have refunded the money which we had spent on him but at this juncture it is not the money that we need but the trained man. Because it was such an important course, I decided to send somebody else in his place, somebody whom we were sure would continue with his career in the Defence Force. The hon. member himself said that Captain Campbell had now resigned which proves that he did not seriously intend to continue with his career in the Defence Force. My information was correct, therefore. I have nothing whatsoever against Captain Campbell as a person and as a soldier.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) expressed his satisfaction with the new system of granting points in regard to the allocation of houses. I only hope that the new system will give rise to greater satisfaction than the old system. The system has already been changed from time to time but because we cannot provide everybody with a house, any system will affect somebody adversely. We have now introduced this new system and I wish to express the hope that we will be more successful than in the past.

The hon. member also wanted to know what our policy was in connection with the “voetstoots” houses. As the hon. member knows, when anybody moves into a “voetstoots” house, he undertakes in writing to vacate that house when it is required for military purposes. With the expansion in our training programme we are requiring a greater number of those houses for the men in training and that is why some of those people have to vacate those “voetstoots” houses. An amount of R750,000 appears on the Estimates this year for the erection of married quarters over and above the money which was not spent last year. We are, therefore, providing houses, but if you asked me whether I was satisfied with the speed at which we were providing housing, Sir, I would unfortunately have to admit that I was not very satisfied. We are making tremendously big financial demands on South Africa at this stage for the expansion of our Defence Force, and we will see whether we can place greater amount on the Estimates next year for housing.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said he thought the time had arrived for us to establish a Civil Defence Council. The hon. member gave different reasons. The one reason was that we would keep defence out of politics in that way. Mr. Chairman, I know the Opposition feels very strongly about this question of a Civil Defence Council. But I really cannot see the necessity for it. We have our Defence Resources Council, a council which consists of prominent businessmen, technicians, etc., who give us guidance as to what we have in the country and what can be manufactured in the country. We have our Defence Research Council, a council which consists of technicians and which guides us in respect of the research which has to be carried out in the military field. We have our Defence Staff Council which determines our defence policy as such and we have our General Staff. We have so many councils that they really fulfil all our needs and I cannot see why we should have a Civil Defence Council at this stage. [Interjections/! Yes, the Defence Act empowers me to establish one but at this stage I see no necessity for it.

The hon. member also said that we should allow people to choose their own regiments but surely we cannot allow that. To some extent they do have the right to-day to choose the unit to which they want to belong, but we must retain control. You know what the position was during the last world war when so many men chose certain regiments that the balance was completely upset, so much so that we had to tell people which regiments they should join. That is still the position to-day. What will happen if all our men wanted to join the Air Force? No matter how good the Air Force is, they will cut a sorry picture if they have to fight alone. We must retain the right, therefor, to designate people to certain regiments.

The hon. member also said that it was detrimental to the morale of a regiment to change its name and he pleaded for the retention of the word “Imperial”.

I only gave that as an example.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the traditions of a regiment, but I think we are exaggerating the importance of this question of a name. Has the morale of the Pretoria Regiment suffered because the name of that regiment has been changed from time to time and not by us? Has the morale of the Kimberley Regiment suffered because they were formerly called the Diamond Field Horse? Did the morale of that regiment suffer because its name was changed on various occasions? Did the morale of the Prince Alfred Guards suffer because they themselves changed their name on various occasions in the past? So did the Queenstown Rifles. There have been changes of names in the past and it did not affect the tradition of those regiments in the least; they have retained their traditions in spite of the change in their names. I think we are exaggerating this question of the change of name. Remember, the names of all Afrikaans regiments have been changed. I really think that I have been as reasonable as I could be in the case of the changing of the names of the English-speaking regiments. It was necessary here and there to effect a change. I decided that we could no longer have an Imperial Light Horse. We should remember that we have two national groups in South Africa. We are trying to unite those people and if there is one word which leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of a very big section of our people, it is the word “Imperial”. I did not ask the Prince Alfred Guards to change their name; it was not necessary. That is the name of a person. I only asked the Imperial Light Horse to change their name to the Johannesburg Light Horse. I do not think hon. members must force me to give in on that point.

What about the Royal Natal Carbineers and the Royal Durban Light Infantry?

Well, I have asked for the word “Royal” to be changed.

Now I come to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). I am very sorry indeed that he spoke in the way he did. The hon. member made the accusation, that Major Söderlund was removed from his post because he was an English-speaking South African. Sir, I am not going to answer him on that point. I leave that to my record as Minister of Defence.

Why was he removed?

I leave that to my record and to the goodwill of all English-speaking members of our Defence Force.

Tell us why he was removed.

Why does the hon. member come along and try to suggest that I am promoting Afrikaans-speaking people over the heads of English-speaking people? Sir, in order to prove—may I use the term mala fide, Mr. Chairman?

Not in relation to the hon. member.

To prove that the hon. member tried to hurt me; I need only remind the Committee that he said: “Is this going to be another Dreyfus case?” Surely the hon. member must have a sense of proportion. We all know in what light the world regards the Dreyfus case. Does the hon. member honestly want to suggest that I am responsible for a Dreyfus case—a case which was an international scandal? No, I must object to that. Fancy coming along and telling this Committee that I am responsible for another Dreyfus case! Where is the hon. member’s sense of proportion?

He should apologize.

Give the man an inquiry.

Sir, I have a very responsible position to-day. On my shoulders rests the responsibility for the security and welfare of our people. I have to carry the Defence burden to-day, and I have done everything possible to keep politics out of Defence. But I must insist on the absolute carrying out of orders. On 27 September—and hon. members will remember that that was a very dangerous period for South Africa; I had to be very careful and the Government had to be very careful—on 27 September 1960 orders were issued for the safekeeping of rifles for issue to the Citizen Force Units. This order entailed the transfer of rifles to cells at South African Police stations, where they could be guarded. In Kimberley they had the rifles in the Drill Hall without any guards whatsoever at that time. The order was given on 27 September. By 29 September two other units who had received similar orders simultaneously reported “Orders carried out”, yet, by 4 October 1960, Commdt. Söderlund’s regiment had not yet implemented the order, and he told us that he did not have transport. Sir, fancy not having transport in Kimberley to carry out orders of that nature. The safekeeping of firearms is so important that I insist on the proper carrying out of orders, especially at a time like that. I do not care whether the person concerned had a fine record; that was a failure to obey an order, and I cannot condone it.

Why did you not give him an inquiry?

I am not prepared to allow an inquiry on occasions when I think that the right thing to do is to get rid of an officer. Once again I want to lodge a serious objection to the hon. member’s conduct in calling this another Dreyfus case.

He only heard of Dreyfus for the first time last week.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) asked me whether it was possible for me to establish a Civil Air Commando. A very good case can be made out for it, but it is a question of cost. We have considered it, and we have decided not to go on with it at the present moment. We have a great deal to do to build up the defence of the country. I know that it will be a valuable asset, but we can do more at the present moment with the money available, and for the present we are not contemplating the establishment of a Civil Air Commando.

You are abandoning the idea?

No, we are not abandoning the idea at all.

Then the hon. member wants us to make greater use of our womenfolk in our military defence. I can only say that I raise my hat to the women for what they did during the last two wars and for what they did during the Second War of Independence. They have always played a very important role in our defence, but at the present moment we cannot even manage to train all our young men, and I am very eager that we should train more and more young men annually. But we cannot cope with it physically at the present moment; we have not got the organization to do so. For that reason I cannot promise that we will bring in young women to train them when we cannot even train all our young men.

What about nursing services?

As the hon. member himself said, we have the Red Cross, who will be used in another form in wartime, but we also have our St. John and the Noodhulpliga. We are training more and more nurses to be fit for military service in the hospitals, so we are doing a great deal in that direction already. We can never train too many people for Red Cross services or services of that kind, and we will consider the whole idea.

*The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has referred to the unity prevailing in the Defence Force. I thank him for what he has said. Then the hon. member expressed his disapproval of the fact that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) had tried to spoil the admirable spirit of the Committee in the way he did.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has asked what the role will be of our Coloured people during the next war, or rather what the role of the Coloureds will be in building up our Defence Force. I just want to say at this stage that I appointed a committee last week with the instruction to go fully into the question of the establishment or re-establishment of the Cape Corps. I also feel that the Coloured people have an important role to play in the defence of South Africa, even if it is not in a combative capacity. This matter is being investigated and I hope that we shall be able to make provision on the next Estimates for the re-establishment of that Corps.

May I just put two questions to the hon. the Minister before he resumes his seat? The first relates to the question which I have mentioned of pensions for members of the Permanent Force who are compelled to retire at an early age. In the second place I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us something about the long distance maritime aircraft?

As regards the question of pensions for members of the Permanent Force who have to retire at an early age, I want to tell the hon. member that I am beginning to consider very seriously whether our men are not retiring at too early an age. I shall give my attention to the matter and of course to the question of pensions as well.

As regards long-distance maritime aircraft, I want to say here to-day that in our efforts to help the West in the case of a world war, it is absolutely and urgently necessary that the striking power of our Navy should be increased. We are not only thinking of maritime aircraft of the type that we have, but we are also very seriously considering increasing the striking power of our Navy by the use of aircraft. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this question of maritime aircraft is receiving our serious attention at the moment.

Now that the hon. the Minister has made this statement regarding a committee which he is to appoint to investigate the question of the Cape Corps, my speech will be much shorter. While the hon. the Minister is investigating this matter with a view to taking some positive action, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will not instruct that committee at the same time to investigate the establishment of a type of cadet movement in our Coloured schools, which will also provide basic training, and particularly to give Coloured youths a knowledge of discipline. I am especially glad the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is present, and seeing that he has already announced that Coloured education will be taken over next year, I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister of Defence to consult him on this matter. I think he will readily agree that it is most essential to inculcate a sense of discipline into our Coloureds. I do not ask at this stage that such a system should be applied in all schools, but I think that the committee will probably be able to recommend that a start should be made in selected schools. It will have a tremendous psychological effect as regards the co-operation of the Coloured people in the sphere of defence.

As the oldest member in this House I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed here by the hon. member for Green Point (Major van der Byl) regarding the excellent spirit prevailing here. As one of the first officers of the Middellandse Regiment and later as Chief Commandant of No. 2 military district, I feel the time has come that we should put aside our past differences so that we can continue to build up the Defence Force with the retention of the spirit which exists to-day. After all, the Defence Force belongs to all of us. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done in the Defence Force and also to convey the good wishes of all our people to him. I also want to pay tribute to certain other people with whom I have been closely connected. The first is my brother who gave his life during the Anglo-Boer War as a rebel. Furthermore, I want to pay tribute to Sir Japie van Deventer, my cousin, and General Dirk van Deventer, and I also want to associate myself with the tribute which should be paid to Captain Nortje, my nephew. We have decided amongst ourselves as a family to forget the past and to help build a monument for South Africa, and I hope that our whole nation will be imbued with the spirit of the Republic.

I just want to thank the hon. the Minister very much for the statement he has made regarding the retiring age and the question of pensions and also for the thoughts he has expressed regarding maritime aircraft. I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I just want to say a few words about Messrs. Campbell and Söderlund. The Minister has told us that Campbell was taken off the course at the last moment because the Minister had reason to believe that Campbell would complete the course and then resign and join another Army. The Minister, of course, knows more about that aspect of the matter than we do, but the reason why we have objected is this: Notwithstanding all the attempts he made, Campbell could not ascertain why he was taken off the course at the last moment. He, of course, denies most emphatically that it was his intention to resign, but let us leave that on one side. The attitude of this side of the House is that when such a matter arises, the person concerned should be told frankly why action is being taken against him and then he will have no complaints.

Why was he not told?

He was not told what the reasons were. He was brought before his senior officer who told him: “I would advise you not to make further inquiries.”

I then return to Commandant Söderlund. The Minister is perhaps quite correct but Söderlund is in exactly the same position as Campbell. I think that he has heard for the first time to-day why he has been deprived of his command. We have no fault to find with that if he did not obey orders, but I suggest that when a person does not obey orders, the military discipline code is after all there; he can be brought before a court martial, or if the authorities consider the offence was not serious enough, he can simply be told what the reason is for his discharge. We should very much like to know why these two gentlemen were not told at the time what the position was. Then we would have had no complaints and no criticisms.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is an old military man and he knows that in many cases one cannot reveal certain information. If we were to tell certain officers why we are dismissing them and we do not tell others, then we would immediately create the impression amongst the public that the officers who have not been given the reasons for their resignation have committed a most serious offence. In the Defence Force it is difficult to tell officers why they are being dismissed.

Now you are doing an egg dance.

The hon. the Minister has said that he cannot reveal the reasons for the dismissal of officers. I want to submit that it is now more necessary than ever before that the reasons should be made known. There was a justifiable suspicion in the past that some sort of snooping was going on and that stories were being told against which the persons concerned never had the opportunity to defend themselves. We want to eliminate that possibility. For that reason it is essential, when something to the discredit of an officer or a member of the ranks is uncovered, that he should be told; “Look, there you went wrong.” Here we have these two cases and these people have not been told what they have done wrong. The result is that everyone thinks that once again there has been snooping.

“Once again!”

It is in the best interests of the force that the reasons should be given to the persons concerned. They need not be given in public. They can be given the reasons in private. Here we have the case of Campbell who has resigned. I do not blame him for resigning because he was under a cloud amongst his comrades. They begin asking themselves why such a man has been dismissed and they perhaps wonder whether he is a communist. The suspicion is there, and it could all have been avoided. Well, that matter is over and done with and the harm has been done. I just hope that when such cases arise again—and there will be such cases; it is always happening—that the Minister and his officers will have the courage to give the persons concerned the reasons for their dismissal. Do not leave them under a cloud and place them under suspicion amongst their comrades and the public outside.

I want to join the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) in welcoming the hon. the Minister’s statement regarding the committee which has been appointed and the investigation which will be instituted into the question of re-establishing the Cape Corps. Seeing that over the past few days we have been commemorating the jubilee of the Defence Force, it is a pity that that investigation was not carried out previously. I am not reproaching anyone, but one would have liked to see the Coloureds also playing a part in the celebrations. Over the past 50 years, since the establishment of the Defence Force, our Coloured fellow-citizens have participated in two world wars and they have acquitted themselves admirably. They have a proud record and they have played an indispensable part in the record of our Defence Force during two world wars. The matter I should like to bring to the interest of the Minister is that which the hon. member for Karoo has also raised. We know that we have school cadets in our White schools. We have never had such a system before in the Coloured schools. But from place to place, even in the smallest towns, there are voluntary organizations which are usually known as the Church Lads’ Brigade or the Boys’ Brigade. These are voluntary organizations and the instructors are volunteers who devote their time to these brigades. It is clear and sociologists will support me when I say that these organizations over the years have done extremely good work by keeping young Coloured boys and even girls busy and by keeping them off the streets on Saturdays and Sundays because then they are usually marching and giving their displays. I have had the privilege of attending, by invitation, and even addressing quite a few commemoration day meetings at various places. Usually it is the Boys’ Brigade which takes part in the march-past and the Mayor of the town who takes the salute. It is striking to see what those people have achieved over the years on a voluntary basis in order to keep their people busy and to teach them discipline. From place to place there is usually a Coloured ex-serviceman who has had the necessary training and who acts as instructor. This is an essential service which is being provided. The children are being trained and just as we find in the case of cadets in our White schools, they develop a pride in their uniform, They are taught how to wear uniforms and how to care for them. In the nature of things they are also taught elementary drill movements and how to form up. To a large extent this is after all one of the main objects of our school cadet system and it was noticeable during the war years when thousands of people had to be trained, that the men, who in their school days had been school cadets, at least knew their left from their right foot and did not have so much difficulty with the basic training.

But as I have said, it also serves another purpose, because in a city like Cape Town and the smaller towns and cities throughout my constituency it keeps the children busy, particularly in view of the fact the the poorer section of the Coloured population do not have the sport and recreational facilities which the Whites have. Apart from the fact that they are taught discipline and develop a pride in their uniforms and appearance, they are kept off the streets on Saturdays and Sundays.

In this regard I have something in mind which I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister It will not be at all difficult to implement because as I have said there are from place to place ex-servicemen with the necessary experience and who by means of a refresher course could be given a little additional training or be brought up to date so they can act as instructors. What I want to urge strongly is that the hon. the Minister in co-operation with the Minister of Coloured Affairs—because these organizations also serve a social object and this aspect of the matter falls under the Minister of Coloured Affairs—should consider whether the existing organizations cannot be paid a subsidy in respect of their uniforms and other equipment. These things cost money. In most places they already have their own orchestra. Perhaps it will also be possible to let people who received Army training 20 to 25 years ago undergo refresher courses so that they can act as instructors. Let us regard this matter in the light that these organizations can initially be used as a basis for the school cadets which I hope we shall still have.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that anyone who knows our Coloured people and the matters I am discussing, will agree with me that these organizations are serving a very good purpose indeed. I should like to see uniformity being introduced and the State providing assistance so that this matter can be placed on a basis where there will be supervision by the authorities. I was told during the week-end on good authority that the State President of South Africa is at the moment the patron-in-chief of one of the Boys’ Brigade organizations. If he sees his way to being the patron of these organizations, then there is something good in them. I have also been told that the State President of to-day was also a member of such a Boys’ Brigade in about 1902, when there were not yet school cadets, and he therefore knows full well what such a system means.

Every good patriot appreciates the importance of the effectiveness and mobility of his country’s defence forces for the safeguarding of his country against internal disturbances and the defence of his country’s borders against aggression from outside. We who represent platteland constituencies know that on the platteland there are people who are not always fully familiar with the growth and development of the Defence Force of our State and people. It is encouraging to listen to the information given by the hon. the Minister about what is being done in respect of defence, and about what is still envisaged in connection with the modernization and development of our country’s defence forces, including our sea and air defences. I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister, the Commandant-General of the Defence Force, Commdt.-Gen. P. H. Grobbelaar, and the Department of Defence for what they have done in my own constituency, that is to say the establishment of a defence camp. The placing of a large number of officers who will live there permanently will mean a very great deal to Zeerust. Eventually 800 recruits will receive their training there. It will not only mean a great deal to Zeerust, but also to the defence of our country in general in view of the strategic location of this camp as regards our northwestern borders. We are convinced that the sound training of our young men will increase the striking power of our Defence Force.

We also want to convey our particular thanks to the defence chiefs concerned for the fact that they have devoted one full day of the jubilee celebrations to a small town such as Zeerust. From 9 in the morning to 6 in the evening the Western Command gave a display with élite infantry, armoured and even mounted units. The mock battle by the Mobile Watch assisted by paratroopers and three Sabre jets was impressive. I am mentioning these matters just to support a statement made by the Commandant-General on one occasion, namely that when a cold war hots up and real war breaks out, it is not only the Defence Force of one power which fights against the Defence Force of another power, but then it is the people of one country who are in a state of war with the people of another country. Then the Defence Force is really merely the arm of that particular nation. When the morale of a nation there is high, and when it is defence-conscious, then the war machine will work best because the people will keep the home front as it should be and will provide the support and inspiration to the men on the battlefield.

Displays such as those which have taken place in recent days and such as that which we saw at Zeerust on Saturday and which were attended by the most senior officers of the Defence Force, the Secretary for Defence, etc., and the opening of camps such as that at Zeerust which are attended by Cabinet Ministers (in the case of Zeerust it was Minister Hertzog) make a tremendous impression on our people on the platteland. It also makes our people feel like the lady in the story which I have heard in my part of the world. The story is that one day, this lady was walking nervously up and down the platform of the station. The station master asked why she was so anxious and whether he could help her. Did she perhaps want a ticket or to take a certain train? She then said: “No, Sir. My son has also joined the ‘laventel force he has been given a uniform and today he is going to Cape Town. I am here to bid him farewell.” She said this with a shining face. I am telling this story merely to show how proud even the simplest parents can be if their children can play a part in the building up of a strong Defence Force for the sake of their fatherland.

The opportunity for us in South Africa to establish a united front as regards defence matters is better to-day than ever before. In the past there were too many conflicting elements. The Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples never thought alike in time of war. For that reason there was bitter strife and conflict. Now the establishment of the Republic has removed those differences and for that reason we to-day can act with greater unity. The Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking parents who opposed one another in the past and who did not think alike as regards the participation in the war effort of their country, can now feel that they have one fatherland and one allegiance in common, that they are one White people which must establish the machinery for defending their fatherland and that they must support their Defence Force with their sons and daughters and their material resources.

As regards the training camp which has been established at Zeerust. I just want to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the private airfield there will be used to an ever-increasing extent in future by the Air Force. I therefore want to recommend that the Minister should consider tarring the runway. The soil is of a slippery texture and in rainy weather heavy aircraft may experience difficulties. The Town Council of Zeerust has offered to provide all the gravel and crushed stones required for this purpose. A tarred runway would be more efficient for military use.*

Mr. Chairman, there is just one matter I should like to raise, and it relates to school cadets in our White schools.

Seeing that reference has been made to cadets in the Coloured schools, I, should just like to take up the cudgels …

Mr. Chairman, it was the turn of a member of this side of the House to speak.

Order! I have seen the hon. member for Germiston. That is enough. The hon. member cannot object.

I am also speaking on behalf of many other members who have received similar requests from their various constituencies. We are not trying to divest ourselves of this problem, but we consider that this is a matter of importance. Under sub-head P of the Defence Vote, on page 242 of the Estimates, I notice that during the financial year 1961-2 an amount of R240,000 was allotted to cadets. For the year to which these Estimates relate, that is to say for 1962-3, however, the amount remains the same, namely R240,000. We must therefore infer from this that there will be no extension of school cadet detachments, but that they will remain constant, that is to say there will be 403 detachments for Army cadets, 24 for Air Force cadets, and 9 for naval cadets. I realize that with a view to our large defence programme and expenditure, every rand and cent are required for important items, and that it is not because the school cadets are regarded as unimportant that more funds are not being set aside for them.

It is at least necessary that, as regards the future, we should keep one or two matters in mind and that greater attention should be devoted to the training of our youth. The first cadet detachments were originally established for military reasons. To-day, however, we know that they are almost entirely of an educational nature, and that they fall partly under the Department of Education and partly under the Department of Defence. From a purely educational point of view, we know of the particular characteristics and qualities which our children who enter cadet detachments acquire. I just want to mention one or two of these. There is, for example, self-discipline. One need only look at such children to realize what degree of self-discipline can be achieved amongst these young boys. Another characteristic which is developed is that of leadership. We can never have too many nurseries for leaders, but here is one of them. In addition, there are self-confidence, smartness, neatness, etc.

Even when seen from a military point of view, these detachments also have elements of value. In the first place they create interest in the Defence Force. An elementary knowledge of our Defence Force is provided to the children and at places where Defence Force exhibitions are never held, the children serve to convey to their parents pride in the Defence Force. But even more important is the knowledge of firearms which they acquire as well as the ability to handle firearms. Our ladies are already organized into clubs with the object of learning how to handle firearms. But on the other hand there are some of our boys who go throughout their school careers and even thereafter without any knowledge of firearms.

When we analyse the small amount which has been set aside for the cadets, then we find that it only represents .2 per cent of the total expenditure on defence. But from this .2 per cent we are getting very good dividends in the form of the excellent characteristics which we are inculcating in our youth. And if we can increase this amount slightly, let us say to .3 per cent of the total expenditure on defence, then the dividends will be correspondingly greater.

I ask whether it is not possible to establish cadet detachments at all high schools. I do not know what the total number of cadets would then be—however, I estimate that there would be approximately 80,000—but the additional expenditure involved would not be so great that it would be impossible to establish such detachments at all high schools. Difficulties may be experienced as regards rifle ranges, but here I think that schools should be prepared to have rifle ranges built with their school funds. If so, the Defence Force will not need to do so. If cadet attachments can be established at all high schools, there will be an opportunity for our children to learn how to handle firearms. And we must not leave our daughters completely out of reckoning. I do not want to argue that they should be organized into units or do practical drilling, but they can be trained in civil defence and first aid to great advantage.

I hope the hon. the Minister will regard this matter as I do, namely as one of importance and that he and the senior officers of our Defence Force will see their way clear to making the necessary funds available for this educationally and militarily important section.

I should like to bring some further facts in regard to Commandant Söderlund to the attention of the Minister. I understood the Minister to say that the order for the handing over of firearms and rifles to the police, was given at the end of September 1960 and was not carried out until some days afterwards. There can, of course, be no defence for a man who does not carry out his duties. He should then be fired, I agree, but he should be told why it is being done. The unfortunate position in this case is that although the alleged misbehaviour or misdemeanour—or whatever it might be called—occurred in September 1960 it was not until May 1961 that Commandant Söderlund was sent on indefinite leave, i.e. only seven months afterwards. If the matter was important enough to justify his being fired, then surely he should not have been left in command for a further seven months? There can, therefore, be no shadow of doubt that this man is entitled to the inquiry which he is calling for, even if that inquiry is a court martial.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 46.—“Justice”, R9,130,000,

I understand that to-day is the last day of service of the Commissioner of Police, Brig, du Plooy. I should like, therefore, to congratulate him on a very distinguished period of service and to say that I am convinced that all members of this House will agree with me when I say that his period of service as Commissioner of Police has been one which ranks high and that he has unquestionably acquitted himself of his task with very great distinction. He has earned the gratitude of all for his devotion to duty and for the quality of service he has rendered to the country. We all wish him a very happy and useful retirement. We should like, at the same time, to express the hope that those who follow in his footsteps will service the country as well as he did.

I am glad that this is not an occasion when, during a discussion of the Justice Vote, we have to refer to other unhappy events of a similar nature as those which formed the subject of debate during the Justice Vote for the last two years. I refer to matters arising out of the emergency which existed in the country at the time. I speak on behalf of all of us when I say that we are glad that nothing of this sort has occurred during the past year. Consequently, it will be possible this year to deal with a very much wider range of subjects than was possible on previous occasions because the matters to which I referred then took up a lot of our time. As I said, we all are happy that there has not been a repetition of such events this year and that the country has been in a much more peaceful state. I propose to refer to quite a number of matters, some of which are more important than others, in relation to the Minister’s portfolio.

First of all, I should like to make an appeal to the Minister to see to it that the annual Report of his Department for the year immediately preceding the consideration of his Vote, is available when that Vote comes up for discussion. I notice that the Report of the Department in respect of 1960, which became available only fairly recently, was completed very much earlier. It was actually signed on 16 March 1961. The Report is reneod and there appears therefore to be no reason why the Report should not be available to this House by the end of the first quarter of this year. It will be so much better if this debate can take place on the basis of a Report which is up to date. The very fact that the Report for 1960 was signed by the middle of March indicates that it could have been made available for the discussions on the Minister’s vote last year.

Secondly, I should like to pay a tribute to our courts and to our police. We are proud of our courts. There are no courts in the world maintaining a higher standard than both our superior and magisterial courts in this country. We can well be proud of the really magnificent services which they have rendered. In regard to our police, who form a vital part of justice, I should like to say that we are proud of their services over the year. I am happy to say that on this occasion there is far less to criticize. There is a much happier state of affairs. It appears that a greater degree of selectivity has been maintained in regard to the engagement of recruits. I am grateful to say that it is my sincere belief that there has been a distinct improvement in the general standard of our police during the last few years and that there has been far less black sheep in the family. I hope things will continue that way because in a country like ours, with the problems which we have to face, it is absolutely vital that we have only men of the highest quality in our Police Force. In this connection, I repeat it can be said that there has been a distinct improvement.

