Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this debate took a turn yesterday, the result of which was that the normal activities of the department which, ought to be discussed here were not immediately dealt with. What we discussed more particularly was the Le Grange Commission, which is a little removed from the normal activities of my department.

I should like to make a statement in regard to the retirement of the Commissioner of Prisons, General J. C. Steyn, who will retire on pension from the service on 30 November 1975 after a term of office of 39 years.

With the appointment of General Steyn as Commissioner of Prisons on 23 December 1963, after having served as Acting Commissioner since May of that year, he was the first person to have progressed from the lowest rank (warder) to head of the department (commissioner), with the rank of major-general. The rank of general was attached to that office on 15 October 1968 and General Steyn was promoted to that rank with effect from the same date.

General Steyn, was, ex officio, the official correspondent of the Republic with the United Nations organization in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders. He also was the official representative at the International Society for Criminology and the International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation and in that capacity he regularly attended congresses abroad.

Gen. Steyn will pre-eminently be remembered, however, as a friendly, reserved person who practised his vocation with absolute dedication. His career was characterized by unselfishness in the sense that the personal sacrifice which the irregular and unusual hours his office demanded, as well as the recent serious injury to his right hand, did not influence his purposefulness and dedication in any way whatsoever.

There are various milestones marking Gen. Steyn’s term of office as Commissioner of Prisons. In particular one thinks of what he did to create better work and training opportunities for prisoners, the development of his staff by means of scholastic, technical and university studies and in-service training programmes and the personal example he set in this regard by obtaining the B.A. degree in 1944 and the M.A. degree (Criminology) in 1962 by means of part-time studies. We think of the scientific techniques for the classification and treatment of prisoners, for example those with regard to psychopaths, which were devised during his term of office. Furthermore, he will be remembered for the personal contribution he made in mobilizing a healthy awareness by the community of the causes and the prevention of crime.

A special word of thanks to Mrs. Steyn, charming wife of Gen. Steyn for her contribution and for the support she gave him.

On behalf of the Government and myself I should like to express a personal word of heartfelt gratitude for all the sacrifices made by you, Gen. Steyn, and the positive contribution you made to our society.

Gen. Steyn will be succeeded by Lt. General Matthys Johannes Nel, chief deputy commissioner, who will be promoted to the rank of General on 1 December 1975.

Willem Martinus du Preez, at present major-general, will then succeed Gen. Nel as commissioner, who will retire on pension on 30 June 1976.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister has just announced the retirement of Gen. Steyn, I want immediately to associate the official Opposition with the sentiments that he has expressed towards Gen. Steyn. Having served for 30 years, Gen. Steyn has certainly given a large part of his lifetime to service in the Department of Prisons. We know him to be one of nature’s gentlemen, a very helpful person and a person who has always shown dedication to the very difficult task that he has to perform in South Africa. We wish him and his wife well and a happy retirement.

Hear, hear!

As the hon. the Minister has said, the discussion on these Votes has been completely upset as far as the usual discussion under these Votes is concerned. Indeed, the bits and pieces had extra time given to them to enable them particularly to deal with, the sixth report, but they spent all that time attacking us. They have used up all the time that was allocated to them on that subject with the result that where we have now to deal with the activities of the Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons with all their ramifications, they will have no time to discuss any of these matters. [Interjections.] As my hon. friend says, this is the group that pretended at the election that it would provide the effective opposition in this House.

The hon. the Minister will appreciate that there are many matters which we want to deal with. Sir, we have come to the stage now where, as I understand the position in terms of time, this is the last opportunity that we will have to speak. Sir, we wanted to deal with the report of the Department of Justice concerning the consolidation of the laws of the country, a very important subject which I hope we will have the opportunity of talking about again. We also wanted to deal with the question of the extraordinary conduct of the hon. the Minister in making public some confidential reports relating to a prisoner, namely Ronald Cohen, thus causing untold harm and hurt to many people. This is an unprecedented event, for which we demand an explanation from him.

Sir, when I last spoke in this debate I was dealing with the question of the policy of the hon. the Minister relating to parole. We had to extract this information from the hon. the Minister as one extracts teeth from a reluctant person.

Fowl.

Or fowl, if you like. What is his policy? When we first asked him, he said that it was not in the public interest to tell us what his policy was, but then when a case in Durban was brought before him at question time, he admitted in reply to a question arising out of his reply that the policy of the department was to leave it in the discretion of the commandant of the prison to release anyone who had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment or less. Sir, this is an absurd situation. We can understand that short-term imprisonment is undesirable, but what is the situation here? You either deal with that issue as an issue and decide whether or not you are going to have short-term imprisonment, or you don’t, but surely we cannot have the situation that now exists. What happens, Sir? The court in its discretion, having regard to all the facts, decides to sentence someone to six months’ imprisonment. He goes to gaol and the gaoler in his discretion apparently, according to a newspaper report of a statement made to the Natal Mercury by the commandant of the prison in Durban, may release him on the basis that he has a job and a roof over his head. There is no consultation whatever with the court. Sir, this situation, if allowed to continue, brings the courts into contempt in our country. But it is worse than this, because the hon. the Minister has admitted that this policy of his, this directive to the commandants of prisons, applies also to suspended sentences. In the case in question—and this is the only reason why this directive came to the public’s notice—the person concerned had been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment suspended on condition that he was not again convicted of an offence of a similar nature. The magistrate tried to keep this person out of gaol and therefore gave him a suspended sentence. When this person committed an offence, he broke the condition of his suspension; he went to gaol and then he was released almost immediately. Once again, Sir, what is the purpose of having suspended sentences if the whole thing is going to be destroyed at the whim of a gaoler? Sir, it goes further than that. It also applies, as the hon. the Minister has said, to a sentence of imprisonment which is imposed as an alternative to a fine. In other words, Sir, if you get a large fine with the alternative of, say, five months’ imprisonment, and you have a job and a roof over your head, you do not bother to pay the fine; it is better for you to go to gaol because you just have to say, “I have got a job and a roof over my head,” and then in the discretion of the gaoler you are let out. Sir, on the face of it this is an intolerable state of affairs so far as the public is concerned. It brings contempt for the law and it places not only the courts in an invidious position, but so far as the Police are concerned it hardly produces any confidence in their work. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation as to why with his right hand, as the Minister of Justice, he sends them to jail and with his left hand, as the Minister of Prisons, he lets them out of jail almost immediately. [Interjections.]

Now I want to deal, if I may just briefly in the time available to me, if there is any time available to me, with this question of the consolidation of our law. To this is devoted the main aspect of the report of the Department of Justice. It is essential that the sources of the law should be accessible and well ordered and it is important to consolidate the law. With both of those sentiments I quite agree, but the sources of the law should be available to practitioners especially and to those who sit on our benches, and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the abolition of the old type of statute we used to have, those that we see on the shelf there, in favour of the Butterworths consolidated statutes was unfortunate so far as the law is concerned because the Butterworths statutes purports to be a consolidation of the law as it now is. At least with the old statutes we knew what the law was at the time when a decision of the Supreme Court was given in respect of that statute and one was able then to look at the statute as it was at that time. I appreciate that the Government has a contract with Butterworths in respect of these statutes, and I would make this suggestion, that if the Government is not prepared, because of the terms of that contract, to produce the old type statutes, it should make that old type statute available only, if necessary, to subscribers to Butterworths, because I think the legal profession has a need and the Bench has a need for the old type statute so that one may know what the law was at that time.

Now, seeing that I do seem to have one minute left I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deal as well with the question of the prisoner I mentioned, Cohen, because one of the unsatisfactory aspects of this whole matter has been the hon. the Minister’s almost refusal to give any information about this matter at all. We asked him questions in the House but he said he would deal with the matter under his Vote. But let us not forget that he is the one who gave this information to the Press. He gave it to Rapport, and when we asked him why he gave it to Rapport he said that Rapport was the only one which seemed to be interested.