I should also like to refer to the report of the Van Winsen Commission. I believe the report has been submitted and I hope it will be published soon. It deals with the question of uniform rules. I am of the opinion that it is high time that we have uniform rules for the supreme courts in this country. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us something of this report and that it will not be long before we have such uniform rules. The country also awaits with interest the report on the reduction in the costs of litigation. This is something of great importance and we all look forward to seeing what suggestions have been made.

There is another matter which is of topical interest and to which I should like to draw attention. Some time ago, I put a question on the Order Paper in regard to a report in the Press in connection with the occassion of the tour round the coast of the delegates of the law societies. This particular Press report relates to the occasion when the Minister refused to attend a function because non-Whites were to be present. He then told me that hon. members could raise the matter on his Vote. That I want to do now, and at the same time to say to the Minister that I should like to see him reconsider the attitude he adopted on that occasion. In a country such as ours, occasions of that nature are inevitable and I believe that we must face up to that. I also believe that no good is done to the name of South Africa if we adopt the attitude which the Minister adopted on the occasion in question. It is a matter with which the Minister should deal and, consequently, I do not propose to press it any further now.

Next I should like to deal with a number of matters falling under the various Departments administered by the Minister. I understand that will be in order as it is convenient, when discussing a matter under the Justice Vote which is also related to the Prisons Vote and the Police Vote, to refer to the two latter-mentioned Votes at the same time.

Yes, that will be in order.

First of all, then, I should like to refer to the annual Report of the Department of Justice. The report is comprehensive. It deals with a large number of matters, not in great detail, I must say, but it does touch on the question of magistrate’s courts. I believe that a very heavy duty rests on any Minister of Justice. The position in the case of very many of our inferior courts, that is the magistrate’s courts of our country, is that our magistrates are conducting their duties in premises which are utterly unworthy of such an important section of our justice set-up in this country. I know improvements may have been made but an enormous amount remains to be done. In case after case that I know of the conditions in various of the courts—as other hon. members can testify—are utterly unsatisfactory. For instance in my own constituency of Germiston I regard the magistrate’s court there as a disgrace for the sixth largest city of the Republic. It is high time even for the Government to encourage private enterprise to come into the field and to have a real campaign to ensure that justice is being done in premises which are worthy of our system of justice.

Before I go on to deal with detailed matters, there is one other question which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. Some of our legislation has been amended during the sitting of this Parliament namely the Suppression of Communism Act and other legislation which follows that pattern. [Time limit.]

With reference to what the previous speaker has said about the function which the hon. the Minister attended and, to which Coloured attorneys were not invited, I should like to express one or two thoughts. The first relates to the development of the Transkeian territories. I understand that it is the intention to establish a supreme court in that area, to serve that area because the Transkei will become a state with a certain measure of self-government. This state will probably also have control over its own judicial system, and this will result in the establishment of their own supreme court. I want to ask at once whether the time has not come for consideration to be given in this same regard to the establishment of a separate law society for non-Whites in South Africa, and of course a Bar Council as well. Just as there is a Bar Council and a law society for Whites, I urge that there should be a separate law society for the non-Whites. It is most necessary in this regard. Then those attorneys will also be able to practise amongst their own people. The tendency amongst them at the moment is apparently, as soon as they are admitted to practise, always to go to the White areas and to practise amongst the Whites. In this same regard I also want to ask whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister to investigate whether there is still place in South Africa for four law societies, and whether the profession should still be on a provincial basis; and whether it is not high time that it should be placed on a national basis. There is an advisory body, on which the law societies meet. But its resolutions must be absolutely unanimous, and I now ask whether the time has not come for consideration to be given to the establishment of one single law society for the Whites in this country.

Order! That entails new legislation and the hon. member may not advocate that on this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am not advocating legislation. I am asking for an investigation into this matter.

Order! That cannot be done without new legislation, and the hon. member cannot advocate it now.

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for new legislation. I am only asking whether this matter cannot be investigated. Whether there will be legislation later on is another matter. The hon. the Minister may find that legislation is not necessary at all, and I am therefore merely asking for an investigation. Such action can probably only be taken after an investigation; it cannot simply be done out of the blue, and I think a detailed investigation will have to be instituted.

If the law societies are to be investigated, then the question also arises of what role the non-White attorney should play in this regard. Should he or should he not be a member of the White law society: or should he have a separate law society of his own? As matters are now developing in South Africa, for example as regards the development of the Bantu areas, I foresee that a separate law society for the non-White attorneys who will practise in those areas will be established. This of course also applies to the advocates. "There will have to be a Bar to act for example in the supreme court of the Transkei. The legislation will of course be discussed next year and I should like to know what the Minister’s policy in this regard is.

I want to deal with a specific matter. It relates to the arrest, detention and punishment of a youth called Victor Mvula at Port Elizabeth. I deal with it on the strength of information made available to me by welfare societies of Port Elizabeth. In reply to a question raised by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) as to whether the Minister would order an inquiry into this matter, he replied:

The inquiry revealed that the report was exaggerated.

I can only say that if there was an inquiry into the circumstances of the case it must have been a very perfunctory one. The circumstances which I will outline, will indicate to the Minister, I hope, that they warrant a far more serious consideration of the whole incident by the Minister and his Department. The published facts are that the boy was arrested on the afternoon of 18 January for not being in possession of a reference book. He was detained that night in the police cells and brought before the court the following morning when he was sentenced and caned. According to the mother, Sir, the boy is 16 years of age. He had gone on an errand on which she had sent him that afternoon accompanied by a friend and she did not see him again until the next morning “when I saw him walking with a group of persons in the new law courts in Adderley Street, under the supervision of a policeman. They went into one of the court rooms. I had certain papers with me to show that Victor was still at school but I was not allowed to go into the court room. A policeman promised to hand the papers to the Native Commissioner”.

Was she not allowed to go into the court room?

She says in her affidavit “I was not allowed to go into the court room”.

Absolute nonsense.

“A policeman promised to hand the papers to the Native Commissioner”. That is her statement. I am not concerned with the merits of the matter in the court itself. In cases of this kind the court, of course, only sees the person while he is in the dock which is usually for a very brief period. The police, on the other hand, have the individual under observation from the moment of arrest until he is ultimately released. I would, therefore, make my representations in regard to this matter from the police point of view. The first matter I want to deal with is to ask the hon. the Minister why a boy of 16 should have been arrested in this way instead of being warned and secondly I will deal with the corporal punishment aspect. My first question is this: Why arrest a boy of this age, place him in a police cell, when his attendance could obviously have been procured by the statutory process of warning. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that in 1959 the Criminal Procedure Act was amended to allow for attendance at court by persons by means of warning instead of arrest. That procedure, as the hon. the Minister will know, is to be found in Section 309bis, the section which was inserted in 1959. When that amendment was under consideration the Minister who was then dealing with the matter specifically indicated that it was necessary to cater for what he called “small crimes and technical offences”. He indicated that the intention was to keep that type of offender out of detention. I would like to quote what he said (Hansard Vol. 99 col. 1053)—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what steps have been taken to implement this undertaking given in this House by his predecessor? Is any provision made in the Police Standing Orders for this procedure to be followed? Because here we have a case which, on the face of it, is a very clear case of what was called a small crime or a technical offence in which an arrest had seemingly taken place unnecessarily. My second question is why the standing orders in regard to the infliction of corporal punishment on a person under 21 years were not observed. It is clear from the information available and also from a reply which the hon. the Minister gave in this House, that the boy was not examined by a medical doctor before he was caned and that a medical doctor was not present while he was being punished. The hon. member for Houghton asked these questions and in the case of both the reply was “no”. Where the court has ordered corporal punishment the Police Standing Orders are quite specific about it. They lay down that the person must be examined by the district surgeon before the cuts are inflicted and if possible he should be present. If there are circumstances which make it impossible for the district surgeon to be present then either a commissioned officer of the police must be there to satisfy himself or otherwise the commanding officer of the station must be present. The infliction of corporal punishment ordered by the court is not intended to be brutal. The standing orders make it perfectly clear that there must be observation by some person such as I have mentioned, preferably the district surgeon, because if he considers that the punishment should not be continued with he is entitled to stop it. In fact, he is obliged to stop it if there is any cutting of the skin. That is in terms of Police Standing Orders. It is quite obvious that in this case those instructions were not observed. The boy was not examined, according to the Minister, and the detailed information which I will make available to the Minister, the photographs in regard to the corporal punishment—I do not want to exhibit it here, but I will make it available to the Minister—show that some form of inquiry was necessary in this case. These photographs I refer to were taken some 25 days after the offences was committed, and the mother and also the schoolmaster make it quite clear that there was brutality in the infliction of the punishment in this case. The boy was severely cut and for ten days, the evidence is, he could hardly walk and could not attend school. I feel that the Minister dealt with the matter somewhat perfunctorily, because the circumstances I have outlined indicate that the matter warrants closer examination both by the Minister and his Department. The standing orders make it quite clear that the parent is entitled to be present when punishment of this nature is inflicted, and again, although the mother was available at the court, she did not attend the infliction of the punishment. Although she does not claim that she was denied admission when the punishment was inflicted, she obviously was not there although she was at court. I wish therefore that the Minister would give consideration to the suggestions I have made and make it quite clear what steps are being taken to ensure that the standing orders are being applied, and secondly, that he will make it quite clear why in this case there is this breach of the observation of the standing orders, particularly the breach of not stopping the punishment once it was found that it was inflicting excessive punishment. I am not concerned with the merits of the matter, but this is certainly a case which fell within what the Minister’s predecessor said the warning was for, and obviously the intention is that once the infliction of the punishment is found to be brutal, the official in attendance can stop it.

I want to raise one other matter with the Minister which arises out of the Ganyile case, which extended from August 1961 to February 1960. There has been wide publicity in regard to the way the habeas corpus proceedings were handled by the court of first instance. The unsatisfactory features connected with those preceedings were ultimately set right by the Supreme Court. [Time limit.]

We could all tell a lot of stories about where people have conflicted with the law. I do not want to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) in that regard, but I should very much like to bring something else to the notice of the hon. the Minister, namely what I would describe as the congestion of magisterial work in the large centres. What normally happens is that a person is arrested. Within 48 hours or at the next sitting of the court he is brought before the court and his case is then postponed; an order for his detention is obtained; and the reason for the postponement is that the case must be further investigated. It may be that further investigation is required, but often the programme of the court is so full that a court is not available or a magistrate or a prosecutor is not available, and the case is then postponed once again for three weeks. When it comes up again, it is postponed once again. It has happened in the case of the Pretoria magistrate’s court that people have waited up to six weeks before being tried. This is an undesirable state of affairs. Although such a person does not come into contact with convicted persons, the convicts, he may nevertheless be in the company of people who have been convicts and who are awaiting trial and they are exposed to the pollution of a criminal atmosphere. It is undesirable, apart from the consequent deprivation of his liberty. It happens that such a person is found guilty or that he is a juvenile and is then given strokes. He is nevertheless exposed to that atmosphere and it is undesirable. The solution here—I am not asking for additional expenditure, but I am asking that there should be additional mechanical apparatus made available for the hearing of witnesses and the recording of the evidence. I see under sub-head L that there is an increase on the amount made available last year for interpreting and the mechanical recording of evidence. I am very glad that there is an increase. This year the amount is R150,000 and last year it was R118,000. One magistrate with such mechanical equipment can do three times as much work as he could do in the past.

But this is not the only solution. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the larger centres the magistrates’ courts are “cluttered up” by traffic offences and a large portion of these are parking offences. I know that we have nothing to do with the parking regulations nor with the provinces’ right to grant municipalities the power to control traffic; but I think we should move with the times. The whole parking question has developed along such lines that the municipalities to-day are leasing parts of their streets for 2½c or 5c for a fixed period. I have no objection against that. I think it is a very good practice, but under the guise of traffic control they are leasing parts of their streets, and it is a lease, even if it is not worded in those terms. If that lease is contravened, criminal sanctions ensue and I think that is quite wrong. I think the Minister should take up this matter with the provinces and point out to them that they themselves should institute their own prosecutions and pay their own prosecutors, and we can perhaps provide a magistrate. However, we can do something far better. I want to suggest an old remedy which the Cape Provincial Council had discovered and started to use but which is very well-known in all the large centres of Europe. It is that if someone parks for too long in a parking space or should not be there at all, the authorities take the car away and impound it. This is an old remedy which is applied in the case of the impounding of trespassing stock. I want to give the assurance that if the Cape Town Municipality for example were to establish a pound beyond the market at Epping, and one of us who has over-parked or were to have his car impounded and taken there, and he had to go and fetch it with great difficulty, he would only do so once. And if Pretoria, Johannesburg and other large cities were to do so, the traffic officials, who, at the moment, are writing out tickets all day, could do more useful work. [Interjections.] The Minister asks how many vehicles would be needed to tow those cars away. Very few. For the whole London metropolitan area they do not even have 100, but they are very effective and quick. They just lift up the undercarriage of a car and take it away. We can tell the manufacturers of motor-cars that they must provide a master key for all their motorcars, so that they can be unlocked.

This may sound ridiculous, but I can give the House the assurance that there would be very few traffic offences of that type. The magistrates’ courts would have no such cases, whereas to-day they have 600 to 800 per week. Just think of the trouble and inconvenience which a person will experience when he has to fetch his motor car from the pound. It is a summary cure. Hon. members may say that it is a clever trick, but it works quite well in other countries.

What I want to submit to the Minister is, in the first place, that we should try to introduce greater efficiency into the work of magistrates’ courts by the increased use of mechanical means to record evidence, and, secondly, the need for a conference with the municipalities to impress on them that when they enter into leases and lease parts of their streets, it is quite wrong to attach a penal sanction to such leases, because what they are actually doing is that they are masquerading as the controllers of traffic, while they are nothing but the lessors of parts of their streets. [Time limit.]

I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) may make traffic problems worse instead of better. But I want to come back to the Ganyile case, where I indicated that the unsatisfactory features about the habeas corpus proceedings had been set right by the Supreme Court. I accept that the Minister has also taken other steps which will obviate a similar occurrence in that Court. Therefore, I leave that aspect of the matter there. But the standard of police work in the case was far from satisfactory, and the events reported in the Press have left, in my opinion, an unfavourable image of the Police Force as a whole, which has not yet been properly explained or cleared up satisfactorily. I raise the matter now in order that an opportunity can arise for the Minister to explain it properly and to clear up the position. The wrongful arrest of Ganyile and two other men in Basutoland by the S.A. Police took place on 26 August 1961, but it was not until 21 December 1961, nearly four months later, that Ganyile was brought before the court.

You are, of course, aware that this case is still sub judice.

Not the aspects with which I want to deal.

If the case is sub judice I cannot allow the hon. member to deal with it.

I would like the hon. the Minister to explain in what way it is sub judice, because I certainly am not aware of that. There might be civil litigation pending in regard to damages.

There is a civil action pending in regard to this matter.

In that case I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss it.

Sir, in deference to your ruling, I will consider the matter, but I obviously will not pursue it. I think that the aspects of the case that I want to deal with may not be affected by the sub judice rule, but I abide by your decision in the meanwhile.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in that I should like to wish Gen. Du Plooy, who goes on pension in the near future, a very pleasant retirement. I am probably one of those in this House who has known him longest, not in his capacity as police officer, but we worked together for many years in the sporting world, and I speak from my heart when I wish him a very pleasant retirement.

I should like to say a few words about the annual report of the Secretary for Justice. On pages 4 and 5 he refers to the fact that the collection of debt causes many difficulties in the magistrates’ courts. He says that since 1917 the legislature has made at least seven attempts to solve this problem, and he then mentions a case when an amount of R9.52 was claimed by a creditor, of which R8 had already been paid before judgment was given against the person concerned. After the judgment, further steps were taken, and eventually the R1.52 which was still outstanding totaled, together with the costs, R46.19. This report was issued in 1960 and signed in March. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, since that time, any progress has been made towards repealing Section 65 or replacing it with something better, as suggested in the report of the Secretary. That is all I want to say about Section 65.

Then I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister and to ask him that this report by the Secretary for Justice should also be printed. It is a roneoed report; this report is distributed to the public, and it does not create a good impression when one of our most important departments submits a report which is roneoed. All other departments provide us with a printed report which looks much neater.

I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister would instruct the Secretary to have this report printed.

Then I should like to come back for a moment to my own constituency and to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to erect a police station in a constituency which has more than 15,000 voters. I am certain that this is the only constituency in the Republic which does not have a police station. The reason of course is that there are such law-abiding people in my constituency. [Interjections.] My colleague on my left says that his voters keep an eye on my voters. But these people are continually in my constituency and it has now become necessary for a police station to be established in that heavily populated constituency.

I thought they were such law-abiding people!

I have said that they are law-abiding people; it is people from other constituencies who cause trouble in my constituency; it is definitely not my voters. I am convinced that if it were to depend on them, no police station would be required. This has also been the position in the past and that is why there was no police station. Mr. Chairman, I am in earnest when I ask the Minister to give attention to this matter. Recently there were burglaries in various parts of the constituency, and when the central police station was contacted, they said that the police station at Capital Park, which is not in the constituency, should be contacted. By the time the complainant had contacted the police at that station, the burglars had long since disappeared, and I think that it is most essential that attention should be given to this request which I have made.

I wish to deal with the position of the Coloured people in the Police Force and refer to the salaries paid to most of them. Unfortunately I do not have the details before me, but it is a fact that although their remuneration was adjusted last year, it is still very low indeed. I am informed by a Coloured detective, a single man, that he does not get more than about R28 or R30 per month net.

What service has he had?

He has had about three to four years’ service. The point I want to make is that these Coloured constables have to face the same danger as any other constables, whether they be Bantu or Europeans or Indians. I know that they have to go into areas which are dangerous and that they suffer very materially. They are not armed but they are sent into the most dangerous places, and yet there is a big discrepancy between the wages paid to them and those paid to Whites.

What is the ratio?

At the moment I have not got it but I will find out for the Minister. I think there is a big difference. I will go off that subject now and deal with one or two other aspects which are referred to in the report and I shall then come back later on to this question of wages when I have the figures.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) dealt with the congestion in the courts. I would like to say that this is a subject which has worried the attorneys for a long time. I would like to say to the Minister that there is a remedy, and that is the decentralization of courts. By that I mean that in Cape Town you cannot have a large magistrate’s court dealing with cases from, as far afield as Maitland and other places. I do believe that the time has arrived when there should be full-scale magistrates’ courts established in the outer areas to relieve the congestion in Cape Town. I do not want to go again into the facts mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton, but I think he is correct.

On the face of it, I think you have a point there.

I am glad to hear that. If the Minister agrees with me then I will not pursue this matter except to say that in many cases it entails hardship for an accused person to have his case postponed from time to time, not through anybody’s fault. I do not want to give the impression that there is not full co-operation from the staff at the courts; I know that the prosecutors do their very best to try to complete cases as soon as possible but circumstances simply do not enable them to do so. I want to make this point too for the Minister’s consideration that policemen themselves who have to come from outlying areas to Cape Town find it very difficult, from the point of view of the time factor. I did privately mention to the Minister what the position was when we had a court at Wood-stock. In those days the police and detectives were at the building next to the court and they could continue doing their work while the court was in session, and they were called to the witness-box as soon as they were required. To-day they have to go away from the station and come into Cape Town, thus wasting their time.

I want to deal too with the point raised by the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) in regard to the Secretary’s Report at page five dealing with Section 65. I would ask the hon. the Minister to go very seriously into the procedure under Section 65 dealing with the recovery of debt. If the Minister has already done something about it, then, of course, I will not say anything more, but I want to say that the procedure is cumbersome and very expensive, as this case shows.

I would like to hear arguments from the attorneys about the whole system of civil imprisonment.

The Minister knows that civil imprisonment, as we used to have it, was called a barbaric system, the system under which we put people in gaol for debt, and for that reason the Government felt that an attempt should be made to devise another system which would not make it so difficult for a man to pay his debt and, of course, to try to reduce the chances of his going to gaol. But I think the cure was worse than the disease, the cure being the present system that was substituted for the old system. I think that we will have to go back to the old system which was less expensive. I want to say that I was articled in the same office as my hon. friend here, the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). We dealt with thousands of cases of debt collection and we hardly caused anyone to be arrested. If you make the fee small in regard to civil imprisonment you will find less abuse. It is because the fees are far too high, in my opinion, that people are prone to institute action for the recovery of debt and to make a business out of it. I believe that there should be a minimum charge and then you will find that there will be less abuse. I believe that there is far too much abuse in the collection of debt.

Under the present system?

Yes, under the present system. I think the procedure is far too expensive and that it takes far too long. I think you have to issue about three or four different processes. From my personal experience I believe that the system is too involved, too drawn out and too expensive, with no results. If a man does not want to pay his debts then I am afraid you cannot make him pay under the present system. It has helped to keep people out of gaol, but I say that the old system, if properly administered, was better than the present system.

Do you not think that people give credit for small amounts too easily?

The Minister has a point there, if I may say so.

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

Afternoon Sitting

I would like to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour.

I want to deal with the hon. the Minister’s Vote under several heads, and I believe that they fall into the heads of the legal profession itself, the courts, the police, the prisons, and certain political matters. I will deal with the first three.

So far as the profession itself is concerned, the hon. the Minister stated what I think is the belief of all of us here that the legal profession is the backbone of the judicial system in this country, and I would like to say that so far as this hon. the Minister is concerned, the professions appreciate very much his attitude and his approach to the two branches of the legal profession; and I would like to congratulate him on the approach that he has adopted especially towards the branch of the profession to which I belong, namely the Bar. And especially his approach so far as that profession is concerned as regards appointments to the Bench. The hon. Minister’s attitude in this regard is a very welcome, refreshing change from that of his predecessor.

If you carry on like that, he will ask you to the bioscope with him.

“Wait a minim.”

I always give credit where credit is due, and credit is due to this hon. Minister.

So far as the profession is concerned, the hon. the Minister invited me when I put a question to him, to discuss the question of silks under his Vote. The hon. the Minister has obviously met the Bar Council so far as its request for the designation of “senior counsel” is concerned. I believe the original suggestion was that there should be a “state advocate” (staatsadvokaat), and now it has been agreed that they be called “senior counsel” which was the view of the Bar Council. But, Sir, I was a little disturbed to see, following the question which I put to the hon. the Minister and his reply, a report in which the Natal Mercury quoted a statement by Mr. Warner, the chairman of the General Council of the Bar, that the hon. the Minister had said that he would not recognize as senior advocates for the purpose of Bench and other appointments any person who might refuse to use the new title.

Naturally. What would you expect?

I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that those people who keep the old title, as well as adopting the new title, will not be penalized in any way.

I told you that I would deal with the matter in Committee.

Yes, and I hope that is the point the hon. the Minister will make perfectly clear, because it seems to me that we have rather an unusual situation here that persons who were appointed as Q.C.’s under letters patent granted to them by the Queen-in-Council in South Africa now have letters patent which cannot be revoked by the authority which granted them, because the authority who granted them disappeared on 31 May last year. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that those senior members of the Bar who do take the new title, but, nevertheless, don’t relinquish formally their old title, will not be penalized in any way.

Naturally not.

I am very pleased to hear that. Sir, other matters falling under the subject-matter of the profession are amongst others, the question of advocates’ chambers. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is sitting next to the Minister, because this concerns him as well. I think the hon. the Minister will agree, as an old member of the Bar, that it is of the utmost importance to the profession that members of the Bar, no matter what their colour, should be able to practise in the same building. I say that because of the long experience of the Bar, and I realize that it is in the interest of justice, and in the interest of the Bar, and especially in the interest of non-European practitioners (the advocates) that they should all be allowed to have chambers in the same building and practise together. I say that because, when the situation is reached as you have it in Durban, that Indian advocates have not been allowed so far to practise in the same building as the European advocates, it brings about a most undesirable state of affairs. The position is, of course, that they usually get chambers in a building which houses an attorney or a number of attorneys, and, as the hon. the Minister will appreciate, the situation is very undesirable from the point of view of an advocate coming to the Bar for the first time.

Do you believe that the legal profession is entitled to treatment other than the other professions?

I think the legal profession in this regard is unique, and I think it is entitled to different treatment from any other profession, and, for this reason, they should be all in one building. I don’t say that they all should necessarily have their chambers next to each other, but in the same building, which provides the necessary association, without which advocates do not and cannot assimilate and produce what is the spirit of the Bar, and especially the discipline of the Bar. Without that discipline the legal profession would fall to pieces, and the discipline and code of the Bar is a very high one, as the hon. the Minister knows, and it is one which we would like to see properly exercised and applied to every single member of the profession.

I think we must face the fact that there is going to be an increasing number of legal practitioners who are not Europeans. Now the situation which arose under the consulship of the hon. Minister’s predecessor of an advocate in Johannesburg, a Native advocate, who was told that he should go and practise in some location, and that he should have his chambers in that location, was, I think, not only unfair to the individual, but was also quite wrong so far as the profession is concerned. A man who is an advocate should practise as an advocate, and should practise two things which affect the legal profession and the Bar as a whole: He should practise discipline and learn the ethics of the Bar. I think it is a matter which justifies a different treatment so far as advocates are concerned from the case of the medical profession for instance. Medical practitioners practise normally and have their consulting rooms in the area where they practise, whereas an advocate’s practice is different. The courts are in one place and the Bar is usually in the same place. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some indication as to what his attitude will be in that respect. I must say that in Durban the non-European advocates have been allowed to practise in a building called Lincoln’s Court, which is very near the court and very convenient, but the situation is far from desirable. Then, Sir, associated with that is the report of the Van Winsen Committee. I know the hon. the Minister has not had time to read that report.

Why not?

The hon. the Minister said that he had not had the time but I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give this Committee some idea as to what their recommendations are. I also hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether he will have time during the recess to study this report, and whether during the recess he will be able to take any action in terms of the finding of that committee, or make any recommendations in regard thereto. This is probably the most important committee to have sat since Union as far as the legal profession is concerned. It deals with the question of the high cost of litigation which is something which is exercising everybody’s mind, and other matters. As far as the high cost of litigation is concerned, they paid particular attention to that especially in view of the Minister’s predecessor’s attitude towards the high cost of litigation and towards the profession. There was an unfortunate movement that there should be a fusion of the Side Bar and the Bar and that the civil jurisdiction of magistrates should be increased. I am pleased to say that the hon. the Minister’s attitude has been to say that he will not in the first place proceed with the Magistrate’s Court (Increased Jurisdiction) Bill and in the second place, the Minister indicated that he was not going to appoint magistrates to the Bench.

That was never at issue. 5

What was never at issue? The appointment of magistrates to the Bench?

Yes, it was just a malicious rumour.

I am sorry I do not agree with the hon. the Minister there because his predecessor, when that question was put to him straightforward, would not answer it as this hon. Minister has answered it. If this hon. Minister has changed his mind we are very grateful to him. I myself put this question to his predecessor in the Other Place and he would not reply to it. Whether that was in issue or not, I am very pleased to hear that it is no longer in issue.

As far as the courts are concerned, I wish to associate myself very heartily with the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I think our courts are without peer; our legal system is without peer, and I think our criminal legal system is the finest that you can find anywhere to-day.