Rapport asked me first.

They asked you first and they, therefore, appeared to be interested. [Interjections.] But then, why did the hon. the Minister in fact make this information available to anyone at all, having regard to the fact that this is the first time it has ever happened? [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. Minister referred to the fact that the debate yesterday dealt with the most recent report we received from the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission and that this debate did not take its normal course as a result of this. Sir, I intended raising something here this afternoon, something purely concerning my constituency, a rural constituency, but, Sir, something has now happened which makes that I will be neglecting my duty if I do not make use of this opportunity to return to this report of the Le Grange Commission. I warn to commence by saying that I would neglect my duty if I do not congratulate the chairmen, first Minister Kruger, then Mr. Schlebusch and after that Mr. Le Grange, on these reports which they published and in particular on their behaviour in this House yesterday afternoon. Together with that I want to refer to the commissioners on the other side of the House and I want to congratulate them as well on their behaviour yesterday afternoon. I wish I could also congratulate my hon. colleagues of the other two parties, but this I cannot do. I therefore leave it at that. But I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I will be neglecting my duty if I do not avail myself of this opportunity to say that I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout owes an explanation to this House. When he posed the question here yesterday afternoon: “Japie, what do you say?”, he said by means of an interjection: “I will speak when I want to speak. I choose my own time”, or something of that nature. Therefore we expected that the hon. member, who is a member of the United Party, would get up in this House and express his opinion in connection with this matter. We were therefore very surprised this morning when we read The Cape Times and learned that it was not even a public meeting, but a private meeting. The hon. member did not only make a speech, because it is said that certain parts of his speech were handed to the Press, and I regard this as a statement. In the statement the hon. member said that he rejects the findings and the recommendations of this commission. This morning there are newspapers throughout the word which state that the United Party has seemingly maintained its unity. The hon. member did to the United Party what Dr. Beyers Naudé wanted to do to the Nationalist-minded Afrikaners. To my mind there is no more reprehensible an action that that of the hon. member. I am looking forward to tomorrow’s Cape Times because I expect the same kind of story from the hon. member for Edenvale. If this is the way in which we practise politics, that we can no longer state our viewpoint in this House, but have to do so at private meetings, it is very late in the day for a party.

I am now saying for the umpteenth time that I represent a rural constituency. During the past few years we experienced that circumstances arose which involved our magistrates’ offices. Until recently they were still involved. The basic reason what I merely want to call the “degradation” of magistrates’ offices is that not very many court cases are heard by magistrates’ offices in the rural areas. We simply do not have a large number of criminal or civil cases. We cannot blame our department if they look at it in this way, viewed against the background of an enormous shortage of magistrates. I do not want to dwell on this, because the hon. the Minister knows quite well what the situation is. Whatever the decision in the future may be, I want to plead the hon. the Minister should see to it that all the magistrates’ offices which exist at present, will be maintained. If we cannot arrange matters in a different way, as a result of a shortage of magistrates, we will as far as jurisdiction is concerned even be prepared to use the services of an itinerant magistrate to do the “bench work”, to use colloquial language. We know the hon. the Minister is sympathetic towards this matter. The hon. the Minister should please see to it that we shall always have a Government office at the places where there are magistrates’ offices today. We should have a man there whom we will still call a magistrate, because in the small communities this first citizen of our area means a great deal to us. We hope the situation will be maintained. Mr. Minister, I want to say how thankful I am that we have a prison such as Goedemoed in my constituency. It means a very great deal for us as community. In a depopulated rural area this how we can allow prominent people to live there and let them work there happily. We are thankful for this. Mr. Minister …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, of course.

You are thanking him too much.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says I am thanking the hon. the Minister too much. He was born in Fauresmith and I was born in Rouxville, but he fled. I am still living there. [Interjections.]

You could never get any further.

When that hon. member who is making such a noise asked me last year where the Free State was, I told him it was where the Currie Cup would be going this year. We will have to appreciate that we can only man institutions such as the fine prison at Goedemoed if we give those people more pleasant circumstances to live in. The hon. member says I say “thank you” too much. Let him come to Goedemoed—I do not mean as a guest of the State President—and then he would see why I thank the hon. the Minister for the attractive little village which was established there and for the pleasant living conditions of those people. The road connections between Goedemoed and Aliwal North as well as all the other places in the vicinity, however, leave much to be desired. I want the Administrator of the Orange Free State and the National Transport Commission to take cognizance of this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister today to do everything he possibly can to see whether something cannot be done, in co-operation with the said institutions, to link up the fine prison at Goedemoed with the outside world by means of a road. In this way it will be possible for our people to work there and to come into contact with their service towns in the easiest way possible.

Mr. Chairman, I intend replying briefly to the last speaker. I shall subsequently reply more fully to the very positive speeches which were made here this afternoon and yesterday evening. I want to make haste to reply to the hon. member for Durban North in regard to the problems which he raised when he referred to what had been said over a considerable period in this House by way of question and answer.

But while it is fresh in my memory, I first want to refer to the hon. member for Smithfield. I want to tell him that we have problems with the magistrate’s offices in the rural areas. This is a problem which other departments also have with their rural offices. The rural areas are becoming depopulated on a large scale. This is not our or anyone’s fault, but simply an unfortunate fact. We know that we will have to consider the rural areas from a different point of view. As he knows—I want to remind the hon. member of this again —we considered closing some of the magistrate’s offices in country towns, but after mature consideration we decided that the advantage we would derive from that would not be sufficient to proceed to such a drastic step. The result is that I shall try to staff those magistrate’s offices with magistrates for as long as possible. Even after we are no longer able to staff them with, magistrates, because there is insufficient work for them, we shall still try to keep the offices open. We shall give constant attention to this matter, in order to cause the rural population as little inconvenience as possible.

As far as the prison at Goedemoed is concerned, I want to thank the hon. member for his words. This prison is a model prison, there is no doubt about that. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member that the entrances to Goedemoed are not what they should be. I have already written a letter to the provincial administration myself, and I think that as soon as the provincial administration again gives attention to the reconstruction of roads, Goedemoed will in fact be included in the programme. I do not want to make them hasty, but it is inconvenient to us all, as well as to the farmers who have to make use of these roads. We wish to express the hope that the administration will definitely give attention to this matter.

Then I want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban North said, that is, when he has finished speaking to his Whips. I should like to discuss the matter of consolidation with him. I wish to tell the hon. member that I agree with him entirely. I am also a member of the old guard of practitioners who have grown accustomed to the smaller book, which is more manageable, but more difficult to study. We grew accustomed to a system of cross-references. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am of the opinion that the book which we are using at present is a little on the large side, and is inclined to become rather clumsy. For a really busy practitioner in the courts, in particular, it means that he has to remove the loose-leaves when he goes to court. This reduces the value of the work. I think the hon. member made a sound proposal, namely that we should, in co-operation with Butterworths, arrive at some solution or other as far as this book is concerned and see whether We cannot simply give them the contract to print and publish books of that kind as well, or something along those lines. I just want to indicate that I have a measure of sympathy for the hon. member as far as this matter is concerned. I should also like to ensure, on my part, that our legal practitioners are able to conduct their practices in the easiest possible way as far as references are concerned.