I think the hon. the Minister, now that he has taken over the portfolio of justice, should review what his predecessors have done since this Government has been in power. One of the most important matters, I believe, is the way in which the courts’ hands are tied. I do not believe it can be necessary to impose compulsory sentences. I believe the hon. the Minister should completely review all those sections which tie the hands of the courts so that in respect of certain crimes they are obliged to impose compulsory whipping especially. The hon. the Minister is not only in touch with the profession, he is in touch with the Bench. My experience has been that magistrate after magistrate has told me that there is one thing which they do not like and that is that they are obliged in cases of house-breaking, motor car thefts and so on to impose a compulsory whipping. [Interjections.] That does not affect the issue at all. The fact is that the law now provides that they are obliged to impose compulsory whipping in certain circumstances. As we all know and as the Minister knows you cannot legislate for every instance which can arise; you cannot legislate for all the extraordinary situations which human frailty will bring about; you cannot legislate for human beings, Sir, as far as their behaviour is concerned. This is something which causes great distress to the magistrates and to the Bench generally, this question of a magistrate being obliged to impose a whipping. I think there are cases—I think members of the Bench will be frank with the Minister if he were to discuss this with them—where they have leant over backwards to find the accused guilty of some other crime than the one in respect of which they would be obliged to impose a compulsory whipping. I think that is natural, Sir, I think anyone of us would do it in circumstances where we could see that a compulsory whipping would do more harm than good to the individual concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this and that he will do something about it. He will, of course, first consult with the Bench but I do believe that our Bench is worthy of having a discretion in these matters. As my hon. friend from Germiston District has pointed out. I believe that our Bench is without Deer and that they themselves should have this discretion. I do believe that in proper cases they will exercise it as the hon. the Minister wishes them to exercise it.

There are two other matters, Sir, as far as the courts are concerned, and the one is the salary of judicial officers. As far as magistrates are concerned, I was very distressed to read in one of the newspapers the other day that a magistrate, Mr. Nel I think it was, had decided to leave the service because he could get a better paid job as a clerk.

Frankly I do not think you must quote him as your authority.

No, he is not my authority; he is just an example of what is happening. I read of his case in the newspapers. There are other cases which one knows about in confidence and which I obviously cannot raise across the floor of the House.

But as far as judges are concerned, I do believe the time has arrived where a review of the whole question of judges’ salaries should take place. I say that in all earnestness, Sir. The hon. the Minister has adopted the policy, which should have been the policy in any event, of appointing from amongst the profession senior advocates, the cream off the top of the profession, to the Bench. The hon. the Minister has now gone back to that system.

Why do you say “I have gone back to that system”? That has always been done.

I do not think so, Sir. This hon. Minister is not responsible for the acts of his predecessors, but the acts of his predecessor were shocking. The hon. Minister has practised at the Johannesburg Bar and I think he knows what happened there. I do not want to go into that question of the judicial appointments of his predecessor because that will involve me in a discussion of the merits of the personalities on that Bench and I do not want to do that.

You must be careful: we will not mind joining in the fray.

One thing i would hate to do would be to join in any discussion which will involve the personality of any member of our Bench. I do not think the hon. the Minister will let the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to do so even if he wanted to. I believe the time has now arrived for a review of judges’ salaries. Consider, Sir, the sort of man you want on the Bench. Consider what a very busy Silk earns every year. When he goes on to the Bench he makes a tremendous financial sacrifice. There are many people who accept these appointments because they believe it is their duty to do so. I think we must remember that a man in that position serves his master, the Lady of Justice, at a great financial loss to himself. In many instances it means a heavy financial set-back to both him and his family.

You cannot measure that service in terms of money.

That is correct, Sir, but when I consider that hon. member’s worth and the salary which he gets and I consider the Judge’s worth and the salary which he gets, I think the two are disproportionate. I think as far as that hon. member is concerned, I think it is a fair comparison. As far as Members of Parliament are concerned, their salaries have been properly increased and I think in the nature of things Judges’ salaries should be increased in the same way.

I always thought you were over-paid.

I was not talking about myself, Sir, but about the hon. member who sits behind the hon. the Minister of Information. I feel that Judges should receive a salary which will put all financial worries that could arise beyond them. [Interjections.]

I do not think that remark is worthy of the thought I am trying to put over to the hon. the Minister. Sir, a Judge should be put beyond any financial embarrassment. Judges should be recompensed as far as possible on the basis of what they earned before. They must be put in a position where they should not be tempted by any other interests. Judges are very restricted, Sir. They are not allowed to take any part in financial enterprises as Ministers and Members of Parliament are. They are forbidden from doing it. I hope the hon. the Minister has given this his attention and I hope he will give it some more attention.

This Government has put up their salaries.

I know. The salaries of the Judges have been put up since the time of Union by every Government which has been in power. But I think we have reached a stage where their salaries should again be adjusted and adjusted properly.

As far as the police are concerned, I think the hon. the Minister has a case to meet. There are a number of cases of assaults by police. You read about these cases in the newspapers and, of course, one comes across them in one’s practice. I think of all the assaults which take place the worst of all are assaults by police. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me. I think where a policeman assaults his prisoner where there are no other police to stop him from doing what he is doing, where he is in a position of trust, is one of the worst offences which can take place in our society.

They are very severely dealt with.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says they are very severely dealt with and that is exactly what I want to deal with. I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day. There was the case in the Eastern Province. Division where the Judge President said of an assault on a young Zulu girl, on being told that the two Native policemen involved had been charged and fined R20 each, that if they had not been charged he would have ordered them to be brought before him in which case he would have given them a prison sentence. So severe was the view which the learned Judge took of that case.

He did not have all the facts before him.

The Judge was concerned in that case with a question of a confession. The whole question of whether the girl had been assaulted or not was gone into by that Judge very carefully. He decided that it had been a brutal assault for which the two Native policemen should have received a compulsory prison sentence. He said he would have sent them to gaol for a long time. The point is this, Sir, that those two policemen are still in the Police service. I asked the hon. the Minister whether they were and why and he said they were and that was the end of the matter. Now, Sir, what is the hon. the Minister’s policy in relation to police who commit assaults?

Are you pleading for minimum sentences in those cases?

If necessary, Sir, but I am not pleading for a minimum sentence in the case where a policeman assaults a prisoner. I want them dismissed.

But not if he is a communist?

Mr. Chairman, our attitude towards Communism is very clear. I would like to see communists hanged if necessary. That was what we put up in 1950. But the Minister forgets this that the court would have had to find that they were communists and not that they are communists in the opinion of the Minister. I am surprised and shocked that the hon. the Minister can toss this off like this, this question of police assaulting prisoners. Surely, Sir, this is a most cardinal factor in the administration of justice. Surely, Sir, if you cannot trust the police not to assault people where is your justice, where is your trust? How does the hon. the Minister think he will ever police South Africa if the public do not have faith in the Police Force?

I do not think the Police Force will be grateful to you for this.

Sir, I am not referring to the Police Force. I am referring to individual members thereof. I am asking the Minister to deal with them severely in the interests of the other 99 per cent of the Police Force who are decent upright citizens; men who do a magnificent job of work in this country against the greatest odds, I think, in any other country. It is in their interests that I plead with the hon. the Minister to deal with the few black sheep very severely. In their interests and in the interests of the public as well. Because the public judges the police, unfortunately, by what it hears and not by what it sees. I think the hon. the Minister owes this Committee an explanation as to what his attitude is in relation to the police, to dismissals and to the sort of offences for which he will or will not dismiss them.

I do not intend following the argument advanced by the hon. lawyer who has just sat down. There is only one matter on which I agree with him and that is where he said that the legal profession was unique. If I were to regard the hon. member as an example of the legal profession he is quite right in saying that the legal profession is unique because they usually need 20 words to describe something which an ordinary person can describe in two or three words. However, I did not rise to talk about that.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a matter which is very near to the heart of the fruit farmers of the Western Province, a matter in connection with which points of discussion have already been sent to the Union Agricultural Congress for the Winter Rainfall Area and a matter in connection with which resolutions have already been passed by that congress. I refer to the enormous proportions which fruit thefts have assumed during recent years in the fruit producing areas of the Western Cape. No one objects to scholars or university students periodically stealing a little fruit to eat. But what we do object to is the enormous proportions which fruit thefts have assumed in recent years for commercial purposes. If I were to state in this Committee to-day that some individual farmers probably lose R400 or R600 per annum as a result of the theft of fruit, I would not be exaggerating at all. The position has really become serious because it is not an easy task to guard huge vineyards and orchards; and to fence such a vineyard in properly is simply no use, because a 50c pair of pliers do the necessary damage when a hole is cut into that fence and the thief carries on with his raids. Nor is it an easy task to catch the thieves, because whereas in the case of the stock owner—as far as I understand—he is entitled to use firearms if his stock gets stolen, you may, of course, not shoot at fruit thieves, with the result that you simply have to run after them; and when you have reached my age, that is not such an easy task.

But, Mr. Chairman, your trouble only starts when the fruit thief has been caught. You have to attend court for half a day and wait until your case comes up. Once it is being heard you have to reply to all sorts of questions: Did you catch the thief red-handed?

Can you prove that the fruit in the basket is your fruit? Once everything has been disposed of the final question is put to you: What was the value of the little fruit he had when you caught him? Well, Mr. Chairman, no farmer is going to wait until the thief has filled his basket. He accosts him the moment he starts to pick and in that case he may only have fruit to the value of 20c or 50c in the basket. Then you have to tell the magistrate that the value of the fruit is 50c. A sentence of eight or fourteen days is imposed, sometimes it is suspended, and within two weeks the same thief is back in your vineyards. I said at the outset that I wanted to show what proportion fruit thefts have assumed for commercial purposes. I know of a farmer in my constituency who went so far a few years ago, after he had lost a great quantity of grapes, as to spray his grapes with a certain safe spray which left marks on the grapes. After a few days he went to all the little fruit shops in the Coloured township and in practically all of them he found certain quantities of those sprayed grapes being offered for sale. That farmer had not sold any of those marked grapes to a single local buyer. But within a few days after he had marked the grapes by spraying they could be bought in practically all the fruit shops in the Coloured town. I cast no reflection on the police or on the court when I say that there was no prosecution. I take it that that is the procedure followed by legal people. I do not always understand them but I take it there were good reasons why they did not prosecute. What we do object to, however, are the light sentences which are imposed. As an excuse for the legal people I suppose we must argue that to a certain extent the magistrate simply interprets public opinion. If public opinion does not regard the theft of fruit in a serious light, it is obvious that the magistrate will impose a light sentence. I think, for example, of a well known week-end publication of one of our Western Province newspapers, which published a long article in its week-end supplement a few years ago about all the well-known people in our society, prominent people, who had made themselves guilty of stealing fruit in their youth. That is the sort of thing which make people regard this sort of theft as a mere bagatelle. Let me say, however, that when anybody steals a fowl which is worth, say, 75c, he will very likely get six months, but when he steals R10 worth of export grapes, he gets a month. That seems somewhat out of proportion to me, and that is why I want to plead with the hon. the Minister once again to have a chat to his people and to ask them to retain their perspective, to maintain a balance when imposing these sentences. Because really, Mr. Chairman, this matter has got out of hand completely and the fruit farmers of the Western Province are begging the hon. the Minister to assist them.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee will not hold it against me if I reply at once to some of the matters which hon. members have raised so far. I have already had the opportunity in the Senate of expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the retiring Commissioner. Gen. Du Plooy; I am also very pleased that I have the opportunity in this House to-day, which is his last day of service, of saying farewell to an officer who has devoted his whole life to the Police Force and who has at all times served the Force with great distinction.

I am pleased, therefore, Mr. Chairman, to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) as well as those made by the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse).

*It is also a pleasure to me, Mr. Chairman, to avail myself of the same opportunity of welcoming the newly appointed Commissioner, Brig. Keevy, in that capacity. I am convinced, just as in the case of his predecessor—we are all concerned with the Commissioner of Police—that hon. members will find in him a person who will not only be accessible as his predecessor has been, but a person with whom there can be equally sound co-operation in this particularly important capacity.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) asked that the Annual Report be made available sooner. I agree with the hon. member and the Department do try at all times to have that report available as soon as possible. If I personally had not been so busy during the past few weeks—it was not my fault at all as the hon. member will recall—it might have been possible to table last year’s report this year. I also want to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. member paid to our courts. Our legal system is second to none Sir; the standards of our courts are second to none.

I also appreciate the compliments which the hon. member for Germiston (District) has paid to our Police Force. Hon. members will recall that in the past the training was six months. The training takes twelve months to-day. I am very pleased to state here to-day that last year for the first time we had 1,600 recruits joining the Police Force. We were especially pleased because such a high percentage of the applicants who came forward were matriculated.

The hon. member also referred to the Van Winsen Report. This report was submitted to me in the course of this Session. I can give hon. members the assurance that I did my level best to study that report. It consists of two big volumes and it was just impossible for me to study it. It is impossible, therefore, for me to say anything about the recommendations contained in that report to-day. Had I been one of a pair of twins I would have done so but unfortunately being all alone by myself it was just impossible to study that report.

Will it be published.

Without a doubt. I gave the General Bar Council the assurance that I would discuss the report with them as soon as possible and that will certainly be done during the recess.

As I have said, Sir, I am very very sorry that it is impossible for me to discuss this report, but I do want to say that the Department informs me that it is an excellent piece of work and I do want to pay tribute to Mr. Justice van Winsen and the Committee which compiled this report.

Then the hon. member referred to the function in Durban which I did not attend. I want to say that I went on this tour with the law societies. I appreciated the fact that they invited me and I can give hon. members the assurance that as far as the law societies are concerned we understand each other and work together very well indeed. But because that was the position, that the law societies and I understood each other, and because there was that good co-operation between us, people naturally wanted to drive in a wedge between myself and the law societies, and the one person whose name I am going to mention is a certain Mr. J. N. Singh, a listed communist who also happens to be an attorney in Durban. What was the position in regard to this dinner? As I said in my reply to, I think, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), who asked me the question—I told him at the time that those hon. members in favour of social integration could take me to task under my Vote. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) did not take me to task; he asked me a question. Perhaps the hon. member for Durban (North) will still take me to task, I do not know. But in regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Germiston (District), I say again here and now that I am not sorry that I adopted that attitude. I want to say, further, that I cannot for one moment say that all the members of the Law Society agreed with the stand I took on this issue, but I do want to say that they fully understood why I took up that stand. I took that stand because the function to which the hon. member referred was an out-and-out social function and the hon. member knows my personal standpoint as far as that is concerned, and he knows the principles of my party. I have said time and again that as far as professional occasions and professional matters are concerned, that is something different altogether, but when it comes to social integration, the hon. member must excuse me if I stand aside. What was the position? I now refer to the Natal Daily News of 3 April 1962. According to this report, Mr. J. N. Singh, a Durban attorney, was backed by Mr. Ray Swart, a former M.P., and Mr. Arenstein, well known to hon. members of this House. What was the position? “There were about 30 Indian and African members of the Side-Bar, all of whom had been invited.” I read further from the report in the Daily News—

In other words, all thirty of them accepted, but what did he say further? “They were each allowed three guests.” These non-Whites. What does the hon. member expect me to do? Would he have accepted that invitation in those circumstances? What would hon. members opposite have said to me when I came back if I had accepted that invitation?

They would have said you were growing up.

No, I can imagine what hon. members opposite would have said to me if I had accepted the invitation, because we are not children. We know politics as practised in this House.

You must not judge others by your own standard.

With all due deference and respect to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), he would have made a 40-minute speech on it and he would have done it in the most flowery language imaginable, if I had accepted that invitation. But apart from that, what I have just said illustrates that this was not a legal or a judicial occasion. It was purely and simply a social function. Having explained my position, I take it that hon. members will now know why I did not accept that invitation.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) complained about conditions being unsatisfactory in certain courts. I cannot agree with him more. I personally have seen courts where I would not like to work myself. Hon. members are aware that unfortunately there is a very heavy backlog in the Department’s building programme, and that every effort is being made to improve this position. I can give hon. members the assurance that in the recess I will take a personal interest in the matter to see what can be done to speed up matters. Hon. members will realize that many of the old buildings have become unsuitable, and on the other hand members will realize that owing to the rapid development in certain other areas it has not been possible to replace many of the old buildings. If hon. members only think of places like Sasolburg, Virginia, Welkom and Odendaalsrus and other new towns that sprang up during the last few years, they will realize what the position is. But I heartily agree with what the hon. member said on that score.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) touched on a matter, as far as you would allow him to go, Sir, with which I heartily agree. I will give more details when I reply to what was said by the hon. member for Durban (North) in this connection.

The hon. member for Fort Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) raised the matter of the youth Victor. I will deal with that a little later. I just cannot find my notes on it for the moment. The hon. member also raised the matter of Ganyile. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, this matter is sub judice. But let me say that hon. members had all the time in the world to discuss this matter three times in the beginning of the Session, and I was in my seat here awaiting a discussion which was foreshadowed and promised by the Leader of the Opposition in this connection, and I am therefore as sorry as the hon. member himself is that I am now precluded from discussing this matter under my vote. *The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) raised the question of cases which are remanded. Let me assure the hon. member that magistrates and police officials particularly do not like to have cases remanded because that makes their task more difficult and we are trying to bring about a change in this position as far as possible, but that is not always such an easy matter. Every attorney who has practised in our courts knows that. We know of all the petty things which may crop up which simply make it essential for a case to be remanded. I am convinced myself that there is no unnecessary delay in this connection and that where it does happen it is simply unavoidable. The hon. member spoke appreciatively about the increased mechanical equipment which has been acquired. We are doing that on an increasing scale as our financial position allows us and we will continue to do so in future because we realize that that is a method whereby the proceedings can be expedited. The hon. member also advanced the idea of impounding motor-cars. I understand they are doing that in London with good results, but I do not think that falls within my ambit. I have had enough worries and troubles in connection with the Protection of Animals Act to introduce a Motor-car Impoundment Act as well. Other institutions should rather deal with that.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) referred to the examples quoted by the Secretary in his annual report concerning the collection of debt in terms of the old section. I do not know whether it is still Section 65 but in the days when I practised it was Section 65. Let me give hon. members the assurance, and I do not think I am letting any cat out of the bag when I say that not only the Department, not only individual attorneys, but the entire Department and the legal profession are at their wits’ end as far as this position is concerned. I want to go so far as to say that I am prepared to make a contribution to erect a monument to the person who finds a successful solution to this problem. This is a question which is continually being discussed by the Department not only with the legal profession, but also with Commerce and Industry. During the recess further discussions will take place in this connection because we all realize that the existing machinery does not serve the purpose which we should like it to serve. I do feel, however, that the attorneys are not alone to blame in this connection. They receive instructions which they have to carry out, but I feel that we are justified in blaming the business world for giving credit so easily for small amounts to people whom they do not know or without making any inquiries about them. I am systematically asking myself the question whether it should be possible for the business world which gives credit so readily, to rely on the State machinery as easily as they do, to collect those amounts. I want to make it clear that this is no threat to Commerce and Industry, but I think all hon. members will agree with me that Commerce and Industry should be more careful in this regard than they have been in the past. It will make the position easier for everybody concerned.

The hon. member asked for a police station in the Prinshof constituency. This is the first time that representations have been made in that regard. The hon. member knows, of course, that the constituency is surrounded by police stations. I do not know which is better in practice, to be surrounded by police stations or to have one in the centre of your constituency, but his representations will be considered.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) raised the question of the salaries of Coloured constables. When the hon. member spoke he did not have the figures and unfortunately I have not got mine either, but I will reply to him in detail a little later in the debate.

The Coloureds get half of what the Europeans get.

I have already indicated that I think the hon. member has a good point when he talks about the decentralization of the courts, and it is in fact the policy of the Department to decentralize the courts as far as possible. It is the policy of my Department, as far as the big locations are concerned, not only to see that there are police stations, but it is also considered to be in the best interests of everyone concerned, the accused, the witnesses and everybody, to have courts in the precincts of those locations and to hear the cases there. Hon. members know that it is difficult for witnesses to get to the courts, and that when two inhabitants of a location are involved in a fight there are six witnesses and 400 people who attend court to see what is going on. It is as the result of that that there is so much congestion in the courts. I think if this policy is put into practice in all the large centres, we will not have so much congestion.

Then I come to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I wish to thank the hon. member for the congratulations and the kind words he has said about me. I am just sorry that the hon. member tried to push in a wedge between me and my predecessor. I did not think that was necessary. The hon. member raised the question of Silks. I have already told him that I have had a discussion with the General Bar Council about the matter. They then referred the matter to their individual Bar Councils. I had a letter from the Secretary of the General Bar Council a few weeks ago. I have already replied to the hon. member that as far as I am concerned the new designations will be Senior Counsel and “Senior Advokaat”. In Afrikaans you use the word “advokaat”, but in English you use the word “counsel”, and therefore I personally prefer the words “Senior Counsel” to “Senior Advocate”. As far as the title Q.C. is concerned, we find ourselves in the difficult position that actually there are two schools of thought. The one school of thought feels that these titles have now lapsed. I personally do not subscribe to that. My own personal feeling is that it is a title conferred upon a man, and a title once conferred cannot be taken away. That is how I see the position. But that belongs to the old r?egime, to the past. As far as the future is concerned, I will take it up again further with the various law societies after having discussed it with the Judges, because they are also involved in this matter. What I did say to the law societies was that I thought the time had arrived when new letters should be issued to all Senior Counsel, be they on the Bench or not, starting from the Chief Justice downwards. But unfortunately I have not had time to discuss this with the Judges. I will do so, however, in the course of the next month or two, and if we then come to an agreement that is what will happen. We might then—I hope not—get people on whom the title of

Q.C. has been conferred in the past and who might refuse to accept the S.C. from the Republic of South Africa. I want to say this, because I do not want to have any misunderstanding about the matter. If they in fact refuse to accept the title “S.C.”, then as far as I am concerned they are just Junior Advocates and nothing more, and I think the hon. member will agree with me. Then they will be Q.C.s as far as courtesy goes, but I certainly cannot recognize that when making appointments to the Bench, and I take if that the taxing master will not recognize it when taxing a bill. I think that is just fair. If a man feels so strongly about it, if he holds such strong convictions that he refuses to accept the title S.C., surely he cannot be heard to say that despite the fact that he has refused that honour he must still be treated as one. As far as that issue is concerned, no definite decision has yet been arrived at. It is a matter which I must still discuss and bring to finality with the Bar Council. What I am doing at the moment is to tell the hon. member, in view of the question he put to me, how I personally feel about it, and the hon. member knows that I never dodge an issue and that I always answer questions put to me. I have already dealt with the Van Winsen Report. The hon. member also raised the question of compulsory whipping. I have given this matter some considerable thought, and not only have I done so, but for the last year the Department of Prisons has studied this matter. Let me say at once that as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, I am told that no magistrate, either personally or at magistrates’ conferences, which are held regularly, has expressed views similar to the views expressed by the hon. member. But I told the hon. member that I have given this considerable thought and the Prisons Department has made a close study of the effect of compulsory whipping of accused persons. This matter will be discussed further between myself and the Department during the recess. Perhaps it is interesting, and therefore I can tell hon. members this in passing, that the facts seem to show that as far as first and second offenders are concerned it serves a very useful purpose, but it is doubtful whether that is the case with third, fourth and fifth offenders. That is what the report we have available shows. If I am satisfied, after having made a close study of the report, that that is in fact so, that it does serve a useful purpose in regard to first and second offenders but not for third, fourth and fifth offenders I will not hesitate to come to Parliament to ask it to change the law on the subject.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the salaries of judicial officers. He will recall that in reply to a question I told the House that the Department is in the process of having discussions with the Public Service Commission in regard to this, and I am afraid I cannot take the matter any further now. The hon. member referred to the appointment of Judges. He will understand that I cannot comment upon that at all, and in passing, I am sorry that this matter was in fact raised. The same applies to the question of the salaries of Judges, but seeing that the matter has been raised, I can tell the hon. member that in regard to the salaries of Judges and their pensions and allowances, those matters are at present under consideration between myself and the authorities concerned.

Then the hon. member referred to assaults by the police. By way of interjection I said that I did not think the police deserved that from the hon. member, and I am genuinely sorry that the hon. member brought this matter forward. Surely the hon. member knows that members of the Police Force who are found guilty by the courts of assault are dealt with by the Department. Surely the hon. member also knows that each case is treated on its merits, and must of necessity be treated on its own merits. It is not just a question of discharging a man because he has committed a common assault. The hon. member must know under what conditions and circumstances these people have to work. He must take into account the extreme provocation, especially in these days.

What about the case I mentioned of the young girl?

As I have told the hon. member, action was taken against the police concerned by another court which had all the facts before it. But what does the hon. member want me to do? Supposing a policeman is charged before a court of law and fined R10, must I go along to the magistrate and say, “No, you should have fined him R100?” Or must I in addition to that impose a fine myself?

This was a disciplinary court, not a court of law.

Yes, but that just goes to show that each case is treated on its merits. As far as the police are concerned, they do not for one moment try to hide the black sheep in the fold. They take action and they take prompt action against them, and I may say they take very severe action against them in most cases. By and large let me tell the hon. member that I am quite satisfied with the way in which matters of the kind raised by him are treated in the police.

*I think having said that, I have replied to all the complaints which have been raised by hon. members so far, except that I still owe the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) a reply.

This side of the House has already conveyed its congratulations and deep gratitude to the retiring Commissioner of Police, and therefore it is only my pleasant pleasure to extend an equally warm welcome to the new Commissioner of Police, Brig. Keevy. I think that all of us are aware of the fact that there were no truer words spoken than when it was said that the policeman’s job is not a happy one. And therefore our good wishes go out to him in very real strain. My own experience has certainly been that by and large the police do a very fine job in difficult circumstances, and I think that is the experience of most people. But I think it would certainly keep even higher the name of the police if when there were in fact bad cases of breach of discipline, they were dealt with in a firm disciplinary way, and if the impression were not created that there was undue protection extended to people who have definitely been proved to have contravened disciplinary regulations.

Has that been done in the past?

No, I do not say that it has necessarily happened, but I ask the Minister to make sure that it does not happen because I believe that if he does so it will ensure that the reputation of the police remains high. Sir, it is also good news that so many of the recent recruits have been matriculants and indeed that the Police Force is coming up to its proper strength.

A great deal has been said about our system of justice. I am one of those who share the belief that our law, our legal system, and our judicial officers are indeed of a very high order and that we are most fortunate. But equally I think that as in the case of all organizations there is always a continual need for watchfulness, and I want to bring three matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister which I have noticed over a considerable time are real factors requiring attention. The first one is this: I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he has his discussions with his judicial officers from time to time, will remind them that when they are in fact dispensing justice in the courts, they are not only acting as between party and party or accused and State, but they are acting very often before a very large audience. Very often you will have up to 100 or 200 people in the courts, and it is most important that those people should be brought under the impression of a completely correct and a completely impartial system of justice. I have noticed from time to time that in that respect there have been failures. I think they were doubtless due to the fact that the judicial officer perhaps did not appreciate what a factor in maintaining respect for law and order, such impression made upon such a large audience is.

There is a second and related point that I would like to stress. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s impression has been, but I have repeatedly been struck by a harsh tone which is frequently used by persons connected with the court towards accused persons. Indeed one feels that there is almost a great impatience which leads to a gruffness, which is something which you will certainly not find in our best-run courts. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will impress upon all those who assist in administering justice in our courts the necessity to bear in mind the dignity of an individual, even if he is an accused person, because he is certainly innocent until he is proved guilty—and I am not saying that thereafter he should not be treated with dignity either. But I assure the Minister that over many years I have observed that there is a tendency in some of these cases to adopt an unnecessarily gruff manner which offends and which should be eliminated as soon as we possibly can.

There is a third point which I think will strengthen respect for our administration of justice and that is this: There is a tendency for people to be unwilling to come forward as witnesses. I am not now speaking only of the class of case where threats may be used perhaps against a particular witness. I am speaking about the ordinary class of case where people show a disinclination to come forward as witnesses. I think that is partly due to the fact that there are very often delays and postponements of trials. People come forward to give their evidence, which may not perhaps be of very great moment, but the matter is postponed from one day to the next and then again to the next day.

I have never come across a case where a case had been postponed where there has not been a good reason for the postponement.

There may be a good reason for the postponement, although I do not accept that there are always good reasons. There may be a good reason, but I suggest that the Department should go to greater lengths, by telephone or otherwise, to inform witnesses that their case has been postponed, or, if possible, to inform them that it will not be heard before lunch, or whatever the case may be. I am certain that with a little extra bit of trouble and probably one or two extra officials connected with the court—perhaps even the clerk of the court could do it himself—there could be a record kept of the telephone number of the witness at home and at office so that they can be informed if the case is postponed. I feel that that would go a long way towards eliminating this most undesirable feature, namely that there is a reluctance on the part of people to come forward as witnesses. I do not say that that is the only explanation by any means but it is a very common complaint that one gets.

Reverting for a moment to the hon. the Minister’s speech a moment ago and his reference to the title Q.C., would he please tell us whether it is his intention that persons who are in fact present Silks, will be asked to apply again for letters patent to obtain the new designation, or what he has in mind, because he did say that certain consequences were going to follow upon refusal to assume these new titles.

It will be issued automatically and it is up to them to refuse or accept.

It may be remembered that earlier in this Session it was necessary for the Chief Whip on this side to express regret that the House had not been kept busy at one time. I think it was agreed by both sides of the House that this was due to a shortage of legal advisers to draw up the Bills. I think that this falls properly under the Minister’s Vote, and I would like just to touch on that. I notice from the Justice report that there are in fact about 20 odd vacancies in the professional division, and I do suggest that the hon. the Minister should attempt to remedy this position. I appreciate that he has doubtless been advertising in an attempt to get these people. If in fact he is unable to get them within a reasonable time, he might consider briefing practicing advocates to help him with certain of that work. Already you have advocates at the Cape Bar who do assist and have assisted as Parliamentary counsel, and I think that that might possibly be a solution to his problem. Speaking of this matter, my own experience is that their assistance could probably also be invoked to overcome some of the other professional shortages in the Department. [Time limit.]*

I think every member in this House can pay tribute to the police officials for the service they render South Africa. It is only human that an odd one here and there will overstep the mark and I do not think it is fair to discuss that in this House; it only leaves a very nasty taste in one’s mouth, Sir.

There are two matters which I should very much like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The one is the distressing shortage of housing for our police officials as well as for our magistrates in the various towns. Mr. Chairman, when you take a town such as Brakpan and you look at the residence there in which the chief magistrate is expected to live, you would not expect the most inferior person to live in that house. I want to plead with the Minister to-day that we should once again place our magistrates on a pedestal so that everybody can look up to them as the first citizen of any town because the magistrate is the person who has to maintain law and order in his town. I know there is a shortage of money and I know that the Minister is very sympathetic towards this question, but I want to plead for it that decent housing should be provided to our magistrates and our police officials. I want to pay tribute to the Minister and his Department for what they have already done in connection with the provision of housing for the police at New Kleinfontein, but in View of the fact that so many mines are closing down on the East Rand I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consider the possibility of taking over the housing which already exists at the various mines, such as at the State Mine and later on at the Brakpan mine and the West Springs Mine, so that cheap housing can be made available to our police there. I am convinced that if that is done a great deal of dissatisfaction will disappear.

Another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is this: We know that as far as transport is concerned, everything possible is being done for the police but I am convinced that there are not sufficient vehicles in every town to provide sufficient protection to the police when it is necessary that they have it. The areas which the police have to patrol are big areas and the police have to cover many miles every year. I personally can testify as to the position which prevails at Brakpan, particularly on the East Rand and I want to plead for more vehicles for the police there.

There is another matter which I want to raise. I was pleased to hear the new policy which the Minister announced, in terms of which provision is to be made in the new Bantu towns for magistrates’ offices together with police stations. However, we find this incongruity in the whole situation: We find a local authority establishing a big modern Bantu town. Provision is made for all the necessary facilities but no provision is made for the most important aspect, namely a magistrate’s court and a police station. That is not the responsibility of the local authority; land is only set aside for that purpose. Three of the biggest Bantu towns are on the East Rand—they are in the Minister’s constituency and they border on to mine—namely Kwatema, Tskane and the new Nigel location which will very definitely have nearly 100,000 inhabitants by the end of this year, yet there are no magistrates’ courts or any police stations there. It is nearly two years to-day that those local authorities have been trying to have those magistrates’ courts and police stations established there, but the Government says there is not sufficient funds. What must happen now? The local authority must first obtain authority to raise loans; it must apply to the Administrator and then it has to apply to the State in connection with the hiring of those buildings. Valuable time is lost during the process, and there is chaos in some of those places. I want to plead for it that before a local authority establishes a Bantu town provision should be made in its capital programme for important buildings such as police stations and magistrates’ courts.

My final request to the hon. the Minister is this: Has the time not arrived for the Department of Justice to take over the municipal police services in the locations? That is where you find the most serious points of friction to-day, Sir. You have municipal policemen in the locations of the big municipalities; those Natives are untrained. Over the whole weekend they are in charge of that whole big location, alone with the White superintendent whom they can only contact by telephone. I wonder whether the time has not arrived that serious consideration be given to the taking over of that municipal service. If the Department of Justice took over these services there would be much greater satisfaction because the police official of the State has been properly trained; he knows how to treat a fellow human being. Those persons employed by municipalities receive no training. They are taken off the street and placed in employment to perform that important task of maintaining law and order in the Bantu towns.

May I claim the privilege of the other half-hour? I want to raise a few matters with the hon. the Minister, but before doing so I want to comment on some of the things which he himself has said in reply to previous speakers. I am sorry if in so doing I am going to introduce a note of discord into what has been a singularly amiable discussion up to now.

The first thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that as far as I personally am concerned, the hon. the Minister would have done himself a great deal of credit had he attended the Association of Law Societies dinner in Natal. I want to make that quite clear.

I take it the same argument will apply if I join the Progressive Party?

Oh indeed. The hon. the Minister would cover himself with glory if he joined the Progressive Party, but he would have to make considerable changes in his political convictions, I am sure, before he could do so. But I do not think that he would have had to change any of his political convictions or have lost any of his political principles had he in fact attended the dinner given by the Association of Law Societies. Sir, every member of the Cabinet who goes overseas, every South African representative in the diplomatic corps who is stationed overseas, as part of his professional duties as to attend social gatherings which are, of course, not segregated gatherings, where non-White persons are present, and they conduct themselves very well indeed at these mixed gatherings. They do not in any way give the impression that they have thrown overboard the political principles in which they believe or that they have let their political party down.

I believe it is the height of political irresponsibility for members of the opposing party to use against members of the Cabinet any propaganda in relation to that sort of behaviour.

Do you agree with what I said as to what the Opposition would have said to me?

Well, the hon. the Minister must conduct his own private quarrel on this account. It has been done in the past; I will concede him that; there have been occasions in the past where unfortunate propaganda has been made about ministerial appearances at mixed functions overseas. I say that the hon. the Minister should not be so small-minded as to take any notice of the possibility of that sort of propaganda being made. He should do what he believes is the right thing to do, and I believe that in his professional capacity, when he is invited by the Association of Law Societies to attend a function which, although it is a social function, is a function held by the members of the profession, he should do so, and he should ignore any of the petty party political propaganda which may ensue. I think it is a bad precedent that the hon. the Minister has set in refusing to accept the invitation. We hope in this country to have international conferences—medical conferences and professional conferences of all kinds. There are frequently non-White persons who are invited to attend these conferences; they make a considerable contribution in their own right in their profession. It is the custom to invite Ministers to attend the functions, and I hope that the hon. the Minister has not set a precedent which is going to be followed by his colleagues on future occasions.

I want to say something else about a mater which the hon. the Minister raised and he must stop me at once if I have the wrong impression. I understood him to say that he was considering setting up Bantu Commissioners courts in the urban townships where cases can be heard.

No, magistrates’ courts.

I presume that there will also be courts in which cases, which would normally be heard in the ordinary magistrates’ courts and in the Bantu Commissioners courts will be heard.

Yes.

Well, I hope the Minister does not proceed with this plan. I think it is a very bad plan indeed.

Why not?

It is an old established legal maxim that justice must be seen to be done, and although these courts will be public courts in that any members of the public who are in the township will have access to those courts, it is very bad in the context of our segregation policy in this country in as much as any White person who wishes to attend the proceedings in those courts, who wishes to witness the proceedings, will be unable to do so if this plan is carried through. It will mean that permits will first have to be obtained from location managers before they will be able to go into these courts, and it is a very bad idea indeed.

That has been the position over the last 50 years.

Well, I do not think it should be extended and I am certainly against any segregated courts set up in areas where White people do not have access without special permission. Permission to enter these townships is being more and more restricted, as the hon. the Minister knows. I say this because I myself have made a practice of going into Bantu Commissioners courts whenever I have a free hour or two to see how the laws are being administered and to see what goes on. I am horrified at the way in which Bantu Commissioners courts are conducted, and I hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity during the recess …

What is wrong with the way in which they are conducted?

If the hon. member will listen for a moment I will tell him. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to take time off during the recess to pay a visit to the Fordsburg Bantu Commissioner’s court, as a case in point. Sir, these courts are disgracefully run; they are overcrowded. There are no proper public galleries. The accused awaiting trial are herded together in a great wire cage, for all the world like a lot of animals.

Are you talking now about Bantu Commissioners courts?

Yes.

That has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

If it does not fall under the Department of Justice then I apologize to the hon. the Minister. I am going beyond his Vote then, but I thought that since it was a matter of justice it would fall under him. I am very sorry that I missed my opportunity in this regard. I will make representations then to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in this regard. I assumed that non-White prisoners come under the hon. the Minister?

Yes.

I want to say that I hope the Minister will take a little time off in the recess to do something about investigating the conditions of non-White prisoners. I give full credit to the Commissioner of Prisons for the work that he has done as far as prison reform is concerned. I know that he has done a great deal in that regard, that it is a particular baby of his and that conditions are improving. But as far as the non-White prisons are concerned I am afraid one cannot give the same unstinted praise. Conditions are very bad there; there is overcrowding; there are frequent assaults on prisoners by other prisoners. Conditions generally are very bad, and I think that if this country wishes to be considered a modern country, there is a great need for prison reform as far as non-White prisoners are concerned, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will do something about that.

Do you speak of personal knowledge, or is that what you have been told?

I went to see the Deputy Commissioner of Prisons on one occasion; I have had people making representations to me, and I have innumerable letters from prisoners and prisoners’ relatives from the non-White gaols. On one occasion I submitted a long document I had received to the Commissioner of Prisons this Session. He had the matter investigated and reported back to me. Since then I have received other letters, one in particular about Roeland Street gaol and the condition of non-White prisoners there, so it is a matter which I think really does need some investigation.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends doing about this private army of Mr. Robey Leibbrandt. I have raised this two or three times during the course of this Session; I have put two questions to the hon. the Minister. Mr. Leibbrandt boasts that he is raising a private army of a thousand people and they are to be the head protectors to save South Africa. This may be one of Mr. Leibbrandt’s crackpot schemes or it may be something very much more dangerous. But what I do not like is the nonchalant attitude that the Minister has adopted towards this. When I first asked him whether he intended to take any steps to prevent such activities he said, “No, because such activities do not at present seem to reveal any contravention.”

Quite.

That might very well be so, but I suggest that the hon. the Minister should make it very clear that he does not desire to have private armies to assist him to maintain law and order in South Africa. If ministerial disapproval is put on this scheme ab initio, the chances are that it will not develop any further, but if the hon. the Minister adopts the attitude that he is going to wait until there are contraventions of the law, until private armies are organized to break up meetings and generally to disturb the peace, by then a very serious situation may have developed and the hon. the Minister might be sorry that he did not put down his foot originally.

Are you in favour of communist private armies?

I am not in favour of any private armies, be they communist private armies or Nationalist private armies. I think it is the duty of the State to maintain law and order; it is the duty of the police to maintain law and order, and I must say that they should not always be at the receiving end of praise as far as this is concerned because we have had instances in recent weeks where police action, if taken in time, would have prevented a lot of disturbances. The second question which I put to the hon. the Minister about Robey Leibbrandt was based on a statement that the leader (as he calls himself) of the anti-communist protection front had been co-operating with the Security Branch in Bloemfontein. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he would make a statement in that regard, and he said: “The Government welcomes assistance from all persons who genuinely wish to co-operate in the fight against Communism,” even persons who are going to form private armies, who perhaps are going to arm people and go out and create public violence. Is that what the Minister means by this broad generalization? Because that is certainly what it sounds like. As far as the other half of the question is concerned, that is the question of co-operation with the Security Branch in Bloemfontein, he said—

I want to take issue with the hon. the Minister here. I think it is very much in the public interest that the hon. the Minister should immediately disclaim any of the claims made by the leader of the anti-communist private army that the hon. the Minister’s Department and the Security Branch are co-operating with him. I believe the hon. the Minister is really treading on very thin ice if he allows persons like this, no matter who they be, Robey Leibbrandt, communists or anybody, to organize what they call private armies to help the hon. the Minister to keep law and order and to fight any political movement in this country. I hope the hon. the Minister will take strong steps indeed to stop the organization of any of these so-called private armies.

Now I want to come to the main subject that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is a question which I raised a few years ago in this House, but at that time under the Department of Bantu Administration. Now this no longer falls under that department because this is something that the hon. the Minister is now administering under his department and that is the question of the employment of short-term prisoners who are, as the official jargon puts it, released on parole. These parolees are persons who have been sentenced to a sentence of not more than four months imprisonment, and they may, according to an official document, which the Minister’s department very kindly supplied me with, immediately apply for parole and be employed as parolees by approved employers. If one takes this document and reads through it, it would appear on the face of it that this is a very admirable scheme indeed. It appears that the objective is admirable. The only trouble is of course that the implementation of the scheme is not admirable, and I will tell the hon. the Minister in a minute why I say that. In terms of this document, it is applied to White and non-White prisoners. I should very much like to know how many Whites in fact are employed under the parolee scheme, what sort of employment they are placed in, and so on. But at the moment I am busy with non-White prisoners, although the conditions apply to all. The object of this scheme is to see that these short-term prisoners will have (a) an opportunity to assimilate in freedom with the community at an early date and (b) to lead an independent existence and thereby provide for his own needs and those of his family. An admirable objective. Furthermore the object is to see that short-term prisoners avoid association with hardened criminals, learn habits of industry, perform healthy work under unrestricted circumstances, free of the stigma of imprisonment, and (4) enable them to earn a wage which will contribute towards their self-support for at least a reasonable period after the expiry of their sentence.

The memorandum then goes on to give us some of the conditions under which parolees are supposed to be working, and so on and it mentions for instance, that the employers shall pay a wage of 20 cents a day for White parolees and 10 cents a day for non-Whites, and that the employer shall provide the parolees with accommodation which does not restrict their freedom of movement, with bedding, working clothes and sufficient food which is not inferior in quantity and variety to the prison diet, and provide the parolee who is ill or has been injured with the necessary medical and hospital treatment applicable to ordinary workers or employees, and the employer is responsible for any costs incurred in connection with such medical and hospital treatment. The parolee is required to work not more than ten hours a day, and he may not be harshly treated, nor may his services be hired out If the employer fails to comply with the conditions set out, further releases on parole in his employ, are discontinued, and the officer in command shall without delay inform the commissioner and furnish him with full particulars and recommendations in that regard. The most important thing is that prisoners sentenced up to four months imprisonment who are released on parole remain under supervision of members of the prison service and supervision must be arranged and exercised by commissioned officers and members in charge of prisons, unless other arrangements for supervision have been made by the department. The parolees must be notified that complaints should be lodged with the nearest member in charge of a prison. Well, Sir, all this sounds fine, and as I mentioned earlier, there are two annexures to the memorandum, very long, and I do not intend to weary the House with reading them, but one of the annexures is a contract signed by the parolee—or I suppose thumb-printed by the parolee in most cases—and the other is an undertaking by the employer that he will provide proper accommodation which will not restrict the parolee’s freedom of movement, adequate food of a quality not lower than the prison diet, proper medical services in the event of illness, and not treat him harshly, etc.

What is your objection?

I will tell the hon. member what my objections are. First of all it is clear from the number of cases that have been appearing in our newspapers about parolees who have been badly treated that one cannot take them to be exceptional cases because they are far too numerous.

A question of one or two.

Not one or two. If one takes it over a few years there are literally scores of these cases, and for every case that appears in the courts, there must be dozens and dozens that don’t come to court.

What gives you the right to say that?

Well, I cannot imagine that it could be otherwise. The hon. the Minister will remember that when I raised this question about three years ago, it was in respect of the “in lieu of prosecution” cases, and that scheme was found to be illegal, because actually what was happening was that people who had been arrested on petty offences were not even brought before the courts—they were given this option of taking up employment on farms. That was found to be illegal and it was discontinued. But only the legal technicalities have changed. These are the same people who are arrested on petty offences, but they are in fact convicted of these petty offences, but thereafter everything is exactly the same: They are given out as labourers under these conditions to farmers all over the country, and my contention is—and I don’t think the hon. the Minister can possibly deny it—that the whole system of inspection is faulty. It is quite impossible for the Prisons Department to keep up a regular inspection of the hundreds of farmers throughout the country who are using this parolee labour. The other thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that before parolees are given to farmers, his department should make absolutely sure that this type of labour is not the bulk of the labour used by the particular farmer, because if it is the bulk of the labour then certainly the whole objective of the scheme is immediately undermined—in other words, to enable them to associate with other members of the Community—if these persons are all parolee labourers, living under conditions where they are treated as prisoners. That should be another condition laid down before anybody is allowed to employ parolee labourers. The other important thing is that I don’t believe that anybody really can volunteer to do anything if he is already a convict. As far as I am concerned the two are mutually incompatible that is that a person who is in prison is still capable of a voluntary act. The whole circumstances surrounding being a prisoner make it very difficult for a person to say “No,” to suggestions which are being made by persons who are in authority.

They can say whether they want to go out to work or stay in prison.

The hon. the Minister must be a little more practical. He knows that hundreds of these people are imprisoned and immediately after they are taken to prison, they are asked to volunteer and these contracts are put in front of them. How much opportunity is given to these people to understand the contract properly?

What right have you to say that they don’t understand the contract?

I will tell the hon. the Minister why. There was one case, before the Nationalist Party came into power, in 1947. This is not a new system, it has been used for years and years in this country, and I say it is time that it should be discontinued. A whole and complete rehaul of the whole system should be initiated, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister what I want to suggest in that regard. In 1947 there was a case which the hon. the Minister may remember, of a man who had been sent to a farm. His wife came to pay the fine and she was told that he had volunteered to work on the farm instead of going to prison. A case ensued in the course of which the Judge remarked as counsel indeed implied, that it could not have been a voluntary contract between man and farmer. The Judge said “this is not a sound contention, because the contract was not one made by a free man, but the contract was made under conditions in which he was a prisoner In other words, it is virtually impossible to talk about people making a voluntary contract when they are prisoners.

You are now talking about the Michael Scott era.

The hon. the Minister knows that this is going on all the time, and I think it is time that the hon. the Minister did something about it. The system continues as before: Short-term prisoners are paroled to farmers, and I maintain that there is not adequate supervision of this scheme. I want to know why the Minister does not want to agree to let us see the report of the commission of inquiry into the old scheme. We have never been able to see that. I want the hon. the Minister to give us some information if he will, about the contents of that report, or at least to make it available to those Members of Parliament who are interested in this matter. There was a commission of inquiry set up at the time of the “in lieu of prosecution scheme” and when there was that public scandal over the whole business.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister what I think should be done about this scheme. Firstly, I think that it should be abandoned until certain things have been provided. First of all he should make sure that parolees do know what they are doing when they so-called voluntarily elect to become parolees. I believe this should not be done in a prison and there should be at least either a magistrate present or some other person in the Department of Justice, but not a member of the staff of the prison where the man is confined. The second thing is that it is quite clear that there is not an efficient and adequate system of inspection. I wanted to know how many parolees there were in one year. The Minister said he could not give me the answer because too much work was involved. But it should not be difficult to find out how many of these people are in fact parolees because all of them have to sign a contract. I hope that during the recess the hon. the Minister will get that information, because I intend tabling another question on this next year. So I am giving him six months’ notice of the question, and I hope he will have the information available by then. But I also want to know how he can possibly guarantee an adequate inspectoral system to see that people are properly fed, properly treated, properly housed and that they are not working more than ten hours a day? The cases that do come to light show that the boss-boys are given vast powers over these people, that parolees are badly fed and that the medical attention is inadequate.

You apparently believe that all farmers are tyrants.

I wish the hon. the Minister would not try to make party political capital out of this. At no time did I say that this was always the case. I have no doubt that in certain instances the system is conducted admirably, that there are farmers who provide adequate accommodation, good food and good attention, but equally the hon. the Minister must grant me that there are farmers who do not. My point is that there are not sufficient inspectors to see whether or not this scheme, which on the face of it is working very well, or should work very well, is in fact working adequately. I again make the point that no farmer should be allowed to have more than a small percentage of his labour force made up of these parolees. Otherwise he gets into the habit of employing only prison labour under conditions very much worse than that afforded to the labour he would employ if he were in the ordinary labour market as a competitive employer—in other words he would have to pay better wages and to give better conditions, or he simply would not get the labour, because other farmers offering better conditions would be getting that sort of labour. So a maximum percentage should be laid down for each farmer of this type of parolee labour. Then, Sir, at the time when this “in lieu of prosecution scheme” was under fire, the question of black-listing of farmers was raised, and the then Minister who was dealing with the matter, the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration stated that a black list was kept and that farmers who were found to illtreat their labour, did not get any further parolee labour. I hope that this system will be most carefully continued, and that farmers who are found guilty of illtreating their labour are black-listed and are not able to use this sort of labour at all.

I have raised this matter for one reason only apart from the human side of it—the fact that one’s blood runs cold every time one reads of this kind of case when one picks up a newspaper and sees the sort of accommodation that is given in some cases, the sacking is provided for bedding and so on …

Isolated cases.

They are not isolated cases, there are too many of them. I want to say that I raised this matter because nothing does us more harm than the sort of cases we keep on getting, and there should not be the opportunity for people to exploit labour in this way. There is a booklet called “South Africa and the Rule of Law”, which was published by the International Commission of Jurists.

Not worth the paper it is printed on.

The hon. the Minister may think so, but it is widely read by people who are interested in these matters, and two sections of this are devoted entirely to the cases that arose at the time of the “in lieu of prosecution scheme”, and I want to obviate it being possible for anybody in future ever to write a report like that again about South Africa. Until the hon. the Minister can assure us that he has got adequate inspection and that labour that goes out on this parolee system is indeed labour that has volunteered, and there is no suggestion of labour being induced to volunteer, I don’t believe that we should continue with this system, however admirable the system may be in terms of the memorandum which the hon. the Minister’s department supplied to me.

So far this debate has been conducted in a very friendly spirit, except perhaps to some extent in the case of the speech to which we have just listened. I think the way in which this debate has been conducted can be interpreted in no other way than that it is a compliment to the Minister and a testimonial to every section of his Department. I think that can particularly be said in view of the fact that in practically every section of the Department of Justice they have to deal daily and every day with people and the problems of people. It is because a human being is different from a machine, because a human being knows his own ways and because the one decides differently from the other, that it is so difficult to satisfy everybody. In view of the fact that so few complaints have been raised under this Vote, I say we can regard it as a testimonial to this Department. Once again the hon. member for Houghton has commented on the fact that the Minister refused to attend a certain function in Natal. It is quite understandable why she differs, and I can also understand that she differs because of the attitude which she and her party adopt; because of that we differ basically so widely that little can be gained in arguing this question across the floor of the House.

At the commencement of these discussions the hon. member for Germiston also raised this matter, and the position is somewhat different in his case. He asked the Minister what his attitude would be in future in this connection and the hon. member for Germiston (District) expressed the hope that the hon. the Minister would change the attitude which he had adopted on that occasion in regard to attending that function. I gained the impression from the attitude which the hon. member adopted that he thought the Minister had acted incorrectly on that occasion. The hon. the Minister has replied in detail to that and I think hon. members opposite owe it to the House to say whether or not they are satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister, whether they accept it, whether they think he acted correctly, or whether they still insist that he should in actual fact attend such functions in future. The reason why I am asking this is because of the fact that while the Minister was giving his explanation it was not clear how hon. members opposite felt about this matter.

I also want to say a few words about certain matters regarding the Department of Justice. I wish to raise certain matters affecting magistrates’ courts and in discussing those matters I do not wish to make any destructive criticism; I am aware of it that there are certain defects which can possibly be improved and in so far as it may appear to be criticism it is really only an attempt to bring about an improvement where weaknesses do exist. In the process of training a magistrate, the policy is to a great extent followed, if not to the full extent, that he also acts as the public prosecutor. I want to ask the Minister whether it is possible not to follow that procedure in the process of training a magistrate; whether it is possible that in the process of his training a magistrate need not be the public prosecutor as well. I will go into that at greater length at a later stage, but the reason why I object to that is that particularly in the case of the younger generation, a magistrate often finds it difficult to forget the idea that he was once a public prosecutor—there are good reasons for that; we are all human. However, I think we must look deeper into the matter to find the reason and I think the problem can to some extent be solved in the training of public prosecutors. In this respect I think it is essential that public prosecutors in general should be taught to realize that in the case of a criminal case, unlike in a civil case, there is no question of anybody losing or winning the case. In the case of a criminal case, as I see it, the position is simply this: A charge is made; if the accused is found guilty, is he guilty or not guilty? If the public prosecutor does not succeed in getting him found guilty, he has most certainly not lost his case. Justice has only been done. And if the prosecutor does succeed in getting the accused found guilty by the magistrate, then it is not a case of the accused having lost his case but in that case it must also be taken that justice has been done. In the process of training prosecutors, I think the emphasis should be laid on this, that the only duty which rests on him is to lay certain facts before the court, and once the prosecutor has laid those facts before the court to the best of his ability, I think he has discharged his duty; he has done his work. But I think the problem arises in this, that it often happens that the person who decides that a prosecution should be instituted is also the person who prosecutes. The result is that, having considered the statements, the prosecutor decides, in view of those statements, to prosecute; he assumes that in such a case the accused must be found guilty. In that case he strives to have that person found guilty and not simply to place the facts before the court. I also think that in such a case the approach should be that when the prosecutor decides to prosecute he decides to do so purely and simply on the documents he has before him, and if documents or evidence come before the court which prove the opposite, the prosecutor should not regard that as a reflection on himself or an error in his judgment in having decided to prosecute.