The hon. member criticized me in regard to a case which was raised here in this House. It was the case of a certain Mr. Wood. We released Mr. Wood on parole, and the hon. member criticized me in the light of what a magistrate had said, and because the commanding officer had been given the discretion to decide on such cases. Firstly, to deal only with the specific case of Mr. Wood, I want to say that this person was convicted on 29 October of driving under the influence of liquor and sentenced to a fine of R120 or sixty days’ imprisonment with four months’ imprisonment suspended for three years. His driver’s licence, of course, was confiscated. I think that this is done automatically upon such conviction. On 26 March he was caught for driving without a driver’s licence. Nothing came of it, however, for the court merely cautioned him. On 16 April he was again caught for driving without a licence. He was again sentenced to a fine of R60. or 60 days’ imprisonment, and the four months’ suspended imprisonment was put into operation. In the first place, Mr. Wood paid his R120 fine. On 16 April he paid the R50 fine, and was left with the four months’ suspended sentence. What are the facts of the matter? The commanding officer of the prison concerned has the discretion of releasing such a person on parole. Mr. Wood’s actual offence was that he had driven under the influence of liquor, and he paid a fine for that, received a suspended sentence, and lost his driver’s licence. Now we must, surely, be reasonable and practical people, I do not want to condone driving a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor. This is, in my opinion, a serious offence, but when a person has committed that offence and his driver’s licence has been confiscated, I believe that if he is subsequently caught driving a motor car without a licence—in the second and third cases there was no question of liquor—this surely cannot be regarded in the same serious light as the original offence. The commanding officer of the prison received two letters, on the basis of which he had to exercise his discretion. The first letter came from Mr. Wood’s attorneys and read as follows—

This person is apparently the representative of Nicro. I quote further—

At this stage let me tell the hon. member that if I had been Col. Richards, to whose discretion this had been left, I would not have been inclined to grant the parole on these grounds only. However, this is not all that Col. Richards had before him. He also had a letter from this person’s employer, which read as follows—

This firm is a group of architects. I quote further—

I now want to ask the hon. member for Durban North this question: Suppose he had had the discretion of releasing Mr. Wood on parole, and he had had this set of facts before him, what would he have done under those circumstances? The hon. member must not forget that parole is not a discharge. Parole is the sword of Damocles hanging over a person’s head. If that person takes one false step, he goes back to prison. If the hon. member had therefore had these facts before him, i.e. that the man had in fact committed an offence by driving under the influence of liquor and had subsequently committed the technical offence of having driven his motor vehicle without a licence, but that there was no indication that the person had been negligent or had harmed anyone, or anything of that kind, would he not have released Mr. Wood on parole?

I raised the question of Wood to get from you the principle and the policy involved.

We are coming to that now. Let the hon. member first reply to this question of mine. Under these circumstances, would he have done what Col. Richards did? I am asking this question to clear up my official’s record with reference to the accusations which were made in this House by way of questions and answers. What does the hon. member say?

Probably, without having given it any thought, because I have only just heard this, yes.

I thank the hon. member for that, for at least it is an honest reply and it puts me in a position to say that I, too, as the Minister concerned, am entirely satisfied that the commanding officer of that prison exercised his discretion in this respect properly, and did the right thing as far as Wood was concerned. Then the matter of Wood has been disposed of now, and we come to the principle. We come now to the principle.

The hon. member is being pious about the question of parole but surely he is no stranger to the existence of parole. The hon. member himself has already approached me in regard to the complete discharge of an Indian person whom he defended— the hon. member may confirm whether or not I am correct—who was convicted of smuggling rifles, the greatest sin that can be committed in South Africa. The hon. member was this person’s advocate and he wrote me a letter in which he said that under the circumstances, he thought that he should receive a free pardon The hon. member asked for a free pardon, and not for parole. Therefore I was supposed to allow that person to go free, in spite of what the magistrate had said. I take it that the magistrate spoke these words in the presence of the hon. member for Durban North. By way of explanation I first wanted to inform this House that the argument of the hon. member for Durban North was that this person was to have assisted the police in catching the other smugglers. Consequently he requested that I should not deal harshly with the smuggler who was supposedly to have helped to ensnare the other smugglers, since this would dissuade people from helping the police. As compensation for the fact that the accused had helped the Police, he was ostensibly to have received a free pardon. However, the magistrate said the following—

That is, the accused—

What is at issue here is discretion, and I am mentioning this for a specific reason. The hon. member did not request that this matter be kept confidential, and I take it that he does not mind my mentioning this. What is at issue here is the exercise of a discretion. Although it was the opinion of the hon. member—and I respect his opinion— that this person should have been discharged, and should not serve his term of imprisonment, under the circumstances, and he consequently approached me, at his discretion, in this regard, I want to inform the hon. member that I in turn have to exercise my discretion, and that I was not able to discharge this Indian person. However, I want to compare this with the case of Wood. Wood’s case was clearly a case in which we had to grant parole. I had to endure disparaging remarks in this House during question time, after I had requested the hon. member to give me a chance to explain the matter under the Vote, so that we could get away from the type of cross-examination which we had, where repeated questions were asked. The hon. member did not want to accept it in this way, and that is why we are now exchanging harsh words.

Why did you tell me that it was not in the public interest to disclose it?

I am coming to that; give me a chance. We come now to what the hon. member said about me in The Argus. The hon. member has the habit of not discussing matters with a person in a debate, but of running to the newspapers to make a statement. Once the statement has been made, the hon. member forgets about it, since he has played at being a bigwig now, and has made a statement in which he slandered a person. According to him the matter has then been disposed of; he forgets about it. The hon. member said in the newspaper—

The hon. member for Durban North ought to know that this is not a new policy. Why did he tell the newspaper that it was? According to section 68 of the Prisons Act, 1959, prisoners who have received prison sentences of up to four months, may immediately be released on parole by the commissioner. Am I right?

It is now six months.

Wait a minute; I am coming to the six months. At first the hon. member argued about the four months. Surely that was never a secret. On page 10 of the report on Prisons of 1963 to 1966 these matters are specifically mentioned, but the hon. member does not know about this. On pages 8 and 11 of the report for 1966 to 1968, they are mentioned again. On page 6 of the report for 1970 to 1971, they are mentioned again. In this report it is mentioned on page 5, but this hon. member asks me where the new policy comes from. Section 93 gives the Commissioner the right to delegate his discretion and rights to other persons, inter alia to the commanding officers of the prisons. The hon. member has, in my humble opinion, been guilty of a distortion, for in The Argus of the same day, the hon. member states—

Surely the hon. member knows that that is untrue. The hon. member ought to know that it is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that the hon. member knows that it is untrue.

I said that the hon. member ought to know that it is untrue.

The hon. the Minister must first withdraw.

I withdraw it, Sir, and say that the hon. member for Durban North ought to know that these words are untrue. Surely the hon. member knows that on page 5 of the department’s report for 1973-’74 the following was said (translation)—

This is only 40%, and there is no question of the prisoners themselves having a choice. Here, in this category, we only released 40% of the persons on parole.

In reply to a question put by the hon. member I said that to make the entire circular public, would not be in the public interest. I said that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the entire circular which I had had written to the department. The hon. member then said to the Daily News that this was a “bloody impertinence”.

I said that in relation to your saying that I am cheeky.

It was all within the context. [Interjections.] I accept that. The circular referred to all prisoners in a prison. It did not refer only to persons serving four-month and six-month sentences. The hon. member’s irresponsible attitude indicates precisely why it was not in the public interest to disclose this.

[Inaudible.]

That is why I cannot disclose it, because I have to experience a struggle to the death in the House of Assembly over the most harmless cases, and a suspicion-mongering in the newspapers aimed at my departmental commanding officers who—I must tell the hon. member this—have an enormous task, and are nevertheless doing good work. That is why this was not in the public interest—because every Tom, Dick and Harry, and every uninformed M.P., who ought to be informed, would go and kick up a fuss about this, and make a “sing-song” of it in the Press. Surely that is not good for the prison system. In addition it would result in a constant stream of unnecessary representations if I were to disclose the contents of a departmental circular, which was only a guideline. The granting of parole is a discretionary matter. If I send out a circular in which I had stated that the prison authorities are to see whether parole could be granted in the following cases, then it would have the result, if I were to disclose this to everyone, that I would receive representations and letters from all over from people whose family members, who have no hope at all of parole, are in prison. They will then point out to me that it is stated in the circular that parole may in fact be granted, but the circular is merely an indication. If I were to make the contents of the circular generally known, it could lead to all kinds of misconceptions. Family members of a prisoner could, for example, then say to the prison authority: “You refuse to release A, but you discharge B, and both received the same sentence.” Sir, there are quite a number of other factors which must also be taken into consideration. The hon. member, in his delusions of grandeur or whatever they may be, should now like the contents of the circular to be made generally known. He says this in the newspaper; he says that the public is entitled to this; that the Minister should reveal everything he does to the public for it is the public’s right to know what he is doing. Sir, I am coming to that right in a moment. As far as the contents of my circular are concerned, the hon. member should like this to be made known to the public, but a moment ago, when I told him in reply to another question of his that certain information had been made known to the public, he turned round and said: “Why was it made known to the public?”