I said a moment ago that particularly among the younger magistrates who were formerly public prosecutors, you find that they often have difficulty in forgetting that they were public prosecutors and because of the attitude which they probably adopted a year or two or three ago when they were prosecutors, they are inclined to cross-examine witnesses or even to put leading questions to them, and what is more, they even take down a report of the court proceedings. In other words, they themselves write down the replies to the questions which they themselves have asked. That is why I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of making representations to the hon. the Minister. We are to-day living in a mechanical age and in a highly developed world, and it is wrong to allow a highly paid official, such as a senior magistrate, to sit there and to write down in longhand all the evidence which is given in that court. I think the time has arrived—and I think this will solve most of the problems which I have outlined—that we gradually import machines (I realize that it will cost a great deal at the outset) in our more important magistrates’ courts and that we get shorthand-typists to take down the evidence and place it on record with the assistance of the machines. That will make it unnecessary for the magistrate, that highly paid official, to spend three-quarters of his time in court writing down the evidence. You can save two-thirds of his time or more by employing a typist who, with the assistance of a machine, will probably do the work just as well if not better in the interests of the administration of justice.

I rise primarily to correct an impression which I might have given in connection with what I said about the collection of debts, and to say that I had not the slightest intention of attacking my own profession and to indicate that there was any reason to attack the profession as a whole. Apparently one or two members of the House felt that I had created that impression. I want to correct that at once. I have a very high regard for the legal profession and I certainly will not say anything at all to give the impression that I was attacking my own profession. I think the hon. the Minister has made it clear that the costs of collections under Section 65 is something which requires very close scrutiny and investigation, and I hope the hon. the Minister will go into the matter because at the moment it is far too expensive. Then there is the question of the wages of Coloured constables. I have information which confirms the figures printed on page 287 of the Estimates. I am afraid both the Minister and I overlooked that page. The point I wish to make. Sir, is this: A Coloured constable’s commencing salary is R360 per annum—£15 per month as it used to be; whereas a European constable commences with a salary of R720—double. As the progress of their wages will indicate as printed in the Estimates, a European constable is in a much better position than the Coloured constable. The European constable can rise to R1,700 whereas the Coloured constable only rises to R840. I do not know how any Government can expect the Coloured man to join the police and to be able to live on R30 per month; that is asking too much. He has to render the same service as the White constable. As I said earlier he faces the same dangers. There is no question as to how much you earn when you have to do your duty. When there is danger the Coloured man is sent there and he has to go. On R30 per month there is no incentive for the Coloured people to join the Police Force. I do hope that this Minister will at least accept the principle of equal pay for services rendered.

Surely you know that is not a question for one Department alone to decide.

I know, but I hope the Minister will be able to influence his colleague. I have raised this before. Coloured constables and Coloured detectives have come to see me. They want to do the work. They have entered the service with the object of serving their country but they feel that their lives are in as much danger as those of the White constables and they feel that the discrepancy against them is unfair. In addition they are asked to face a dangerous situation completely unarmed. That is also a question which I have already raised. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the position of these people.

I now want to read from the Annual Report for the year 1960-61 of the South African Police. On the first page it gives the authorized establishment of Coloured policemen and the number employed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is why this establishment cannot be completely filled. I am talking about the Coloureds. In the case of first-class sergeants there are 18 vacancies; in the case of second-class sergeants there are 22 vacancies and in the case of constables there are 160 vacancies. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why this establishment cannot be filled completely.

The next point I want to raise with the Minister has nothing to do with the Coloureds really. I am reading from the Annual Report of the Department of Justice under the heading “Legal assistants”. It says this—

I do not know what is meant by “legal assistants Does it mean public prosecutors? Because it is not defined. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether some of these posts cannot be filled by Coloured people. Surely, Sir, the Minister should not close the Department of Justice to the Coloured people in respect of employment. There must be some way of finding work for young Coloured lawyers who want to take up the legal profession. Those who want to enter the service should be given some encouragement.

You bring them along and I will employ everyone of them.

That is very good news, Sir. I think that is very encouraging; it is something which I can take up. I do not think the Minister realizes how important his statement is that he has just made.

That was why we started a university to give them legal training.

That was not the main reason. But if it were with a view to giving these people employment in the Government service, then I think you will find many more coming forward. I am very thankful to the hon. the Minister for what he has just said and I am sure the Coloured people will be thankful. I am very glad I raised it.

There are many other aspects of the Department of the Minister that one could deal with but I have no intention of delaying the Committee any longer. I do want to say this, however, in conclusion in reply to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) and I want the hon. the Minister to listen. If the hon. member suggests that evidence should be taken down in shorthand or by mechanical means, I want to bring this point to the Minister’s attention: the Minister must consider the costs to the litigants to pay for that record. That was the position at the time I still practised. [Time limit.]*

Mr. Chairman, I want to touch upon three matters, but before doing so, I want to return to what the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said when she referred to that prison scheme. I hope the Minister will not abolish that scheme because of the criticism she has levelled against it. It is being applied on a large scale in my constituency and I can mention numerous cases where it has worked very satisfactorily to the advantage of the prisoners. There are cases where the prisoners have subsequently gone to work for the same master. I have employed numerous of those prisoners and they have subsequently come to work for me. That has not happened only in my case but in the case of numbers of other farmers in that district. In a few exceptional cases it has been abused, as those referred to by the hon. member, but we cannot go according to that. It is a pity that all the cases where the scheme has been a success, do not appear in the newspapers, but only the few cases where there has been abuses.

The first matter I want to raise is in connection with the regional magistrates. They are appointed on an increasing salary scale. I believe the maximum notch is R5,000. My submission is that when a regional magistrate is appointed, he should immediately be placed on the maximum notch, just as in the case of a judge. In view of the responsible work they have to perform I do not see how a difference can be made between the responsibilities of one regional magistrate and another. They all do the same work and carry the same responsibility. I think that if they get appointed to that position they should be placed on the maximum notch. As a matter of fact, I think the scale of the regional magistrates ought definitely to be higher. They do very important work. They do a great deal of the work which was formerly done by the Supreme Court, and I think they deserve much more than the amount they receive at the moment. It must be a higher amount. After all, Mr. Chairman, they do work in which they should be incorruptible and they should receive a salary which keeps count of that fact.

The second matter is on connection with the training of magistrates. A certain scheme is in existence whereby public servants are sent to a university by the Department to equip themselves to become magistrates. We know there is a great shortage of magistrates. We find, however, that after they have been trained those people are sent to places such as Pofadder or Villiers or other small places, where they deal with two cases a month. He loses interest in legal work. It is a great wastage of legal energy, legal knowledge and legal ability, because the magistrates who are sent to those places, are overloaded with ordinary administrative work. I want to suggest the establishment of a kind of circuit magistrate’s court which can hear trial cases in those places and do the legal work. Administrative officials can be appointed to do the administrative work in the magistrate’s offices. It is very discouraging to a person who has gone to the trouble of writing his lower and higher law examinations in the Public Service to find that he is buried in a place where he never requires that legal knowledge. I want to insist very strongly that some plan be evolved so that the legal knowledge of such people is not wasted.

The third point I wish to raise is in connection with prisons. The policy is apparently to have prisons for non-Whites in White areas. I have had that experience in my constituency where we formerly had the Stofberg Memorial School. It was a missionary institution of the D.R. Church to train Bantu in the service of the Gospel, as teachers and so forth. A large farm prison has been established there for non-Whites. I say it is not right that it should be there. The prison which has been erected there is a beautiful prison. But what I want to plead for is that they should be detained in their own areas in similar farm prisons. They should, as it were, be re-established in their own area. We have thousands and thousands of non-White prisoners in the White areas and those people really belong to the Bantu areas. They should be detained there and released from prisons there and re-established there. I can give the example of foreign Bantu who are caught because they do not have the necessary immigration permits or whatever it may be. They are sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. When they have served their time they are simply let through the door and they once again become forbidden immigrants and can again be caught and returned to prison. In their case I want to plead for depots to be established on the borders of the country so that when they are released from prison, they can immediately return to their homelands. In the case of our own Bantu I want to plead for prisons in the Bantu areas and if they are released there they should immediately be re-established in the Bantu area, and not allowed to return to the White area, because he has already committed an offence in the White area or has been a criminal. In other words, he has made a nuisance of himself and he should now be re-established in his own area, so that he may become a useful citizen there. As a matter of fact I want to plead for the removal of all these gaols to the Bantu area.

Before I go on to what I have to say, I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of something which I believe he has overlooked. I refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in regard to the accommodation of non-White advocates in Chambers. A certain point was made and I just wish to remind the hon. the Minister in that regard.

Thank you; I did overlook it.

The first point on which I should like to touch is the question of the necessity for providing incentives to encourage policemen to learn one or other of the various Bantu languages. I believe it is essential, in these times particularly, that a great number of the White policemen should be able to speak a Bantu language, and Zulu in particular. I would suggest for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that he holds out very substantial pay increases, by way of a bonus, in order to encourage that. We know, Sir, that when you are dealing with human beings it requires an effort to learn a language other than one’s own, particularly when one does not hear it spoken all the time. A moderate bonus of one or two pounds per month will not in itself be sufficient for policemen to undertake training in, for example, the Zulu language. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a matter of such importance that he should consider providing a very substantial bonus indeed for any policeman who cares to qualify himself in a Bantu language. It has always been surprising to me that our police force, i.e. the White section, has managed to do its job as well as it has, when its job is concerned mainly with dealing with a group of people whose language they cannot speak. I do not know how one can control or manage the affairs of a group of people if the person concerned cannot speak to them and cannot understand what they have to say. Not only will it assist in controlling the situation but it will do away with the many petty misunderstandings which arise at the present time and which often billow up into something unfortunately large. Those things, Sir, would be done away with if there were this language link between the men who have to deal with any situation and the persons they have to deal with. One only has to think of the recent disturbances a year or two ago in Cato Manor. The hon. the Minister will know of the case I have in mind, where the whole position was kept under control by one police officer, a major. He went in alone, sitting on top of a saracen tank. He was able to deal with that crowd of thousands of tumultuous people merely because he had a fluent command of the Zulu language. That was a memorable occasion; an exhibition of devotion to duty by a very brave man. But the outstanding fact was that the crowd respected him and was prepared to listen to what he had to say because he spoke their own language. I would suggest, Sir, that had he had to have a non-White standing next to him interpreting what he had to say from either English or Afrikaans into Zulu, that crowd would have booed him down and there might have been bloodshed. As I am reminded, his name is Gerrie van der Merwe—a most outstanding police officer. I believe the time has come when this problem cannot be shelved. One knows that in the Northern Provinces and in the Western Province of the Cape the great majority of the Bantu speak either English or Afrikaans in addition to their own language. But so far as Natal and I believe the Eastern Province are concerned, the great bulk of the Bantu do not speak either of the official languages. I cannot see, Sir, how their grievances can be put to the police authorities and how the police authorities can put across their point of view, if they cannot speak the Bantu language to the people with whom they are dealing. One recalls from what one hears, the old days in South Africa when the magistracy by and large spoke the language of the people with whom they were dealing. To this day you will hear the older Natives speaking with great respect of those old-time magistrates simply because they spoke the language of the people concerned. I realize, Sir, that to-day where we have official languages and where everything has to be recorded in either English or Afrikaans those proceedings must be conducted in either of those two languages, but so far as the police are concerned I would urge most strongly that their tuition on the Bantu languages be encouraged.

There are one or two factors in relation to my own constituency which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister and one is the need for more housing for the police at Empangeni. In addition to that, Sir, there is also an urgent need for a new police station at Matubatuba. I think the building there dates from pre-Union days. As the hon. the Minister will know he is dealing here with a sub-tropical climate where in summer the officials concerned have to work under very trying climatic conditions. When they have to work not only in a very old building but in a very crowded building the situation becomes quite impossible. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever spent a February in the coastal areas of Natal and Zululand. If he has he will realize that crowded conditions become virtually insupportable during that time of the year.

There is also the question of the extension to the police station at Kwambonambi where the same criticism can be levelled at the existing accommodation, that is of over-crowded conditions. The same applies to Nqutu particularly in respect of married accommodation. Coming to the magisterial staff I should like to support the plea made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and that is for improved conditions of service for the magisterial staff. There is no doubt at all, Sir, that the pay increases to the magisterial staff have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. One has only to look at the report of the Department for the year 1960 to see that that is borne out. Because there one finds that the resignations have increased from 1959-60 from 304 to 454—an increase of over 100. The vacancies have increased from 559 to 640. There again the magistrate is not only the key judicial officer in his district but he is the administrative peg around which the whole civil service administration hinges. The quality of the magistrate is directly related to the quality of the intake of the clerks into the hon. the Minister’s Department. Unless those people are paid a remuneration which can compete with what is offered in private enterprise, in commerce and industry, these figures in regard to vacancies and resignations will continue to increase and the quality of the men coming to the head of that department, the future magistrates, will fall lower and lower. We cannot allow that to take place. I would urge upon the hon. the Minister to consider, as a matter of urgency, the substantial upgrading of the salary scales for the magisterial department.

There is one other small matter appearing from this report which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the provision of consultation rooms as envisaged at pages 17 and 18 of the report. It says there “One consultation room for use by White advocates/attorneys for interviews with White clients and one by White attorneys for interviews with non-White clients. Then there is to be a third consultation room for use by non-White attorneys for interviews with non-White clients. I can understand that arrangement, but what happens when a non-White attorney has to have an interview with White witnesses? What does he do? Where does he go? Where can he consult his White witnesses? Will a fourth consulting room be made available to cover that particular instance? I am merely mentioning this Sir. This is the sort of thing which should be made clear to the officials concerned so that there can be no embarrassment to the practitioners concerned.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) raised the question of the salaries of non-White constables and noncommissioned officers and he gave the figures as printed on page 287 of the Budget. I will, therefore, not touch upon that again because it has already been done. I would, however, like to plead with the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter as soon as possible. The Minister will also find—and his officials will tell him that this is the truth—that an indication of the important role which salaries play in the lives of the people whom we get, can be found in the fact that as far as Coloured constables are concerned, the best men or the majority of them originally came from the platteland. That to me, Sir, is an indication that in the cities where living standards and the cost of living are higher, you simply cannot find the better type of person to join the Force and to work for that salary. What I have just said in respect of the Coloured policemen, also applies to another branch of the Minister’s Department, namely the prisons section. The same position obtains there. I honestly do not think that a salary which is half that of a White man is justified in this case. I hope that the Minister will in the foreseeable future make a statement in respect of this matter, and that the salaries will be appreciably increased.

Like the hon. member for Boland, I welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement that he can absorb any Coloured person with legal training into his Department. This question arises, however: Will those people, once they have been trained, once they have their B.A. in law, or even their B.A., LL.B., see their way clear to work in the Department at the salary which is offered?

They can do better in the Department than anywhere else.

The hon. the Minister is a lawyer himself and surely he knows that when he qualified he asked himself the question whether he would do better by going into the Public Service at a fixed salary, with fixed increases etc. or by practicing at the Bar, struggling at the beginning but with the prospect of possibly doing better later on? The hon. Minister himself knows that when you are at that age you do not always consider the fact that if you make the Public Service your career you will retire at a certain age on a fixed pension, whereas if you practise at the Bar and are too old one day to practise, you will not receive a pension. That is a matter of great importance. I personally know of many a young man who has obtained his B.A. degree in law or his B.A., LL.B. degree but who did not see his way clear to enter the Public Service. He hoped to do better in some private undertaking or by practicing at the Bar where his income would be higher than in the Public Service. I know that is their problem but I do feel that the Minister will have to give this his serious attention, because with existing training facilities we are hoping that more Coloured people will undergo this training and qualify in the legal profession so that they can enter the Public Service.

There is another small matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister and I am doing so for this reason that other hon. members of this House may not perhaps be as well informed or acquainted with the circumstances as I am, because hon. members do not use the entrance to this House which we on these benches have to use of necessity because our offices are there. What has struck me is the fact that the policemen, the constables, non-commissioned officers and even officers, who do duty in this House, have nowhere to go to drink a cup of tea in private or eat their meals. The argument may perhaps be advanced that when a constable is on duty he has no time to drink tea, but there are non-commissioned officers who are married men and who do not go to the barracks in the afternoon for lunch. They bring their food with them and there is not a place in this House where those people can enjoy their meals. This has come to my notice because every day when we leave or enter the entrance at the lower end, you see a man, half shyly swallowing down a quick cup of tea. I noticed it particularly during the last session when I had occasion to speak to one of the sergeants and when I found him in the machine room where the air conditioning plant is situated.

Order! That subject has nothing to do with this Vote.

I accept your rulling, Sir, but I have made my point and I hope the Minister will give attention to it, because those men deserve it.

I should like to deal firstly with the question of new magistrates’ courts in Durban. The present position is that there are four regional courts, four civil courts and twelve criminal courts—that is twenty courts altogether and these courts are accommodated in no fewer than nine buildings.

I will agree with everything you say.

I appreciate that in answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), the Minister did say that he was aware of the crowded conditions in the courts in several parts of the country, and I have no doubt that his remarks were directed to the crowded conditions in Durban also. [Interjection.] I am pleased to hear the Minister say that, but I would point out that these conditions have existed in Durban for many years. I hope that the Minister will give his urgent attention to the construction of new magistrates’ courts in Durban, because they are very badly needed, not only because it is difficult for the magistrates to conduct cases under the existing conditions, but also because the generally unsatisfactory conditions give a very bad impression of the administration of justice to members of the public, such as witnesses and others who come to the courts. I notice that in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Umbilo, reported in Hansard No. 13, the Minister said it was his intention to erect new magistrates’ courts in Durban, and that the site had already been acquired and the planning of the project would commence as soon as possible.

It is Priority No. 1.

Thank you. But I would like to know which site it is. In the past, two sites were considered and I would be interested to know which site was decided on. The other matter I wish to raise is one which unfortunately is not quite such a simple one. It has to do with the two statements the Minister made in the Other Place during the course of the debate on the General Law Amendment Bill. The first statement was that the two former Chief Justices, Messrs. Centlivres and Fagan, had discredited the South African Bench by their active participation in politics.

Do you not agree with that?

Definitely not. The implication is that a Judge, once he ceases to become a Judge …

Then he should behave with decorum.

I hope the Minister does not go so far as to suggest that once a Judge ceases to be a Judge, he has no right to participate actively in politics. If that is his contention, I would suggest that there is no substance at all in it. I would point out that the custom whereby Judges refrain from taking active part in politics arises from the fact that a Judge must be impartial. That is the basic reason for that custom, and obviously if the Judge, whilst he is a Judge, takes an active part in politics, it is unlikely that he will be impartial, or at least there is the danger that he may not be impartial. If that is the reason for the custom, there is clearly no reason why, once a Judge leaves the Bench he should not take an active part in politics. I go further and say there are many reasons why ex-Judges ought to take an active part in politics, the most important being that they are obviously men of considerable ability, or otherwise they would not have been appointed to that high position. They are men who by the time they retire as judges have had considerable experience and their opinions and views would be valuable in the political sphere.

On a point of order, I want to draw your attention to the fact that under this Vote no provision is made for ex-Judges.

The hon. member may continue.

I agree with the interjection made by the Minister that an ex-Judge who enters politics should act with decorum, but I do not believe that the gentlemen in question have not done so. I suggest that it is abundantly clear that so far as Senator Fagan is concerned, his participation in politics, since he left the Bench, has been on a very high level and he has conducted himself with the utmost decorum and in a most worthy manner. So I say that it is most regrettable that a Minister of Justice should have made the statements which the Minister made in the Other Place.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to statements made in the Other Place.

Those statements were given publicity to in the Press and I have here a report which appeared of this speech of the Minister in one of the local papers. [Interjection.] My point is not that the Minister is responsible for what ex-Judges do after they retire. What I said was that I considered it regrettable that the Minister should have said that because these two gentlemen who were Judges have now taken an active part in politics, they have discredited the Bench.

The hon. the Minister said that in the Other Place, and the hon. member cannot refer to it in this House.

I must naturally abide by your ruling and I will not deal with the matter further. Those are the only two points with which I wish to deal.*

Let me say at once to the hon. member who has just sat down—I do not think you will allow me, Sir, to discuss it—that I should like to repeat emphatically on this occasion, if it is necessary to discuss this matter further, what I said in respect of retired Chief Justices who take part in politics. I hope that in the future no retired Chief Justice will act in the way in which these two gentlemen have been acting. I think they have rendered a disservice to politics as well as to the administration of justice and a tremendous disservice to the Bench—and this applies to all Judges who enter politics. I do not want to suggest for a single moment that a retired Judge should not have political views. Heaven forbid! I want everybody to have political views, but one should bear in mind the position that one occupies when one retires and enters public life again. If a person is allowed to sit on the Bench to-day and to take advantage of the first opportunity on his retirement—and hon. members must not hold it against me if I discuss this matter at length because they raised it, not I—to play an active, leading role in political parties, then it stands to reason that people who formerly instituted litigation in which he was the Judge may have the suspicion—and hon. members are always so insistent that “justice must be seen to be done”—that he was politically prejudiced against them when he gave judgment. Cannot hon. members realize that that must inevitably be the position? The position is that an authority in respect of Communism, a person who himself took a very active part in that connection and who makes no secret of that fact but who says that he has become converted, Sen. A. Z. Berman, has told us that the Congress of Democrats—and he knows what he is talking about—is the mouthpiece of the communists in South Africa at the moment, and here an ex-Chief Justice, Mr. Centlivres, comes along and organizes a certain movement and openly admits, according to his statement to the Cape Times, that the Congress of Democrats has joined his movement. In other words, the communists have joined him; he is an ex-Chief Justice and he applies to the City Council for permission to march through the streets of Cape Town because Parliament makes use of its sovereign right to pass legislation. Just imagine, Sir, a retired Chief Justice, together with certain people, about whom I do not wish to say anything now, but also together with communists, wants to march through the streets of Cape Town to protest against this sovereign Parliament’s right to pass certain legislation. If that does not bring the court into discredit, then I do not know what can bring a court into discredit.

It is the contents of this measure that brings it into discredit.

No, it is Parliament’s right to judge the contents of a measure; it is not the right of a retired Judge and of the populous (“gepeupel”) of Cape Town. It is bad enough when an ordinary person does so, but when an ex-Chief Justice does it, it is much worse. And let me say this to hon. members on the other side. If what he did was right, if his attitude was correct, why did hon. members opposite not join him? In that case they should have done their share and they should have been there with him. I want to condemn this in the strongest words at my command, and in doing so I do not stand alone. There are other retired Judges too who feel that the conduct of these two gentlemen has brought the Bench into discredit. I am very sorry about it and I hope that there will be no repetition of this.

Time does not permit me to go into that aspect of the matter at greater length.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), who raised the matter of the boy Victor. He was arrested on 18 January 1962 not by a White policeman but by a Coloured policeman, on a contravention of Section 15 (1) (a) of Act 67 of 1952. At the time it was thought that he was 19 years of age. There is nothing on record to show that he is 16 years of age, as is now alleged. It is interesting to note that as far as the age is concerned the records of the school he had attended show his age as 19. In other words, according to the school records he was born on 24 April 1943. Subsequently—I am not blaming anybody in this connection and I do not know when this was done, but I am just giving the facts—the register was changed to read “24/4/45”, instead of “24/4/43”. His mother was present at court when he was found guilty and sentenced. According to my information, she took him home. The district surgeon subsequently examined him. In all fairness, I want to say that this examination took place after the question was put by the hon. member for Houghton. The examination took place on 24 February 1962 and this is what the district surgeon says—

But what happened was that after he was caned—and in all fairness let me say that he was caned by an old hand in the Police Force who did this job 20 years ago when I practised in Port Elizabeth. I see his name in the record and he is a humane man in all respects. But what apparently happened was that after he was caned and went home with his mother, she put Vicks on the places where he was caned, and that is the last thing that one should do, according to the medical evidence. That is why the hon. member is now in possession of the photographs he has. But the district surgeon’s certificate makes it quite clear that he had a moderate caning. From the record it is also clear that he did not tell anybody that he was a scholar, and as far as I am concerned he was fairly treated at his trial and I cannot find any fault whatever with the proceedings. The hon. member asked me why he was arrested at the time. The answer is that it was as the result of certain happenings connected with Mr. Strachan and his friends. The police were on the look-out for certain tsotsis and other people on account of the conditions prevailing in Port Elizabeth at the time, and that is why this particular youngster, together with others, was arrested.

*The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has explained the difficulty, and I may say that I have great sympathy for him as far as the theft of fruit is concerned, not only in his area but also in other areas. I am not talking now about the fruit that hon. members think about when they think of the days of their youth; I am talking about fruit which is stolen for commercial purposes. I want to tell the hon. member that I have noted his remarks and that we shall have discussions to see what we can do to alleviate the position.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has referred to the fact that certain officials often address prisoners and others in a gruff way. Those are the exceptions. I have, of course, heard it myself, but it is very easy for me and for the hon. member to talk because we only hear it once or twice and we only come into contact with these people once or twice. But has the hon. member ever tried to place himself in the position of the man who has to deal with these obstreperous people day after day? If he does not use an ugly word occasionally, then he must be the sort of person whom I still have to meet on this earth. However, I have noted the hon. member’s words and I shall convey his attitude to the conference when the next conference is held again. The hon. member has mentioned the fact that we might make use of the services of practicing advocates. Unfortunately that is not practicable because there is hardly a basis on which that can be done and because this is such specialized work that it is very difficult to make use of their services.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has put forward a plea in respect of housing, a plea to which I heartily subscribe. I wish we were in a position to provide housing to all these people. His suggestion in connection with mining houses on the East Rand will certainly be followed up if there is any substance in it. As far as vehicles are concerned, we have to cut our cloth according to the material that we have available in the shape of vehicles. We should very much have liked to have had more vehicles than we have at the moment, but we have to cut our cloth according to the available material. The question of municipal police, which the hon. member touched upon, is a difficult problem. I agree that unfortunately you find municipal police who have had no training and who have no background or experience. Nevertheless, there are some of them who do very good work, and I knew many of them in the days when I was still practicing. The ideal would be not only to have trained people in our own Police Force but also in the municipal service. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. It will be followed up.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the bad conditions in some gaols as far as non-Whites are concerned, but it is not only as far as non-Whites are concerned. Let us face the fact that we have old gaols like Durban Gaol and Roeland Street and The Fort, and it is not a question of only keeping the non-Whites under such conditions, but unfortunately we have to keep White prisoners in those gaols under conditions which are far from ideal. It is not the Department’s fault. It is not because we want to keep people under those conditions, but because these buildings are old and under the circumstances it has not yet been possible to transfer all prisoners to new buildings. In the case of Roeland Street, we transfer them to Pollsmoor as far as possible, but the hon. member must appreciate that it takes time before these old buildings can be demolished and new ones built.

Then cut down on the petty offences in the meantime.

We are doing our best because we realize our gaols are overcrowded, especially as far as prisoners awaiting trial are concerned, and in fact I intend going into the matter more fully in the recess.

Then the hon. the member raised the question of the private army of Robey Leibbrandt. Let me candidly tell the hon. member that the only knowledge I have of the private army of Robey Leibbrandt is what the hon. member told me, and that is hearsay because the hon. member heard that from the Rand Daily Mail but from no other source.

The Sunday Times.

Well, that is the same thing. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have never come across this private army; I have never seen it; I have never heard of it; I do not know that it exists.

But you must not give it your tacit approval.

How can I give tacit approval to anything when I do not even know whether it exists. The hon. member asked me whether I was going to do something about this private army. How can I do something about something that does not exist at all?