But everybody knows all about it.

Sir, I pay no heed to that kind of remark. If it is known to everyone, why then is the hon. member requesting me to make it known? If everyone knows all about it already, why should I then make it known? For if that hon. member says that it is known to everyone in any case, surely the United Party is being more than absurd to ask me to make the information public. Sir, I have amended the existing arrangement that prisoners who have been sentenced to up to four months imprisonment may be released on parole. I have extended the period to six months, and now the hon. member is asking me why I have extended the period. Sir, I plead guilty to having extended it. I have extended it by two months. I said that if this could apply to prisoners serving a sentence of four months’ imprisonment, it could also apply to prisoners serving a sentence of six months. Sir, I want to tell you that I went through the publications of Nicro before I extended the period by two short months. I was careful enough to look at a number of publications in regard to prisoners first. I listened to what speakers had to say at prison symposiums. I took into consideration how sound or how unsound it was to keep a man in prison for a short period without any possibility of rehabilitation within that short period, etc. Sir, I went further and considered what our M.P.s had had to say about this matter. I then discovered that this matter had been debated previously in the House of Assembly. One of the members of the House of Assembly who discussed this matter, made a very intelligent speech, in which he said the following …

What is his name?

Sir, I do not mention names that easily.

Was his name Kruger?

I shall tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a moment what his name is, but let me first quote what he said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is being over-hasty. The hon. member said—

This member of the House of Assembly then came to the following conclusion—

He was addressing the Minister of Justice—

That was my predecessor, Sir. The hon. member challenged him to indicate what he and his department had done. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know from me who said this. It appears under the name of Mr. M. L. Mitchell, the hon. member for Durban North.

You did not listen to my speech. I said that that should be dealt with specifically as a separate issue.

Now the hon. member wants to deal with it as a separate issue. The entire issue before this House at the moment, is why I dared extend the four months’ arrangement to six months. He challenged my respected predecessor and asked what he and his department were going to do about that. When I took over this post, and I perceived this logic of his, with which I agreed, I then did something about it. I then wrote a circular, and what do I get for that? I get a Whole lot of questions about Mr. Wood, questions which have nothing to do with the matter, and I am challenged to say what right I have to extend the four months to six months. There the Leader of the Opposition is sitting now, hanging his head.

Sir. I come now to the case of Mr. Ronald Cohen. The hon. member for Durban North criticized me for having furnished the Press with the facts concerning Mr. Cohen. I make no apology for that. I am simply furnishing the following facts. On 21 September 1970 Ronald Cohen was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for murder, with extenuating circumstances. Sir, let me say to you at once that if the hon. judge had not found extenuating circumstances, it is quite possible that this person would have paid the highest penalty. But the court did find extenuating circumstances. When a person arrives at a prison, he arrives there as a person whom the court regarded as being a case with extenuating circumstances, and sent to prison. The court saw fit not to demand the highest penalty, and the prison system then received a person, not a person who was to be hung, but a bewildered individual. When such a person is sent to us, there are only a few things in regard to bis case which are of importance to us, and these are subsequently taken into consideration when his parole is being discussed.