You said you welcomed assistance from all persons to fight Communism.

Naturally. If anybody gets up in this House, especially on the Opposition benches, and tells me that he is going to help me to fight Communism, I will be very thankful indeed.

With a private army?

We do not know anything of such an army; we cannot find it; it is a non-existent army.

hon. member referred to the parolees and rightly said that it was not a system that this Government invoked but that it was a system invoked by a previous Government. Sir, the cases that she referred to are isolated cases. There are hundreds of people who go out to the farms and work there and who stay on after having served their period of imprisonment. Hon. members behind me know that that is the position; hon. members from the Transvaal will agree with me that that is so. We cannot take one isolated case where these people were ill-treated or where they were not properly housed, and then condemn the whole scheme.

The exceptions prove the rule.

May I remind the hon. member for Houghton that Langenhoven said: “Wie wys een gaatjie in ’n sif en spot daarmee?” That is exactly what the hon. member is doing in this House.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he really thinks that the inspection system is adequate?

Yes. I think that as far as it goes the inspection system is adequate. We even went so far as to invoke the assistance of the Labour Department. We asked them to help us with the inspection wherever their officers come in contact with parolees. Candidly, I want to ask the hon. member this: Is it better to have these people in gaol or to give them the chance—and it is purely voluntary—to go out to the farms to work?

Provided they are properly administered and properly run.

In 99.99 cases out of 100 it is properly administered. But again I ask the hon. member whether we must condemn this scheme because one individual came before the Court on a charge of having ill treated these parolees?

No, there are many more cases.

No, the hon. member assumes that. Because one person came before the court, she assumes that there must be other cases.

I did not say that there was only one case.

I only know of two cases which appeared before the court in the last 12 months, and there are thousands and thousands of these prisoners who have been parolled to farmers all over the country, not only Afrikaans-speaking farmers but English-speaking farmers.

And Jewish farmers.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) dealt with the question of magistrates who were also prosecutors. I listened to the hon. member’s remarks with interest. I think the position that the hon. member outlined here for us is the ideal position that one would have liked to have, but unfortunately our manpower problem makes it impossible for us to achieve the ideal position. I think the hon. member will agree with me, however, that most of the prosecutors are very fair in their attitude—perhaps not always as fair as we, who would like to win our cases, would like to see; that is only human. But I do not think that the system we have leads to any injustice. Nevertheless I have noted the hon. member’s attitude with interest and will bear it in mind.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), together with the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), mentioned the question of the salaries of non-White members of the force. The figures mentioned by the hon. members are correct. But they only mentioned the basic salaries; they did not mention the additional benefits such as sick fund benefits, security, leave, allowances and pension benefits. Under present conditions in South Africa to-day you will find very few places where a young Coloured can earn as much and where he can work under such ideal conditions as in the Department of Prisons and in the Police Service. I am convinced of that. Hon. members know what the salaries of members of the force are, and those members who had the privilege of seeing the training facilities of Coloured warders will know what excellent work is being done for these people. The hon. member wants to know why all the vacant posts have not been filled. The reply is simply that they have not been filled because suitable applicants have not been forthcoming, and as soon as suitable applicants come forward, I assure those hon. members that the Coloureds can climb as high as they like in that particular branch of the service. There are excellent opportunities of promotion if the Coloureds are prepared to come forward and to qualify for promotion. But let me give this advice to hon. members who represent the Coloureds in this House. I think the spirit that they should encourage amongst their Coloured constituents—and I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Outeniqua is imbued with that spirit—is that they should not only want to receive but that they should be prepared to give. They should be encouraged to give their best services. I think that is the spirit that should be cultivated amongst them, and I am very grateful to see that that spirit does prevail. I was very grateful to see that spirit, for example, with the training of Coloureds as warders. A particularly find spirit prevailed amongst those people, and if that spirit can be extended to the whole of the Coloured population, then I visualize very good prospects for them in that connection. I am grateful to the Coloured Representatives who are encouraging that spirit amongst the people.

But their salaries are only half those of the Whites.

Hon. members will understand that this salary structure is not one for which I am entirely responsible; the Public Service Commission and the Public Service as such are also concerned in this matter. This is a matter which the hon. member can hardly raise with me because I can give him no decision in that regard. This is a matter to be decided upon by the Public Service Commission, under the responsible Minister. Nevertheless, I have listened to the hon. member’s representations and will bear them in mind when this matter comes up for discussion.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has referred again to the salaries of regional magistrates. I think the hon. member made out a strong case in that connection. More than that I do not want to say at this moment. The hon. member also referred to prisons in White areas in which Bantu are detained. The ideal position, of course, would be as stated by the hon. member, but he realizes that unfortunately we do not have these institutions in the Bantu areas. We shall have to acquire them systematically. But in the case of many of these offences for which people have to go to gaol, it would scarcely be a practical proposition to send them to gaol in the Bantu areas because before the prisoner arrives there his time will have expired and he will have to be released again. However, this is a matter of policy which I shall discuss with the hon. member and with the authorities concerned.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has reminded me that I still owe the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) a reply in connection with the chambers of non-White lawyers. In the first instance, of course, this is not a matter which falls under my Department as the hon. member knows, but I do not want to shield behind that fact. I asked the hon. member by way of interjection whether we—not only he but I too—as members of the legal profession were entitled to claim that an exception should be made in our favour in so far as State policy is concerned simply because we are members of the legal profession. I do not think we can do so. In what way do we differ from the medical profession or the dental profession or the engineering profession or the surveyors’ profession in that regard? I do not think that we should view the matter from that point of view. I think it will be better for us to view it purely from the practical angle. But we must not exalt ourselves and say that because we are the legal profession we are entitled to better treatment than that meted out to other professions in terms of the country’s policy. I think that if we have a case to put forward, we should say that it is practical to follow a certain course, but then my reply to the hon. member is this: I think that we will serve our cause better if we proceed along the lines which were mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron and which he could not enlarge upon unfortunately under the rules. Other professions, as I see it, are working along those lines. I think the time has come when we shall also have to work along those lines as far as the legal profession is concerned. I cannot possibly—and I say this with a full realization of my responsibilities—go to my colleague, as the hon. member asked me to do, and ask him to make an exception in the case of the legal profession because it happens to be the legal profession, because then my colleague is going to laugh at me and I would not hold it against him. As a matter of fact he will not even ask me then to go to the cinema with him! But it is quite a different matter if I go to my colleague and ask him to assist me in certain respects for practical reasons. That is quite a different matter, and that is something that one can consider. But the hon. member must not expect me—and on this point we must understand each other perfectly clearly—to violate or to help to violate basic Government policies simply because the legal profession is involved. I am not prepared to go to those lengths. But where it is practical, I am prepared for practical considerations to make representations and I shall do so, but not because I want to undermine basic Government policies.

But the advocates are all in one building, whereas members of the other professions are not.

Other professions would be equally keen to do so. Moreover, advocates have not always been in the same building. There was a time when they were in many different buildings. It is desirable to have them in the same building. That is why I say that from a practical point of view it may be desirable, but there is not a single urgent reason why that should be so. Let the hon. member and I be honest. Apart from the fact that it would have been a loss to us socially, would it have made any difference to his practice or my practice if we had not been in His Majesty’s building but on the other side of Eloff Street? It would have made no difference to our practices. It is true that it would have been a loss to us socially because we would not have had the opportunity of discussion in the common room and because we would have missed the company of our colleagues.

There is the question of discipline.

That I grant the hon. member at once, but the question of discipline is not something which only applies to our profession. It applies in all the other professions.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Zululand for having raised the question of a bonus for those members of the Police Force who know Native languages. At the moment the allowance is R3 per month. Whether it is sufficient is a matter of opinion. I will go into the matter, but it is not so much that we want people to learn the Bantu languages; we want youths from the hon. member’s constituency to join the Police Force who know the language, who grew up with these people and who know their customs. We want those youths to come along and to join the Police Force. Unfortunately I do not have the facts with me at the moment. I cannot tell the hon. member what the position is with regard to the Empangeni and Matubatuba buildings at the moment. I will let the hon. member know in due course. I have also noted what the hon. member said about consultation rooms.

*I have dealt with a portion of what the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) said. I have also noted what he said in that portion of his speech which was, as it were, inadmissible. I was not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member. I shall go into them and, in co-operation with the authorities, see whether I can do anything further in that connection. If the position is as stated by the hon. member, then something should definitely be done about it, because this is an essential service that these people are performing for us.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) referred to the Durban magistrate’s court. By way of interjection I told the hon. member that I was going to agree with everything he said about those courts. The magistrate’s court there is a disgrace to Durban and to any city for that matter. I have already given the hon. member the assurance that as far as this Department is concerned, it is a question of priority No. 1. I personally would have preferred the building on the old site. Judging from what people in Durban told me it would have been better, but I am not the judge in that regard. I am informed that the Department of Public Works has decided on the other site.

Having said that, I think I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. members up to this stage.

While this Vote is still under discussion, I think one particular aspect which should receive the attention of this Committee is the question of the increase in crime, and with a new Minister in charge of this portfolio I would appreciate it if he would give his attention to the increase in juvenile crime. Sir, when you look at the statistics and realize to what extent crime is increasing, it is most alarming to find that there is such an increase in juvenile crime. We must concede that crime will always increase with an increasing population, but as far as juvenile crime is concerned, if you look at these figures we see that in 1954 the total number of convictions of juveniles was 158,461. That figure steadily increased until in 1960, six years later, it rose to almost 200,000 convictions of juveniles. To be exact, 193,338 juveniles were convicted for offences, both serious and non-serious, according to a reply that the hon. the Minister furnished in this House on 16 March of this year. This increase in juvenile crime is alarming because various surveys that have been carried out show that the present persistent law-breaker was the juvenile delinquent of yesterday. Surveys carried out not only in this country but in other countries show that certain steps have been taken to prevent an undue increase in juvenile crime. However, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that it is a problem that does exist in South Africa as well. The surveys that have been carried out, for instance in the United Stated of America, show, according to the case history of 500 criminals who had been investigated, that 88 per cent of them exhibited criminal tendencies before their 11th year. In Great Britain no fewer than 60 per cent of 1,000 cases of persistent and practised offenders had fallen foul of the law before reaching the age of 16 years. Therefore I think it can be reasonably assumed that to-day’s persistent lawbreaker is yesterday’s juvenile delinquent. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps are being taken in this country in an effort to reduce the increase in juvenile crime. I know that the hon. the Minister may refer me to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions who, I am pleased to see, is in the House at the present time, because the prevention of juvenile crime is supposed to come to a certain extent under the jurisdiction of that Department. But unfortunately, the staff position being what it is, it is almost impossible for that Department to do very much to prevent juvenile crime. We all know that in dealing with this particular problem the most important thing is to take preventive steps. In the United States of America, for instance, the Police Department has a special youth squad dealing with the whole problem of juvenile crime. In New Zealand, when they realized that this problem was assuming serious proportions, they established a special branch of their Police Force known as the Juvenile Crime Prevention Branch. Here in our own country, in the area of Durban, we have had trouble from time to time, particularly during the holiday periods, when there is an influx of young persons from other parts of the country, with behaviour problems and hooliganism. The Minister of Justice, or rather his predecessor, at one time disbanded a special squad, known as the Ghost Squad, which was producing excellent results in the Durban area. Fortunately that particular squad has now been resuscitated and is, I understand, operating with a certain degree of success. It is hoped that the Minister will extend this scheme as a matter of policy to other large centres in an attempt to prevent this increase of juvenile crime. I believe that this particular preventive work is vitally important. Therefore I do hope that steps will be taken to establish that particular squad as a permanent part of the forces under this Department in order to combat juvenile crime.

Then there are certain other aspects to which I believe the Minister should give his attention in combating juvenile crime. In our urban Bantu townships we know that when night falls terror often reigns in these areas due to the unlawful elements that come out under the cloak of darkness and commit crime and endanger the lives of the law-abiding Bantu living in those townships. I believe it is important that these law-abiding citizens should have confidence in the maintenance of law and order and in the protection of the Police Force. I would ask the hon. the Minister in this regard to take up with the authorities concerned the question of improving the lighting in these townships. The constituency which I represent is near to the Cato Manor area, where there is also inadequate lighting, and we know how high the incidence of crime is in that area. I believe that as a deterrent the Minister should take steps to see that more adequate lighting is provided in these townships. We know of one particular area in Durban along the Esplanade where crime was increasing, and immediately steps were taken to floodlight this area there was a drop in the incidence of crime in that particular section of the city. I do ask the hon. the Minister therefore to take up this matter with the authorities concerned to see that more adequate lighting is provided in the urban townships.

Another matter which I believe should also receive the attention of the Minister in combating crime is the greater use of women in the Police Force. We know that women have been admitted to the Police Force in a clerical capacity. But at the same time social welfare workers know that the police have great difficulty in combating vice in some of the large cities. It is felt that the introduction of women police, to deal particularly with these various social problems that arise, would be welcomed not only by the public as a more effective means of combating these problems, but also by the Police Force and officers themselves. Last year it was suggested that there was a possibility of more use being made of the services of women in the Police Force. A report which appeared in the Daily News of 7 March 1961 said that several of the police officers expressed the opinion that women, specially selected for their education and training in social work, would be able to deal far better with certain aspects of police work than men. I feel therefore that a great number of women should be taken into the Police Force to deal particularly with certain social problems. It is clear from news items which appear in Johannesburg papers that a great deal more can be done to combat this problem of vice. Indeed in January of this year I asked the hon. the Minister of Justice whether his attention had been drawn to an article in the Sunday Express of 29 October 1961 which highlighted this particular problem in that city. His reply was that the Detective-General did not suggest that legislation be introduced, but that certain recommendations were being made to the Department of Justice to deal with this problem. In the second part of his reply the Minister said that the matter was being considered by the Department of Justice. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any further steps have been taken in regard to this particular problem. I feel that the whole question of the prevention of crime is one which should receive the active attention of the Minister.

I wish to raise two matters that fall under the control of the hon. the Minister. The first is the matter of civil defence which falls under the control of Justice, but which under modern circumstances extends to a large degree into the Department of Defence. We did raise this matter under the Defence Vote, but unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not reply. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he can give the House some information on the Brink investigation. His predecessor, or his predecessor’s predecessor, appointed Gen. George Brink to draw up a report and recommendations on the question of civil defence. That report has been submitted and I know that local authorities have been trying for a long time to find out what has happened as a result of those investigations, because ultimately the onus falls back on local authorities to carry out the details of civil defence planning. So I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us what has happened in regard to that report, and what he envisages in regard to civil defence. I think the hon. the Minister himself will agree that we cannot afford to ignore completely this aspect of our security in South Africa.

The other matter which I wish to raise is in regard to the Liquor Act and its administration in regard to hotels. The first point I should like to raise is whether in view of the amendments to the Liquor Act made last year—the extension of liquor privileges to non-Europeans—whether there are not a large number of restrictions currently in force (and which were necessary under the old conditions), which can now be done away with. I am thinking for instance of the keeping of registers in bottle stores and off-sale departments. Whilst it was necessary when liquor was restricted to certain classes and certain races, now that it is available to all races it seems that that is one of the things that can be done away with, and so there are numerous others. I do not want to delay the Committee by going into details, but there are similar consequential restrictions which no longer seem to be necessary. In the same way there seem to be aspects of the inspection system which need no longer occupy the importance which they used to do. I know that there is a strong feeling amongst hotel licensees that officials from his department doing inspections tend at times to become rather high-handed when doing inspections. I know this from personal experience. When I was ill in an hotel last year, a captain of Police insisted on entering my bedroom although the proprietor had told him that I was in bed ill and was not to be disturbed. He insisted on entering the room and said that he was entitled to go into any room and he came in. It is that sort of thing which does happen, and I would ask the hon. the Minister now, where the whole issue is under consideration, to restrict as far as possible the necessity for this continual probing into the normal administration and management of hotels. There is no field in South African life where a licensee is so subject to committing a criminal offence. There is almost no hotel proprietor in South Africa who does not every day of the week make a criminal out of himself, because there are so many restrictions, so many things he can do, quite unwittingly, which bring him into the orbit of the law. I realize that it was necessary. But because there are so many restrictions the control by the police over the management of an hotel tends to become almost a super-management and the hotel proprietor feels ultimately that he is there by the grace of an official in the Department of Justice.

Another aspect in regard to this is the supply of liquor to Japanese and Chinese persons. It is an absolutely incredible situation at the moment, because in terms of Proclamation 214, of 1928, Japanese are excluded from the definition of “Asiatic” under the Liquor Act, which means that they are entitled to the supply of liquor as though they were Europeans. But if any liquor licensing board imposes a restriction in granting the licence, laying down that there should be facilities for Whites and for non-Europeans, then a Japanese must use the facilities for non-Europeans. So if you have an hotel solely for Whites, the Japanese are treated as Whites; but if the hotel has a Coloured canteen, then the Japanese, although not Asiatics, are classed as non-Europeans and have to be served in the Coloured canteen. And if there is a restaurant with a liquor licence, then the Japanese and Chinese may not enter that restaurant with a liquor licence, if it is in a White group area. So a Japanese can in the same area (a) drink as a White man (b) drink as a Coloured, and (c) commit an offence if he goes into a licensed restaurant. The same person in respect of three adjoining buildings, can go into a White bar and drink quite legally, he can go next door into a Coloured canteen and drink quite legally, and he can walk into a White restaurant with a liquor licence and be arrested for committing an offence. When you come to the Chinese you have the same sort of provisions. The Chinese are classed as Asiatics—South African Chinese. They can get special exemption, but they are Asiatics and therefore they are excluded from the provisions of “White people But if you are a foreign Chinaman, you are classified as a White person, and therefore you are entitled to go into a White hotel or into a White bar. So if a South African Chinaman is entertaining his father or his uncle who is visiting him from China, his relative who is visiting this country, can go and have a drink in an hotel, but his South African host, who may be his own son or relative, is not entitled to do so. And a South African Chinese falls under all the conditions imposed by Section 95, unless he gets an exemption under Section 101 of the Act. So you have the provision now where South African Coloureds, South African Natives, South African Asiatics will be able to obtain liquor, whereas Japanese fall under three different provisions and Chinese fall under three different provisions. A Chinaman can either be refused permission, or he can have exemption, or if he is a foreigner he is treated as a White person. I hope the hon. the Minister will do something to clear up this Chinese puzzle which faces every hotel proprietor in South Africa.

Finally, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will make a statement in regard to his plans in regard to the Malan Commission and the major recommendations and the amendments to the Liquor Act which have been hanging fire now for some two years, because it is a matter of anxiety to the industry.*

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has asked certain questions to which I wish to reply before I come to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). Firstly, as regards the matter of Civil Defence, it has always been an open question to me whether this is a matter that falls under Justice, or whether it should fall under Defence. In any event, I am accepting that it is part of my duty to look after it as it falls under Justice at the moment. The hon. member will recall that one of my predecessors appointed Gen. Brink and others to collect certain data. That Commission, if I may call it that, in the course of years collected very much information, and all that is required now in that connection is something that a “one-man commission” unfortunately could not do in the past, and that is to correlate the information that was gathered and then, as regards the bigger towns, to draft plans as the circumstances require as to what steps should be taken in times of danger and of war. But it is not only my Department that may suggest schemes in this regard. That is why, when I took over this portfolio, I felt that I should go further, and in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Defence, I proceeded to appoint a permanent Committee that will now have to take this matter further than Gen. Brink took it with the limited means at his disposal. A committee has been appointed consisting of a senior officer of the Department of Justice, a senior police officer and a senior army officer, and it is now the task of that committee of three not only to correlate the information that has been collected, but, in fact, to draft a scheme and submit it to the various local authorities. I do not think the hon. member can expect me to be able to go further than that at this stage.

What progress have they made?

They are engaged on it now. The committee was appointed by me shortly after I took over the portfolio and when I ascertained what the position was. So I cannot tell you exactly what progress they have made, but here we now have a permanent committee with a definite mandate to put this matter right, and I think that is further than we have ever gone in connection with this matter.

Then the hon. member referred to the Liquor Act. The hon. member has rightly said that at the present time the licence-holders are burdened with many restrictions that will no longer be necessary when the non-White Liquor Act comes into operation, “for the basis of all those restrictions was to combat smuggling, and the moment these people can obtain liquor in their own right, the reason for the existence of most of those restrictions falls away On the other hand, when we come to the system of classification of hotels—the hon. member knows what our policy is in this connection—then again many of the inspection difficulties the hon. member has rightly mentioned fall away. In other words, we can expect that when the new Liquor Act is published later this year (and it will very definitely be published), many of the restrictions will not appear in it. At this stage I should like to emphasize that the new Liquor Act will come up for discussion in this House on a non-party basis next year, and then hon. members will find that many of the irritating restrictions to which licence-holders have rightly objected in the past will no longer be found in that legislation. I wish to repeat this, because there is some misunderstanding about the matter, that if and when the new Liquor Act is introduced next year, it will be a measure that I shall indeed introduce, but the tradition that a measure of this kind be a non-party measure will be maintained on that occasion also. As the hon. member has rightly stated, there are certain anomalies in regard to the Liquor Act. All of us are aware of that. They are anomalies that will in any event be removed if and when the new Liquor Act is introduced.

May I now avail myself of this Committee Stage to appeal to the Press not to make all kinds of wild statements and predictions as to what will and will not be included in the Liquor Act. That does nobody any good. To give you some idea: The other day there was a report in the newspaper that I would, during this Session still, introduce legislation restoring the old system of “bar-maids”, And you have no idea how much consternation that caused among barmen and how many of them wrote me letters expressing their displeasure in this regard. So if I may make an appeal to the Press, then it is to refrain from speculation in this regard, and to let matters run their course until such time as we shall publish the Bill, and then surely everybody will be able to see what the Bill contains. As regards the recommendations of the Malan Commission, it has to be decided now which recommendations of the Malan Commission will be embodied in the Bill and which not.

I have made a study of the Report of the Commission, but of course time does not permit me to give a judgment on that now. It will have to be decided now which recommendations will be included in the Bill and which not. If I incorporate some and omit others then, because it is a non-party measure, hon. members of course will be at liberty to come forward with other views or to propose some of the other considerations by way of amendments to the Bill. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) raised the two matters of juvenile delinquency and of police women. Of course we have not yet had police women in South Africa. It is a matter of principle against which my predecessors from all parties have always set their face in the past; they felt, for very good reasons, that the time had not yet arrived in South Africa to appoint police women. I think one of the main reasons why Ministers of Justice of all parties decided in the past not to appoint female police, was because of the composition of our population, and they felt that women would be exposed to a position of danger to which they ought not to be exposed, to a greater extent than in other countries. I myself have certain views in this regard and I have noted what the hon. member has said about it. It is a matter that will be discussed again by me with senior police officers when we have our periodic discussions. As regards the question of juvenile delinquency. I have been given the assurance by the officers of the Department of Social Welfare, the field officers, who are very well informed, that serious juvenile delinquency is indeed on the decline in South Africa.

What about the statistics?*

Yes, our difficulty in connection with the classification of data in regard to crime, is that it puts us in the position that we are creating the impression with our statistics that the incidence of crime is much greater in our country than it actually is. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) for instance has pointed to the large number of traffic offences. Now we take all the traffic contraventions and we include them in our classification of contraventions, and then we tell the world that as many as 100,000 contraventions occurred in South Africa, whereas thousands and hundreds of thousands of them are traffic offences of such a nature that other nations will not regard them as contraventions, yet we are in fact classifying them as contraventions. I have asked myself whether the time has not arrived to put this matter of crimes and contraventions in the proper perspective and whether we should not disregard completely all the minor little things that normally are not contraventions, when we compile statistics of contraventions of the law. I think we are rendering our country a disservice. But that is merely typical of us. We always are honest with the world. We always say: Look, this is the picture, and then we furnish the whole lot. Other people do not do that. But I have wondered whether the time has not arrived, in the circumstances, to adopt a different classification in order to put the position in its proper perspective. I should like to assure the hon. member for Umbilo that my colleague has assured me that the tendency as regards serious juvenile delinquency does not show an upward trend, but there is a downward tendency thanks to the good work and actions of the officers of the Department of Social Welfare on the one hand, and thanks to the preventive actions of the police on the other hand—the hon. member knows how they acted in Durban.

On the conclusion of the period of 125 hours allotted for the proceedings in Committee of Supply, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 104.

Vote No. 46.—”Justice”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 47.—“Prisons”, R10,381,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 48.—“Police”, R40,800,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account.

Loan Votes put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account.

Votes put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, reported with an amendment, and Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account, the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account reported, without amendment.

Report considered.

Amendment to the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, as follows: Vote No. 11.—“Treasury”, R1,980,000, to be reduced by R1,000,000, being the provision under sub-head G.—“Contribution to Decimalization Fund”, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure, as amended, adopted.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE then brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a contingent notice of motion which I should like to move now, viz.—

In the Bill before us provision is being made for the payment of a minimum salary of R50 to certain types of articled clerks. The articled clerks covered by this Bill are those who have entered for a five-year period and who after having served three years pass their legal examinations and are allowed to appear in court. No provision is, however, made for articled clerks who have entered for two- and three-year periods. Those who have entered for a period of two years are those who are barristers and wishing to become attorneys become articled for the purpose. After having served for one year they are allowed to appear in court. Those who enter for three years are those having a degree who become articled. After having served two years they are allowed to appear in court. These two categories have been excluded from the minimum salary to be paid to articled clerks. To rectify the position, I will move an amendment in the Committee Stage in terms of the motion.

I second.

I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member. Consequently I have no objection to this motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On new Clause, to follow Clause 2,

I move—

1. 3. Section 21 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following sub-section:
2. “(4) An attorney to whom any articled clerk referred to in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (3) is articled, shall pay to such clerk a salary of not less than R50 per month from the date on which such clerk becomes entitled to appear in court in terms of the said sub-section”.

This amendment is consequential upon the contingent notice of motion which has just been accepted by the House.

Agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

New Clause 3 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is the usual Bill to give effect to certain proposals in the main and railway budgets. In addition, it deals, with miscellaneous matters affecting either the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Railways Administration. As the various provisions of the Bill are explained in the White Paper which hon. members have before them, I do not propose to deal with the Bill clause by clause. I shall, however, confine myself to giving supplementary information on certain of the clauses.

Clause 1 deals with the disposal of any profits arising from the purchase of shares on the London market on behalf of institutional investors in the Republic. Details of this scheme, which I announced in my Budget speech, have been worked out by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank and particulars have been given to the public. The scheme is now in operation and some purchases on the London market have already been made.

Clause 3 deals with advances to the Bantu Education Account. According to the latest estimates, any such advances which may become necessary are not likely to exceed a total amount of R500,000.

Clause 6 gives effect to the announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Mines, in his reply to the second reading debate on the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Bill, namely that sufferers from pneumoconiosis in the fourth degree, who are already in receipt of a constant attendant allowance, would be granted an extra allowance of R10 per month when the provisions of that Bill come into operation. I may add that there are altogether about 440 persons in the group who are to benefit from this proposal. This number is, however, gradually being reduced.

Clause 23 deals with the withdrawal of coins which may be found to be surplus to requirements. According to figures supplied by the Reserve Bank, half-crowns to the value of about R900,000, i.e. about 3,600,000 coins, and 3d. or 2½c coins to the value of about R300,000, i.e. about 12,000,000 coins, have accumulated in the hands of the banks and are beginning to create a serious storage problem. If the demand for these coins does not improve, the State must be in a position to relieve the banks of this problem. This is what we propose to do here, namely, that if and when any of these coins become redundant and are no longer popular and so become a burden on the Reserve Bank thereby creating storage problems, the Treasury will have the power to withdraw such coins from circulation gradually.

If there are any questions in regard to any of the clauses I have not specifically dealt with, I am sure hon. members will find the answer in the very exhaustive White Paper which has been tabled.

On this side of the House we do not object to the second reading of this Bill. I think—and the Minister will agree—that this is a Bill which can be dealt with more appropriately in Committee. I should like to make one observation, however, at this stage. Clauses 12 and 17 contain various amendments to the Estate Duty Act. In this connection I think it is unfortunate that we have legislative amendments to another Act in an omnibus Bill of this nature. If legislative amendments are treated in this way, it is very difficult to follow the statute in question. I consider, therefore, that it would have been better to have the relative amendments to the Estate Duty Act in a separate Bill. Otherwise it becomes increasingly difficult to follow a particular statute. The amendments to the Estate Duty Act proposed here are intended to close gaps in that Act and it would have been preferable to have such amendments embodied in a separate Act rather than have them included in an omnibus Bill.

We have no objection, however, to the second reading of the Bill and will deal with the clauses separately in the Committee Stage.

We have already gone a great extent towards removing all unnecessary provisions from the omnibus Bill. The principle on which we act is that this Bill must be confined to financial aspects only. Only provisions which do not warrant the introduction of a separate amending Bill, are included in it. We do not want to have a multiplicity of Bills. The amendments to the Estate Duty Act which the hon. member referred to, probably form a borderline case. However, it was considered that these amendments do not warrant the introduction of a separate Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1.

This clause provides for the payment of certain amounts to the Defence Special Equipment Account. Can the hon. the Minister give us some further information with regard to this account? What is the balance of the account to-day, i.e. to what extent has money been allowed to accumulate in the account and to what extent has money been disbursed from the account?

I think I shall be able to give more details when I introduce the Appropriation Bill. At this stage I can say that shares to an aggregate amount of about R900,000 have been purchased up to date. The scheme is in operation now and a certain amount has already been paid over to the Reserve Bank.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Can the Minister indicate whether the provisions of this clause are because of an oversight? Why has the mistake only been discovered now?

From the explanation in relation to this clause contained in the White Paper, it is clear that originally it was not intended that there should be any full-time officials. This has, however, been changed and it becomes, accordingly, necessary to bring the Act into line with the new set-up.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I realize that the provisions of this clause constitute a temporary expediency in respect of the current year. It must, however, be obvious to the Minister that the demands on the Bantu Education Account are growing. This year we have had another Bill, the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Amendment Bill, which is going to place an additional charge on this account. The revenue accruing to this Account, on the other hand, remains more or less static. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is sufficiently optimistic to believe that advances of the nature dealt with in this clause will be required only for the current year. To my mind some other provision should be made. The real solution to the problem lies in increased contributions from the State, rather than deal with it on an ad hoc basis as is being done here.

I should like to support what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said on this clause. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what the state of the Bantu Education Account is at present and how much it owes to the Loan Account.

I am sorry that I cannot give information off-hand as to the amount which this Account at present owes. I have indicated that the present indications are that the amount to be advanced in terms of this clause will not exceed the sum of R500,000. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), I should like to point out that we shall have to introduce a clause of this nature whenever that is necessary. What the hon. member is really proposing is a change in principle. This I cannot discuss under this Bill. I can only explain what the underlying idea is. There is a deficiency in the Fund by reason chiefly of the fact that the collections are not what they should be. I understand, however, that if these are up to expectations, it will not be necessary to make any provision of this nature at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

We have no objection to this clause. I should like to point out, however, that the recommendation was made from this side of the House on a previous occasion that a longer period should be given. The Minister did not accept that recommendation, however, and the result is that he now has to introduce an amendment which would not have been necessary had he accepted our original suggestion.

If the hon. member derives any satisfaction from that fact, I willingly grant it to him. It must be remembered, however, that because of the fact that the date was originally fixed at 10 February and not later, there are fewer people to-day being faced with the problem of disposing of surplus cheque forms.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I should like to draw attention to the fact that this clause is the result of rush legislation. The Bill which is being amended now has hardly reached the Statute Book when a flaw was discovered. We must regard this as another lesson and try to avoid rushing legislation through.

The very object of an omnibus Bill is to take care of all such deficiencies. This amendment became necessary only as a result of facts brought to light in the course of the debate on the Bill concerned, and could not, therefore, have been made earlier.

I realize that for the Minister to have had the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Bill reprinted for the purpose of introducing an amendment, would have been costly. I still hope, however, that the Government will look on this as an example of the undesirability of having rush legislation.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

This is one of the clauses which is not being dealt with in the White Paper. It gives to the officials concerned fairly wide powers in respect of inspections, search, etc. Why is it being necessary to give to them such wide powers?

This clause is dealt with in the White Paper. The object of the clause is to bring the Estate Duty Act into line with the corresponding provisions of the Income Tax Act.

This clause provides for the making of extracts from and copies of books and records. I do not want to press the point but should like to ask the Minister to make provision, when an occasion arises to amend the Estate Duty Act in future, for the taking of photostatic copies of such records. No provision exists as yet for this to be done although the time has come to make provision therefor so as to obviate records having to be taken away from offices.

That will be borne in mind.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

Here is a clause which I do not think we should pass in a rush. It is one of those clauses of which we have seen too many in our legislation where the burden of proof is shifted. I think the Minister should take us into his confidence and tell us why it is felt that this clause should be included in this Bill.

I understand this provision is already in the existing Income Tax Act.

If that is so, why then is it necessary to amend it?

The provision is not being amended. What is being amended is the Estate Duty Act so as to bring it into line with the Income Tax Act in this respect.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

The object of this clause is to empower the Treasury to withdraw half-crown and 3d. or 2½c pieces from circulation. Ostensibly there is no demand for these particular coins. I should like to know, however, what is intended to substitute for the 3d. or 2½c piece. I ask this in view of the fact that this piece is being used for telephone calls and parking meters. What other provision is therefore going to be made if this coin is going to be withdrawn?

I already indicated earlier this year that the whole coinage system would be reviewed. This, however, is not the occasion for discussing it. We are dealing here only with those coins that have become unpopular. Apparently there are more of them than are required for use in telephones and parking meters. Actually there are 12,000,000 of these coins that have become superfluous and therefore are no longer being used, we cannot permit these coins to go on accumulating. The demand for these particular coins apparently is not such that the stock can be consumed. That is why we are now taking this only practical step. Last year we also did so with pennies and half-pennies when these became too numerous for handling. We then also asked for powers to withdraw those coins from circulation with the object of melting them for the making of other coins. That is what is being done here also. This is only a sub-division of the reform that is planned in respect of our coinage system. However, I am unable to say with certainty at this stage whether the 3d. or 2½c pieces will be replaced. However, it is possible particularly when regard is had to the number of these coins that have already become superfluous. Apart from this problem, however, there are other more important problems we are now investigating—for instance the sizes of the coins, the composition of them, what will appear on the coins, etc. These are matters that will still have to be investigated. I have no preconceived ideas in this regard, but will discuss the whole matter with the Director of the Mint and then decide what is practical.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

As this clause deals with the disposal of the surplus revenue of the Railway and Harbour Fund, I should like to know what the actual surplus is that is to be disposed of. It is provided in this clause that an amount of R12,000,000 will be credited to the Betterment Fund and the balance of the surplus, if any, will be disposed of in another manner. As far as I know, we have never been told what the actual surplus at 31 March 1962 was. Can the Minister give us that information?

I understand that the final figures in this respect are not yet available.

This clause embodies a strange principle. We are dealing with a surplus which will have accrued for the financial year 1961-2, and the clause now proposes to utilize that surplus for that same year. I do not know whether something similar has ever been done in the past. It is, to my mind, an innovation which I hope will not be perpetuated because such a procedure interferes with the finalization of accounts. I cannot see how one can arrive at a surplus for a year and then take that surplus and utilize it for the same year in respect of which it is supposed still to be a surplus. This seems to me to be introducing a very strange accounting principle.

The origin of this clause, of course, goes back to last year when the hon. the Minister of Transport found himself in difficulties in respect of an amount of R4,000,000. He has now found that money not by means of an adjustment as he promised he would do but as a result of a fortuitous increase in the surplus for 1961-2. Had the hon. the Minister been present here, I would have put my question to him in the form of the following verse—

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move the amendment appearing in my name, namely—

1. (1) Any person required to give evidence at an examination under Section 4 shall be entitled to payment of such expenses and fees as are payable to witnesses in a magistrate’s court in proceedings similar to those in connection with which his evidence is required.

This amendment merely seeks to put the matter more clearly and so I do not believe it is necessary for me to explain it further.

I merely wish to point out that this whole matter illustrates the undesirability of introducing legislation in the Other Place. So I hope that legislation such as this we are now discussing, will in future be introduced in this House.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7—

I move—

1. (2) Upon service of the subpoena on any person an amount sufficient to cover reasonable expenses to be incurred by him in proceeding to and returning from the court named in the subpoena and during his detention at the place where his evidence is to be given shall be tendered to him.

This amendment, like the previous one is self-explanatory and so requires no further explanation.

I merely wish to repeat here what I have said regarding Clause 5.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments in Clauses 5 and 7 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Order of the Day No. VI to stand over.

On this side of the House we can only express the hope that the moneys derived from this levy will entirely eliminate the possibility of another Coalbrook disaster.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

As I have told the House on previous occasions, this Bill of course is not the main Liquor Bill we hope to deal with next year. This is only a small amendment of the Liquor Act, amendments which I do not doubt in the slightest hon. members on both sides of the House will regard not only as unassailable, but which will also have the support of both sides.

This Bill contains two principles mainly. The first is the grant of privileges to sell liquor to Coloureds and Asiatics in their own group areas; and secondly, there is a smaller provision that nevertheless contains an important principle, namely the extension of the so-called compulsory stock provisions to three kinds of South African beer. Those are mainly the two principles contained in this Bill. In referring in this connection to the compulsory stocking of more than one kind of beer, hon. members will recall that we have the same principle in respect of wine and other kinds of liquor, except that under the Liquor Act it is more than three in the case of the ordinary kinds of liquor. I shall say more about this provision later on. As regards the Coloureds and Indians, the new provision that is being inserted will make it possible for them to enter the liquor trade on the authority of the Minister of Justice and on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board without having to purchase the ordinary liquor licence and without having to apply for it to the local liquor licensing boards. Now hon. members will recall that we are dealing with a position here that as regards the larger towns and cities, we are over the quota in almost every case. In most cases it will be a long time before a quota will be available again. If such a quota does arise, we are aware that there will be a tremendous number of applicants who can make out a good case as to why such quotas should be granted to them. Now it is a fact that with one exception, as far as I know, there is only one Coloured company that holds a liquor licence, namely the one in Athlone, and that Coloured company could acquire that licence only because they were prepared—and I do not think the House or that company will take it amiss of me if I say so to-night—to pay £18,000 for that licence. If we are serious—and I have not the slightest doubt that we are serious on both sides of the House—about giving the Coloureds their share in the liquor trade, as we ought to be serious about giving them their share in respect of all the other matters in their own areas, then we have to concede that we have to do this thing for the Coloureds. Now it so happens that I announced last year as the policy of the Government, by way of a Press statement, which I have repeated on several occasions, that it is our view that in regard to this matter, we want to give the Coloureds their share in the liquor trade. I do not think there is one of us who will have any objection to that on any moral or other ground. The people who may object to it of course are the existing licence-holders because it will or may prejudice their trade. But this will be an objection that will not be valid inasmuch as it will be a selfish objection, which has regard to self-interest only. So I do not have the slightest hesitation in recommending to this House that we should grant those licences to the Coloureds. Now I have not just lightly decided to grant licences of this nature to the Coloureds, but I have done so after I had very full discussions with various Coloured groups. I can assure hon. members that I have had discussions with Coloured groups of divergent views and ideas, and that the provisions of this Bill were drafted only after I had heard the views of those Coloured groups. They were at one with me on two provisions. They agreed with me that licences should not be granted to individual Coloureds, because these licences from the very nature of things would be limited, but you have to try to distribute them having regard to the back-log the Coloureds as a group have in this respect. The suggestion came from them that you should not give it to one single Coloured person, so that as many as possible of them may share in that trade. That is why hon. members will find that this Bill provides that it should be a Coloured company of at least ten members, and to prevent one individual obtaining a monopoly in the business, that no one may possess more than 40 per cent of the shares.

The second principle on which the Coloured leaders agreed with me, is a matter we shall have to consider very seriously. The Coloured leaders put it to me, and I have taken it to heart, that there are few if any places where the more affluent Coloureds can entertain their friends or can take their visitors to dinner. That is why hon. members will find the principle in this Bill that an off-sales licence will only be granted if there are certain on-consumption rights accompanying it; in other words, there should be the establishment together with the off-sales division, of a restaurant, a place where people may be entertained, or an eating place. We want to put it very clearly. We do not wish to encourage people to be drunkards, and we do not wish to encourage the sale of liquor in a bottle store without more ado, but we should like to guide the drinking habits of these people in such a way that they go hand in hand with their eating habits. I am convinced that whereas we are now making a new start for the Coloureds, had we done so for ourselves right from the start, our liquor habits would have been wholly different to-day, and then we would have had less reason to complain about the abuse of liquor among our White people than is the case at present. I have now stated the two principles of this Bill, and said that the grant will be made only to a company or association having not less than ten Coloureds or Asiatic shareholders, and that no one shall have more than 40 per cent of the shares, and it follows of course that the premises in respect of which the licence will be granted will have to be situated in a proclaimed Coloured or Asiatic group area. I have also explained what the position will be in respect of off-sales rights as against on-consumption rights. For the rest hon. members will find in this Bill that as in the case of authorities for the sale of liquor to the Bantu, the Minister may also impose restrictions and conditions upon this authority that apply to ordinary licence-holders and their premises. The fee for the authority is prescribed in the Bill and is limited to a maximum of R150. As in the case of the Liquor Act in respect of the Bantu, hon. members will find in the Bill that regulations may be made and promulgated in due course to determine the time and the manner of applications for these authorities.

I have referred to the fact that the principle contained in the Liquor Act in respect of the stocking of certain quantities of wine or brandy has been incorporated in this Bill too. At the present time, as hon. members know, liquor licence-holders are required to supply the reasonable needs of the public by stocking and exhibiting for sale at least six kinds of brandy and eight kinds of wine of independent manufacturers. The Malan Commission recommended that these requirements be extended to three kinds of South African beer to be available and effect is given to this recommendation in Clause 6 of the Bill. As hon. members will recall, the underlying reason why we provided that six kinds of brandy and eight kinds of wine shall be stocked, was that everybody felt that it was an unsound state of affairs that one group or one person should acquire a monopoly in the liquor trade. All countries in the world share that view. That is why I have no hesitation at all in asking that in view of the same state of affairs, and without blaming anybody, but merely from the point of view of principle, we should not encourage a monopolistic state of affairs, and that this principle should be incorporated in respect of beer. Hon. members will ask me whether we have three kinds of beer. I do not believe we have it within the ambit of this Bill, but we have to keep the back door open in the event of another company coming forward. Competition is the lifeblood of any undertaking, and also of political parties. The more competition there is, the better. I am sorry only that some small parties disappear and are absorbed by the others. Now the old Act provides that a compulsory supply should be stocked, but now there are several ways in which this provision may be evaded, and it was never intended, and it is not in accordance with the spirit of the Act, that that provision should be evaded. Although the Act provided that that compulsory supply should be stocked, no penalty was imposed for failure so to stock that supply. But now failure to stock the compulsory supply is being made an offence. From the nature of things it should be so, for what is the good of saying this has to be done and there is no sanction? The position at present is that the police report to the Liquor Licensing Board once a year whether the compulsory supplies have been stocked. The Malan Commission found that this provision was ineffective and recommended that the police should at any time hold an inspection, and where the requirement was not complied with, an interim meeting of the Liquor Licensing Board should be convened to consider the cancellation of the licence concerned. This procedure is not only cumbersome, but a sanction for the failure will be much more effective. Hon. members will agree with me that we no longer want to play policeman. Why should the police go and snoop around in the bars to see whether supplies are being stocked?

No, there is enough other work for them.

I say so too, and it is not fair that the police should now hold an inspection and report at the end of the year, or call for an interim meeting. We have to leave it to mutual competition for this provision to be given effect to, where the companies themselves take the initiative. If there are complaints, why should the police go and snoop around? Let the companies competing with one another see to it that it is carried out. I should just like to add that an hon. member of the House has told me how people evade this provision. They do in fact keep the supplies, but they have a special cupboard against the wall and they store the liquor in that with the label against the wall. In other words, technically these people are within the law, but they are not complying with the spirit of the law. But I do not want the police to involve themselves in this kind of thing. It can be left to mutual competition, and I am particularly grateful that hon. members on both sides of the House agree with me in this respect. Apart from certain consequential amendments appearing in this Bill, provision is also made that mines that are authorized to sell liquor may sell minerals too. Last year we forgot about the Act dealing with mining land, and then we provided that we could sell whisky to the Bantu but not soda. All we intend doing now is to provide that the soda may also be sold. In the past, under the old Act, a mining company could supply Bantu beer or Kaffir beer to his Bantu free of charge, but it could not sell it to them. Now we are providing that it may sell not only minerals and cool drinks, but Bantu beer as well. This does not impinge upon the people who have concessions for trading on mining land. This clause authorizes mining companies to sell under these circumstances. Certain bodies, such as the Health Board for Peri-Urban Areas in the Transvaal, have been held not to be urban local authorities for the purposes of the Liquor Act, although they also have Bantu locations under their control. The amendment proposed in Clause 2 (c) will now make it possible for such bodies to apply under Section 100bis of the Liquor Act for a licence to sell liquor to the Bantu. The present position is that city councils and other local authorities may sell liquor to the Bantu, but according to the opinion of the legal advisers, unless we say that peri-urban boards are specifically authorized, they may not do so. We are now using Clause 2 (c) to put that matter right.

During the discussion of the Bantu Beer Act. hon. members will recall, the question arose as to whether a non-White servant occupying a room on his employer’s premises is a lawful occupier of the premises also, and may therefore bring liquor onto the premises without the consent of the employer. Actually it was never intended that he should be able to bring liquor on to the premises without the consent of his employer, but it was not quite clear whether that is the position, and we are now putting it beyond doubt that such a servant must have the consent of his employer before he may introduce liquor into his room, and hon. members will find that in Clause 3.

I have now fully explained the Bill, particularly as regards its principles and its details, and I have done so trusting that I will enjoy the support of members on both sides of the House, particularly the clause dealing with the Coloureds, and I am glad that one representative of the Coloureds is present here now. As my friend is concerned about the Coloureds at all times, I trust that when I resume my seat he will come forward as a very enthusiastic seconder of this measure.

That will not be necessary.

Yes. I know it is not necessary, but the hon. member likes to second, and he has been unsuccessful so often that I trust he will be successful tonight.

Mr. Speaker. I do not believe there are many members of this House who will disagree with what the hon. Minister has said, but I do not believe that the Bill now before the House precisely gives effect to the objects of the hon. the Minister. I do not believe that any member will object to the granting of licences to Coloureds or Asiatics in their own areas. But this Bill, as it stands now, does not provide clearly that it must be only Coloureds and Asiatics. According to this Bill, there may be an association of one or two White persons plus ten Coloureds.

Oh no.

Yes, I am referring to the Bill as printed.

Then it is a mistake, but it must not be.

That is why I am bringing this point to the Minister’s attention, so as to have absolute clarity. It is in Clause 5. It provides that the Minister, or a person acting on his authority, may, subject to such conditions or restrictions as he may deem fit to impose, grant an authority in writing to the nominee of an association having at least ten Coloureds or Asiatics as shareholders. It does not say who the others may be. It does not lay down that it should be an association of Coloureds or Asiatics with at least ten members.

That is the intention.

Yes, that is the object, but as usual with this Government, they come along with this kind of legislation, poorly drafted, towards the end of a session when Parliament is tired and their officials tired, and they hope to get the legislation through without opposition.

Read the English version.

The English version is still clearer. It refers to “written authority to a nominee of any association having not less than ten Coloured or Asiatic persons as shareholders or members in other words, it may be any association, as long as there are also only ten Coloureds or Asiatics. Next year the Minister will have come along with an amendment because he now wishes to force through this Bill at the end of the Session.

But that is not the last of the defects in this Bill. I quite agree with what the Minister has said to-night. I have no objection to the object as explained by the Minister, but this Bill makes it possible for unfair competition to arise, because the ordinary applicant for a liquor licence in the Transvaal pays £5,000 plus £100 per annum. Under this Bill a person may obtain an authority for £75 or R150, as against R10,000 for an ordinary White person or any person who applies for a licence. Secondly, the ordinary applicant, White, Coloured or Asiatic must, if he wishes to have an on-consumption licence, build an hotel with a minimum number of rooms, and it will cost him at least R60,000 to R80,000 to erect such a building. He has to provide all the services that go with the hotel, the room service, the serving of meals and all the other facilities and amenities an hotel has to provide. Now this point arises. When last year we were discussing this principle of authorization, we were dealing with a new group of customers, a new class. They were not the existing customers of existing businesses. It was the Bantu who were now becoming the new clientele, the new buyers of liquor. Under these circumstances, by accepting the principle of authorization, we did not impair any existing rights. But now we are dealing with an authorization that will draw away some of the existing customers of existing licence-holders, for the Coloured person and the Asiatic always were entitled, even under the old Act, to buy liquor for on- and off-consumption. In other words, we are taking an existing class that already have the right to buy liquor, and that already buy it from the existing businesses, away from the existing businesses, hotels or bottle stores. Now we are creating a new group of vendors, enjoying special privileges, and those special privileges are that they do not necessarily have to provide an hotel—definitely not. They may provide only a bar and then they are given on- and off-consumption facilities. They need not pay the same licence fees and they need not provide the same facilities. Such a person may, without capital, or with very little capital, obtain an authority without the guarantees the ordinary applicant has to provide.

I wish to make it very clear that I am now talking in my personal capacity, for we on this side of the House have left the matter to the free vote of our members. It is the tradition of the House, and this side of the House has always honoured tradition, that when we discuss liquor, we talk as individuals. I should have said this at the outset, but I now say that every one of us on this side is free to speak on his own behalf as a person.

As regards myself, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the granting of a licence even on privileged grounds as compared with the existing licences. But the advantages such an applicant for an authority enjoys should not be of such a nature that it is unfair to the existing rights of existing traders. That is the point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister very clearly.

Under the Bill as it stands, even if that is not the intention, a White man or two White men may establish an association. Each of them may take 40 per cent of the shares for their own account. Then they get 10 Coloureds or Asiatics with 2 per cent each. In terms of this Bill as it stands, that association will fall within the ambit of the Bill. You will then have two White persons holding 80 per cent of the shares, divided 40 per cent as against 40 per cent, with a sham front of 10 non-Whites. Furthermore Mr. Speaker, the authority these persons will obtain may provide that the prices at which these persons will be able to sell may be much lower than the usual prices in the ordinary hotel. For instance, I have here regulations in regard to authorization in the case of Natives and here is a provision to the following effect—

The Minister has the power under Section 100 of the principal Act to lay down certain conditions. He may fix the price at which liquor may be sold, a price lower than that in the ordinary bottle store. So not only has the applicant for an authority less expense, but he may also sell at a lower price. The Coloured Areas are usually nearer the White areas than the Native Group Areas. As soon, therefore, as you obtain an authority to sell liquor more cheaply than in the neighbouring White area you will merely reverse the smuggling trade. Instead of their buying at the White bottle store and smuggling the liquor to the non-White area, they will purchase at the cheaper non-White bottle store and smuggle it back to the White area. You simply reverse the smuggling trade. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to permit liquor to be sold at a cheaper price under the authority he will grant, or whether the price will be equivalent to the ordinary retail prices in the ordinary bottle store.

I am quite prepared to make it equal.

It is in the hands of the Minister to provide that. This is a question of his policy. But we are now being asked to grant the authority without any restriction, and he may do with that power what he likes. He may fix the price as he wishes; he may impose the restrictions he wishes to impose. Before we vote for this Bill, I should like to ask the Minister to tell the House and the country clearly that he does not intend to establish a competing business that may sell at a lower price, and thereby cause smuggling from the non-White to the White areas.*

Very definitely not.

Thanks, that was one of the objections. Then I come to the next point, and that is the provision as to where these authorities may be granted. The wording is “in an area predominantly occupied by such persons”. A proclaimed group area is clear, but an area that is “predominantly occupied by such persons” is a very vague statement of where these authorities may be issued. I am asking this, Mr. Speaker, because the amendment of last year laid down that no licence shall be granted to an ordinary applicant within half a mile of any non-White group area. In other words, the ordinary dealer, White, Asiatic or Coloured, cannot under the ordinary law obtain a licence within half a mile of an ordinary non-White area without the approval of the Minister.

The same provision will apply here.

Under this legislation the Minister may grant an authority on the borders of a non-White area.

But that will not happen.

These are points on which we should have great clarity, Mr. Speaker, for the power we are giving here permits the Minister to give an authority along the borders of group areas or even in unproclaimed areas where predominantly Coloureds or Asiatics reside, even though it has not necessarily been declared such a group area. Even in those areas the Minister may grant authorities, but the White man may not come within half a mile of that area. In other words, one forces the border trade into that area.

But I am telling you what the policy will be; the same provisions will apply.

Authorities will not be granted within half a mile of such a boundary?

No.

Thank you. But, Sir, the further we go the more we see the weaknesses of this Bill. Here we have already had three points that could easily have been put right in this Bill. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept amendments in the Committee Stage. Firstly, we should have clarity in regard to who will constitute an association; secondly, where these authorities will be granted. We learn from the Minister now that it will not be within half a mile of the boundaries. It will not be an association including White persons. Two important points. And thirdly, it will not include the right to sell liquor at cheaper prices. Those are three very important principles the Minister has not put very clearly here, and I am thankful to him for it. He has now eliminated three of the big objections to this Bill. But it would have been much better if these principles had been embodied in the Bill so that we could now know clearly precisely what the objects of this Bill are.

You cannot provide for it in the Bill.

It can be done easily. Take Clause 5 (9) (a)—

I shall tell you in my reply why we cannot provide for it.

Surely it is very easy to say in the Act that it should not be within half a mile of the boundary.

We do not say so in respect of Whites.

It says so in the Act of last year. There is another point in regard to this so-called association. As the Bill reads now, I should like to know from the Minister what the position will be of a public company with shares that are sold on the stock exchange and where, e.g., 10 non-Whites have bought shares in that company. In terms of the provisions of this Bill, the licence of an existing licensee falling under one of these areas will be converted into an authority. If he holds a licence to-day, that licence will be converted into an authority. If a public company falling within the provisions of this Bill, owing to the fact that it has 10 Asiatic or Coloured shareholders, has such a licence, what will its position be? I hope the hon. the Minister will explain to us what the position of such a company will be.

Another point is that there is no provision that an association as contemplated here has to be registered in accordance with the ordinary commercial laws of the Republic. As this Bill reads now, 10 persons may come together and say, “We are an association”. It cannot be done in the case of any other business in commerce. They have to be registered as a company or as a partnership. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether Coloureds and Asiatics will be entitled to form an association without having themselves registered, as in the case of ordinary commerce, as a company or a partnership, and thereby fall under the provisions of the Companies Act.

Then I come to the other principle of this Bill. I do not wish to dilate upon the Coloured and Asiatic trade. I think I have now covered the main points. The other points may be discussed in Committee. But the second principle is that of the compulsory stocking of at least three kinds of beer. The hon. the Minister himself said in his introductory remarks that he was not sure whether there were three kinds of beer available. But we, the House of Assembly of South Africa, are now being asked to put a statute on the Statute Book in terms of which every licence-holder in South Africa is to be compelled to stock three kinds of beer. And the Minister cannot tell us whether there are three kinds of beer in South Africa. But notwithstanding that, whether or not it is available, he asks us to provide that every licensee shall stock at least three kinds of beer. [Interjections.] Unfortunately it does not include gingerbeer of Bantu or kaffir beer. What this Bill does as it reads to-day, is that any brewery, except the two that exist already, may enter the market and in terms of this Bill its beer will have to be bought. And it may charge any price it likes for its product. It will merely have to be reasonable; that I concede, but it may charge two or three cents more per bottle and under this Bill each licensee will be compelled to stock that beer. I think it will be much better if the hon. the Minister were to provide that at this stage, where we know of only two kinds of beer—save the two that might come on to the market—a licensee should keep at least half of the available kinds of beer. Then it will be equitable. Then you have free competition, for then the one brewery has to compete with the other. But as long as there is no choice, there is no competition. I should like to suggest that the Minister should consider laying down that every licensee should stock at least half of the available number of different beers in this country. If there are three, he will compel the three to compete, for the one trying to make too much profit will fall out. If another comes in, as we understand might be the case, then the licensee has to stock two of the three. If still others come in, he has to keep three kinds, and so on. You exclude a monopoly but you also eliminate the possibility that there will be only three kinds and that the brewers of those three kinds will maintain that monopoly as a group. As long as it is less than the number of breweries you will have free competition. For we have found in practice, in the case of the restriction on wine and brandy, it has not had the effect at all that off-consumption vendors have kept in stock more kinds of wine and brandy. They have stocked just enough to comply with the law. For in any trade, the demands of the public determine what a dealer stocks. If the public does not demand a certain kind, the shopkeeper—whether he sells clothing or liquor or anything else—will not stock that particular article. [Interjections.] Yes, but we are now getting two new breweries.

Now it is three out of the four.

No, the law comes into operation now, and it will possibly be a year before the one commences brewing.

Have I to make provision for it now already?

You could make it half: half of the available kinds of beer. You will then make provision for all the competition there may be in future. Why should we now lay down conditions for a state of affairs that will only occur a year hence? For in the year in between we shall see to it that the beer of the two companies that are going to brew in the Transvaal only will be forced upon every vendor throughout the Republic. The product of the Transvaal brewers will be forced upon the licensees in the Cape and Natal and in the Eastern Province. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Speaker, it is not so. The wording is very vague. It is not easy to determine the “reasonable requirements of the public”.

The trade itself will determine it.

If the price is too high they will not sell it.

There are two separate clauses. Clause 6 (a) reads as follows:

The holder of a bottle, restaurant, hotel or wine and malt liquor licence or a bar licence shall at all times satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to the supply of wine, brandy and malt liquor.

I agree with that, but then it continues and says:

The holder of a licence referred to in subsection (1) shall not be deemed to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to the supply of wine, brandy and malt liquor unless he has, except in so far as he is prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond his control …

In other words, he does not satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public unless he has available at least three kinds of beer.

Except in circumstances beyond his control.

Yes, as long as the beer is available. If it is not available, then it is beyond his control. But if it costs two or three cents more, then it is still within his control to stock it.

And if the customer is prepared to pay that price, why should he not stock it?

But he has to stock it whether there is a demand for it or not. There are 1,800 hotels in South Africa. Supposing each one buys only ten cases of a dozen each, then the third brewer is already assured of a turnover.

If there is a demand for it.

Not only if there is a demand for it. He must stock it.

But not ten dozen.

I hope the hon. the Minister of Information will give us a little information in this regard. I hope he will tell us how he justifies a new company—we know who the company is—automatically having an established market for its product, for every one of the 1,800 hotel-keepers in South Africa will have to buy his beer whether he sells it or not. So you immediately create a market for that beer. That beer has to come from the Transvaal to all the other places. The hon. the Minister of Information is now prepared to foist it on the liquor trade just because the Minister, for some reason or other, refuses to give any latitude, will have no competition, while there are only three breweries. Had there been only two, there would have been competition. Then the owner could choose between two of the three, but at the moment he has to buy the three, and it will remain like that for quite a while. [Interjections.] I know it is one of the recommendations of the Malan Commission, but, Mr. Speaker, it is a principle that has been tried out. It does not work: it only works when a vendor has a choice. But in terms of this Bill as it reads at present, there is no choice. I hope it is clear to the Minister that, although his intention is a good one, the effect of this Bill will not be what he wishes it to be. As he has now done by way of interjection, I hope the Minister will make it possible for us to support this Bill unanimously by removing the problems and difficulties I have referred to here and by putting it right in the Committee Stage on this Bill.

There is much of what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said, that I consider the hon. the Minister should give his attention to. There is something else I should like to mention. I should like to say here that I do not think there is another hon. member in this House to-night who has seen every hotel in the Peninsula inside and out, as I have, during a tour of inspection I made at the request of the association of under-privileged hotels. They took me on this tour of inspection: it cost me nothing. The discussion of this Bill finds me slightly unprepared, because I was to have had an interview to-morrow only with the person who drafted the Bill, with a view to the drafting of an amendment to Clause 5, paragraph 100sex (1).

I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister now. I have the data here-, I can mention the figures. But there are people here in the Cape Peninsula who have created facilities for the Coloureds, hotel facilities, that nobody else was willing to create for them; people whose throats are going to be cut within the next six months if the hon. the Minister does not come to their assistance. We have two Coloured hotels in Kimberley; one in Paarl, the finest hotel in Paarl; we have a luxury hotel in Retreat; we have two large Coloured hotels in East London; we have two in Port Elizabeth; four in Durban; we have two in Pietermaritzburg, and there are five in Cape Town.

I myself have visited those hotels, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they themselves apply considerably more apartheid than the Government is applying to them. That I have seen with my own eyes. The people there have a decent luxury hotel with three small dining-rooms that can accommodate from six to 12 to 24 guests. Professional men or teachers or whoever you like, can go there and they can meet there as decent people. That is a service those hotels are providing. Such an hotel only has a liquor licence for its bar. Around it other liquor trade is being carried on, and we know by whom. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has referred to these people. They go along and they buy small, old hotels last visited by a White man 80 years ago, in District Six, for the value of the land of that hotel, merely so as to be able to obtain the transfer of the licence to another place. I now say this: We should either make these Coloured hotels to which I have referred white elephants that will not be able to remain in business if they do not obtain off-consumption licences, or we should make valuable institutions of them as they are to-day. I can give you the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. the Minister visits these hotels he will agree with me that the people are rendering a service, a service that has to be appreciated. I can mention the name of one person, but I shall not do so lest you think I wish to advertise him. But that person has invested nearly R200,000 in that business. And his throat is being cut. As I have said, this caught me a little off my guard; only to-morrow was I to have had a discussion. But I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should amend Clause 5, paragraph 100sex (1), either here or in the Other Place, in such a way that these under-privileged hotels in South Africa—and I am not referring to the Coloured hotels only, I am referring to White hotels as well—will not be handicapped by concessions that may be made in terms of this clause, at least until the principal Act is placed on the Statute Book next year. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this has occurred to the hon. the Minister, but, as this clause reads now, a Coloured man or a group of 10 Coloureds, who have a bar in one small room, may apply for an off-consumption licence. These under-privileged hotels to which I have referred have all been inspected by me; I have been given photographs of all of them, taken within and without. These people provide board and lodging. I want to mention one hotel. This hotel has 30 rooms. It provides cheap boarding to the man in the middle income group of £50/£60 per month.

Yes, but the hon. member is now pleading in the interests of a group of people who are not covered by this Bill.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer you to Cause 5, which covers this whole matter. The people are providing board and lodging. One hotel, e.g., has 35 people on its staff. The bar next to him has one person on its staff. He has to keep 35 people on his staff; he must provide a menu; he has to keep his rooms tidy. He has to render all those services, and now, in terms of this clause, a man may open a bottle store next door to him in two small rooms. It is a pity it came so suddenly, but I really feel that the hon. the Minister should give his earnest attention to this matter, and, if there is any possible opportunity, before the Bill is passed by the Other Place he should amend this clause. If it is not practicable for him to do so this year, then I should like to urge, in fairness to so many under-privileged hotels in South Africa, that the hon. the Minister should give favourable consideration to the question of freezing the grant of such licences for off-sales in the meantime—it is only a matter of six months—until he introduces the principal Act next year. I can give the hon. the Minister the absolute assurance that, if that is not done, I could mention several hotels in the Cape Peninsula that will go under, and these are hotels that cost from R100,000 to R200,000 each; hotels that are rendering services that no bottle store provides; hotels that offer a service that no bar provides. I should like to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this matter. I shall tell the hon. the Minister what I have in mind, and that is the amendment of the Bill before it passes its final stage, or otherwise for him to give the assurance that, during the six months from now until the principal Act is placed upon the Statute Book, the whole position will be frozen. Otherwise I am afraid a very great injustice is going to be done to many people who have invested, for the sake of the public and for their own sakes, much capital in the hotel business.

Nobody could have made my speech better for me than the hon. member sitting on my right (Mr. Raw). I think the hon. the Minister should scrutinize Clause 5 because I think the interpretation which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has put on it is the correct interpretation.

That is definitely not the intention; but if there is any doubt we can rectify it in the Committee Stage.

Then I accept that it is the intention under Clause 5 to allow an association of not less than 10 Coloured people

Have you read the marginal note?

I have read it. It says “Special authority for sale of liquor by associations of Coloured or Asiatic persons”.

Doesn’t that make it clear?

I accept that that is the intention. But I merely wanted to indicate to the Minister that the clause was capable of the interpretation placed on it by the hon. member for Durban (Point). But I accept the Minister’s assurance that the intention is as set out in the marginal note. I accept that completely. The intention is then that Coloured people should now have the right to have licensed premises to sell liquor. This right which the hon. the Minister now wants to give to the Coloured people must be universal, a right which in my opinion is a great advantage to the Coloured people. They should not feel that they have not got the same right in this regard as the Europeans. I believe it is a great step forward in recognizing the rights of the Coloured people in South Africa. But, Sir, the Minister must appreciate that it appears to me prima facie to be a limited right, limited not in the sense of the people who should be able to get an authority, but limited as to the area. The Act of 1909 and subsequent Acts in regard to reserves such as Genadendal, Groot Drakenstein and Pniel, which are Coloured areas, have imposed a limitation that they cannot get a licence.

This legislation overrides that.

With respect, if that is the intention of the hon. the Minister, I accept that, but then I do believe there should be a further amendment.

What clause overrides that?

The Act was passed last year.

No, with respect that is not the case. The information I have got is to the effect that that is not the case. Let us take a place like Genadendal. The Act which covers Genadendal and similar places still stands. If the hon. the Minister wants to override that Act, I think he must either repeal it or place something in the Bill now before us. There is nothing prima facie in the Bill that will make that possible. I draw the hon. Minister’s attention to it, and two friends of mine who have studied the Act closely agree with me that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to that effect. My information is that those Acts make it absolutely impossible for any authority to be given and I do not think the hon. the Minister can override those Acts which established these places. There are lots of churches there, and I think the hon. the Minister ought to go into that aspect of the matter.

There is another point I want to raise. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention that Coloured people and only Coloured people should be licensees in the Coloured areas. The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) mentioned certain hotels which are owned by Europeans in completely Coloured areas, areas declared as such by the Minister of Coloured Affairs who is sitting next to the hon. Minister. Let me take an area like Elsies River.

Order! The hon. member is outside the scope of the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Clause 5.

Yes, but the hon. member has taken a long time to come to Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, there is the question of quotas. There is nothing in this Bill which indicates to me that when the Liquor Licensing Court sits for the granting of liquor licences under its present powers, these authorities which are granted by the Minister will have an effect or will not have an effect on the Liquor Licensing Board with regard to quotas. That is why I wanted to take the example of an area like Elsies River where there is a European hotel or Athlone where there is a European hotel.

What do you mean by a “European hotel”?

I am sorry, an hotel owned by Europeans, but in a completely Coloured area. Quite an amount of money has been put into these hotels. Now if the hon. the Minister were to grant two or three authorities in the Elsies River area, you might find that the quotas would be affected and that the Liquor Licensing Court might say: I will refuse to renew the liquor licence for the hotel in the Coloured area owned by Europeans because there are now other liquor licences which had been granted. That is the danger. Of course the Liquor Licensing Board is an autonomous body and it has great powers and the question whether liquor licences should be granted or renewed may be affected by these authorities that the Minister is going to grant. I am not going to say any more on the subject. I must admit that I have not studied a great number of the amendments in this Bill. I will allow the Bill to go through, but I am raising these points which affect the Coloured people.

Are you in favour or against the Bill?

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, speaking for myself, that if this Bill will kill the monopoly in liquor, it is welcome.

I want to take a parallel.

Order! The hon. member is now dealing with a different subject altogether. I am afraid the hon. member has not read the Bill.

Sir, I have read the part of the Bill which affects the Coloured people. It is the best part of the Bill anyway. I am only concerned with the privileges which this Bill gives to the Coloured people.

Are you satisfied?

I am quite satisfied.

Then why do you talk such a lot?

But I will only be completely satisfied if these authorities will be granted to every Coloured area, and I am not convinced that this Bill gives the hon. the Minister the power to grant a licence to a place like Genadendal or a place like Pniel, or any other Coloured area which has been established under the 1909 Act, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister now that unless he can satisfy me that that is so, I will not vote for the Bill, because I am not prepared to allow further monopolies to be granted in special areas to the exclusion of others. If the Coloured people are entitled to be licensees, then they must have the universal right and it must not be restricted to specific areas to the exclusion of other areas. I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a complete answer in regard to that point.

Perhaps one should have regard to the background of this Bill, for if you do that you will obviously agree with it. The whole idea behind it is that certain areas have been proclaimed as Coloured areas under the Group Areas Act, and the sale of liquor in these areas is completely in the hands of White people. That is an unsound position. One would like to see, surely, that where you have a proclaimed Coloured Area, the distribution of liquor should also be conducted by Coloureds or Asiatics (not to differentiate between the two). That is the basis of this, and it is on that basis that I say that speeches such as those made by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) are not relevant here at all. With that end in view one wants to try to do the best for, and make the best of, the Coloured areas, and if we then look at Clause 5, we see there it is stated very clearly: “Special authority for sale of liquor by associations of Coloured or Asiatic persons.” If there is a White man who also has money invested in that company, then it surely is no longer an association of Coloureds and Asiatics. Then there are White people involved, surely, and so it is not applicable. And if this clause is not worded in such a manner as to exclude Whites, it will be worded so later on. Personally I believe that that is the construction.

May I refer the hon. member to page 5, right at the bottom, sub-clause 12 of Clause 5, which reads as follows:

… or other association of which all or some of the shareholders or members are Coloured or Asiatic persons …

That is why I say that if there is a loophole in the clause itself, it will have to be closed, for the object of the clause is indicated in the summary contained in the marginal note of Clause 5. It must be an association of Coloureds and Asiatics only. The hon. the Minister of Information also served on the Commission, and he will be able to confirm that it was the whole intention that in the same way as the Whites like to distribute their own liquor in the European areas, so also it is not more than proper and honest to give the Coloured man also an opportunity to distribute liquor in his own area. The tragedy really is this, that the Coloureds are being exploited in the Coloured areas by Whites at the present time, not because the White man is to blame for it, but because an opportunity was created there for White people to go and distribute liquor there, and there were no Coloured people to do so. That is why one of the hon. members has just referred to an hotel in Athlone that was owned by White people. It is the only centre for the distribution of liquor there. You have that position and for the uplift of the Coloured it is necessary that a Bill such as this be applied.

What about the

Asiatics?

In the Western Province the Malays really pass for Coloureds, and it is difficult to differentiate between the two, and for this reason it is put thus. In the north there will probably be difficulties and we shall probably have to make other arrangements, for there are separate Asiatic areas as distinct from Coloured areas. But we leave it at that for the moment. But that is the whole object of it. And we should move in the direction that as in the case of other commercial undertakings in the Coloured areas, they eventually will have to belong to the Coloureds exclusively, so the object of this also is that things should eventually develop in the direction that liquor distribution will be in the control of the Coloureds alone in the Coloured areas.

Then the Bill has been badly drafted.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has missed the point completely in regard to beer. Permit me to mention this example to him. At the moment there are only two kinds of beer that are manufactured in the country. The hon. member says “If half is made compulsory”. Nothing will be more welcome in South Africa to the big beer companies than that, for then they will stock only one kind of beer and then no other beer company will ever be able to enter the market, for the one company manufacturing beer in South Africa is a tremendously powerful company financially. I am not saying this to the prejudice of the company that it has become big and financially strong; they are rendering very good services, and they are producing first-class beers, but in fact they are all only one kind of beer, for it is being manufactured by one company only.

Two.

No, two. So what the hon. member is suggesting is impossible, for then a second kind of beer will never enter the South African market. That is why the recommendation of the Commission was, and this Bill gives effect to it, that if the kinds of beer are available, that at least three kinds of South African beer shall be stocked by the distributor of liquor. It is the least that can be done, and it will have the proper effect that this question of a monopoly will be eliminated and that there will always be an opportunity for competition, which the hon. member also would like to see. He merely misunderstood the matter somewhat, for otherwise he would not have argued in the way he did. The hon. member for Karas is now advocating off-consumption licences for hotels that have no right of sale of liquor.

No, those that have.

That is not in question in this Bill at all. It will probably be in question next year when the big Bill comes along, and then he can discuss it. It is not in question at all here that off-sales privileges be granted to hotels in general—I am not referring to Coloured areas now. I should like to emphasize this only, that the idea of this Bill is applicable only to the areas that have been proclaimed Coloured areas under the Group Areas Act. Now I also have some misgivings, but I do not think they are important misgivings in the sense that they cannot be put right next year when the big Bill is introduced. The hon. the Minister now comes along with Clause 6 (1), the underlying idea of which is that bottle licences, restaurant licences, hotel licences in those areas, or wine and malt licences, or bar licences, should comply with the requirement, and that the licences therefore may be created by such a company that consists of Coloureds and Asiatics or only Coloureds, as it is defined. Now my concern is not so much with bottle licences, for they sell for consumption at home, and we cannot really stop it now, although I think it will be a pity if we have to extend it on a big scale, but the bar licences are what are bothering me most, and wine and malt licences are the things that are next bothering me most. Now I should like to say this for the consideration of the hon. the Minister: Leave things as they are, but merely warn people that next year there will be new definitions for wine and malt licences and for bar licences. I am of course referring now to the position if the recommendations of the commission are accepted. But then any bar licence and any wine and malt licence will also be subject to the condition that food will also have to be provided.

And lodging.

That is an hotel, and we are not talking about that. The hon. the Minister has explained it so well that the idea behind the Bill is that food and liquor will go together. Now I should like to say at this stage, that even if this Bill is applied under the old conditions of bar licences, and of wine and malt licences, there will be new definitions of these kinds of licences next year that will make it obligatory for the holder of such a licence to provide food also. I do not want to go into detail now, for that is not included in this Bill. If the hon. the Minister will issue that warning, I think we may proceed with this Bill as it stands. The only indication that is required is that people may also be compelled, as in the case of a restaurant, to provide food.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If I understood him correctly, he said it does not concern hotels that are owned by White people in the areas. It is a fact that if the bottle-stores or bars or what have you can sell liquor, where they will of course compete with the persons who have hotels, it is possible that the hotels, in which people have invested much money, will be destroyed?

That would be the right direction if that were to happen. I am now saying how I myself feel about it but I think one does not want to kill the existing hotels in the Coloured areas at once, but they may be permitted to carry on as long as they are rendering a service there, but eventually they will have to get out, they will have to be bought out eventually. They will not be able to remain there for an unlimited period. It is a Coloured area and it will have to become a Coloured area utterly and completely.

The hotels too?

The hotels too, and everything. At the present moment there are many other businesses in the Coloured Areas that have White capital and are owned by White people there. Eventually they also will have to get out and they will have to be bought out. They need not suffer any loss, but they are not at home there, any more than we shall permit Coloureds to come and run businesses in White areas or to come and reside there. We cannot permit White areas to emerge in Coloured areas eventually, for that is the whole object of it, surely!

Let me say at once that I have every sympathy with the idea that is behind this Bill, but I believe the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is perfectly correct as to the effect of this Bill as it stands. Quite clearly under Clause 5 the “association” could be an association which is controlled by non-Whites or any other racial group. I accept that that is not the intention. The hon. Minister will agree with me that it is a clear principle of construction that in construing the wording of the clause, the side note is entirely disregarded by our courts. In the circumstances it is essential that the proposed new Section 106 should be amended. The argument that has been put up by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is strengthened by the provisions of sub-section (12) of the same Clause 5, because there it is accepted that the shareholders in a company which already has a licence, can be deemed to be an authority granted or renewed under this section.

That is in respect of an existing bottle-store …

Yes, I am merely making the point that that accepts the idea that there can be shareholders other than Coloured shareholders.

Before the coming into operation of this Act.

I realize that, but we are dealing with the provision which says that there must be an association of not less than ten Asiatic or Coloured persons.

That deals with a company …

I appreciate that, but there is no point in arguing this across the floor of the House with the Minister of Information. The position is quite clear. It is intended that these should be associations which will have only Coloured shareholders. As the hon. the Minister has said that he will put that right, I am perfectly satisfied.

I would like to raise certain points though which have not been raised up to now, and the first is this: I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is to be the race group of customers, i.e., is there to be a particular group of customers who alone can be served by the holders of these authorities? As the Bill stands read with the Liquor Act, an authority holder may supply liquor to all classes in their own areas, it seems to me. In other words, these new licences will be granted for Coloured areas, but it is clear that in respect of sale of liquor by the bottle they will not be limited to residents of the group which occupies those areas. We should have clarity on that point. I would be glad if in his reply, the hon. the Minister would tell us in relation to sub-section (12) whether if those associations which are referred to in that clause happen to be under the control of Europeans, they will be deemed to have been granted a licence or renewed a licence in terms of this clause. It is a point on which there might just as well be clarity.

The further point I would like to raise is in regard to “associations”. It would be as well to get the position clear, because under the Companies Act, you can’t have a partnership or association with more than a certain number of shareholders, and the question would arise as to whether this Act overrules the Companies Act in that regard and might be admissible for some limitation to be placed. In regard to a company of course that position is perfectly clear, but then the question arises what is the position in regard to the transfer of shares in the company? One could go on raising innumerable points. I raise them merely to say that I very deeply regret that legislation of this complexity comes forward at this very late stage.

I am sorry, I cannot see your last point at all.

It is quite clear that where there is a company, there can be a sale of shares in that company, in the absence of any limitation.

What about the articles of association?

The articles of association govern transfers.

Otherwise the Minister won’t give the authority.

But in the case of an association there need not be any articles of association. I would like to say that when we are passing legislation I believe that it is important that persons’ rights, should be rights which can be determined from the law and not from what any Minister might or might not do in terms of the law. I accept assurances from the hon. the Minister without hesitation whatsoever …

I can’t see your argument in respect of associations and of companies.

I have tried to put it very briefly in view of the time, because I do not want to delay this Bill. But I put it to the hon. the Minister: The Companies Act provides that there shall not be an association, i.e. that there cannot be an unincorporated body which has over 50 members, I think it is. Here there is a provision for associations to be formed with no limitation of membership.

Not less than ten.

Yes, there is a minimum but no maximum. Certainly all the legal members of this House will agree, that in dealing with a business matter of this sort, it would be far better from a practical point of view to limit licences to companies, but if there are to be associations, it should be made perfectly clear that the limitations on associations or partnerships which exist in other laws should be abided by so far as this legislation is concerned.

That follows as a matter of course.

With great respect to the hon. the Minister, I would suggest that where you have a new piece of legislation which has a provision like this, it is not certain that it will have to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act.

An association can take on any form. It can take on the form of a company, and then naturally it falls under the Companies Act.

That is quite true, and then you have the articles of association which must comply with the companies law, but here we are introducing a provision for associations. That association, I suggest, might have to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, the provision for instance which limits the number of members. There can be an association which is not an association incorporated as a company or under some other Act of Parliament. I am raising these points now because thereby we might shorten the Committee Stage on this Bill. I take it that the hon. the Minister would like to pass this stage of this Bill to-night and in case there are other speakers. I will deal with these points again in the Committee Stage.

My principles are that it is wrong to facilitate the availability of liquor to the people of whom I regard we are guardians. I know from experience that the Coloured people cannot resist the urge to drink, and this Bill will make this more easier available. I have had much experience. During the wartime I recruited Coloureds for active service and I was guardian for every family whose husband or child went on active service, and I got to know the inner life of the Coloured people, and I know the disabilities they suffer under through this drink habit, especially among the men. In many of our Coloured families, the men never bring home at the end of the week any of their pay. The womenfolk have to earn a livelihood by doing charwork or taking in washing, and things of that nature, and I think that at this stage of the development of the Coloured people it is wrong for us to provide them the same facilities in Coloured areas as the Whites enjoy in theirs. We can deprecate what has happened under White control as regards the availability of liquor to the Coloured people!, but at the same time it does remain our responsibility. Now this Bill is going to throw the responsibility on the Coloured people themselves, and imagine that under this Bill we will create drinking places where the Coloureds will meet; perhaps there will be certain light refreshments and they will stay there until they have spent all the money they had in their pockets. I think it will be to the detriment of the Coloured people. I have had examples of that this year in Cape Town, where respectable Coloured people have said that they cannot resist the urge to drink and that they have always welcomed the limitations on the availability of liquor to them. I say that if they have to purchase the liquor in the White areas and to carry it home it will not be so readily available to them as it would be in the specified Coloured areas. I feel that it is my duty to voice my opinion on any legislation that makes liquor more easily available. One can say that this legislation lays down the same principles as those that apply to the Whites, for instance in respect of what the various drinking houses have to keep in stock, but we cannot say that the Coloured people will avail themselves of the various beers that will be kept in stock, because the Coloured people are not beer-drinkers like the Europeans. They like stronger liquor and the stronger the liquor, the better as far as they are concerned, and it is the stronger alcoholic liquor that they have an urge for. I have no doubt that keeping stocks of beer will only be a matter of entry in the books and that there will be no marked consumption of beer by the Coloured people. In fact with my knowledge of the Coloured people, I have very rarely seen a Coloured man taking beer. They are not beer-drinkers. If we could induce them to drink beer, it would be better. The labour force in Great Britain of course consists of people who consume beer, and beer is a wholesome drink, especially as compared to raw liquor. I feel that it is right that people in this House should resist any extension of the availability of liquor. When the Bill comes before this House next year which the Minister has notified us of, I imagine there will be strong opposition to that legislation. But I am afraid that by committing ourselves to this legislation at this stage, we may perhaps prejudice our case next year when we have to face up to the new Liquor Bill which the Minister has foreshadowed.

At 10.25 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 19 June.