Firstly: Is he a first offender, or is he a recidivist; in other words, is this the first time he enters a prison, or is he one of those persons who are constantly going to prison? Secondly: What length of sentence did he receive. Thirdly: What is the nature of his crime? When it comes to one of the capital crimes then one of the considerations which the prisons are entitled to take into consideration as a factor is whether his action was a calculated deed that had been planned over a period, or whether it was committed under the stress of the moment. In other words, the extenuating circumstances found by the court are also of importance to the prison, particularly with a view to the person’s rehabilitation. In Cohen’s case he was treated like any long-term prisoner. Information was obtained in regard to his social background. Psychological tests were carried out. Educational and spiritual aspects received attention. Therapeutic treatment was applied to this person. My officials tell me that this man arrived at the prison a bewildered, broken person. He is a millionaire. He is a member of the Jewish community.

There are a number of members of the Jewish community in prison, but not too many. He had to endure a great deal. People immediately tried to borrow money from him, and they abused him for all kinds of reasons. He was in a prison for recidivists, i.e. long-term prisoners. Apparently the man had a very hard time of it. However, he accepted his imprisonment and tried to find outside interests. He had something inside him which almost broke him. He then tried to do something for people around him. He organized concerts, for example. I think there are hon. members here who attended a concert which he had organized in one of the prisons. They thought highly of it. In general this man was a model prisoner, in spite of the fact—this is what my officials told me—that many of the small gangs in the prison tried to frame him, as one says in English. There was a hatred of him among them.

The fact that the man was a millionaire, rested very heavily on his shoulders. On 13 August 1973 he addressed a letter to Brig. Dr. J. P. Roux. In it he recounted certain aspects of the events on the evening his wife had died. On 16 August 1973 Cohen applied in writing for permission to hand over a copy of the letter to his attorney and friend, Mr. Galombik. On 10 September 1974 my respected deceased predecessor decided that he could release that letter. Cohen’s attorneys did everything in their power, as good attorneys should do, to bring every possible aspect of the person’s case to the attention of the authorities. Everything that could be done, was done for him. A letter was written to me asking whether this person’s confession could not be taken into consideration for parole purposes.

The department and I considered the matter and decided that the letter to Brig. Roux alone did not justify parole. We felt that that confession—I am calling it a “confession” because I cannot find a better word for it; it was after all a confession— had rehabilitation value. We attached value to it because it meant that the person was unburdening himself emotionally, and clambering out of the pit in which he had found himself. We did not grant that parole application. Neither my department nor I released this document to Mr. Justice Beyers, former judge. At one stage I was requested to make it public, but I refused. When my department approached me, I simply said: “No, this is not done.” On 19 December 1974, i.e. 18 months after the document had been written, I received a letter from Mr. Justice Beyers. He wrote as follows (translation)—

He considered this in the light of what he knew. I do not know what the judge knew, because I did not attend the court case. He continued—

I now want to say that personally I know Mr. Justice Beyers very well. I have no doubt at all as to his integrity. Nor have I any doubt at all that the letter written by Mr. Justice Beyers was an absolutely sincere one. What should I, as Minister, now do with such a letter? The hon. member asked me why this case was such, an exceptional case. This case was an exceptional case because I had received a letter from a former judge, which I had not received in the case of other prisoners.

I received a letter from a former judge, who told me that he had received certain additional information, and that it was his considered opinion that certain events had taken place. If I had done nothing, the hon. member would in due course have got wind of the fact that a letter had been written, and then the fat would have been in the fire because I had done absolutely nothing. I could have ignored it, but what would have happened if I had ignored it? Then Mr. Justice Beyers could have asked me whether I had received his letter, and what I had done about it. He could have asked me whether I had considered it, and to tell him why I had done nothing about it.

I told the department that they should send the letter to the Prisons Board, because this matter concerns them, and because they had a file on this person. I told them that they should see in what way they could evaluate the letter. In the light of their evaluation they were to do precisely what they saw fit in regard to the matter. Let me tell the hon. member that I have nothing to do with parole until the Prisons Board has sent a submission to me via my commissioner in which they inform me that this or that case is a parole case or not. Then I am able to grant or refuse the parole, because it is a matter which has been left to my discretion. I then received a recommendation, because it is a matter which has been left to my discretion. I then received a recommendation from the Pretoria Prison Board. They had considered the psychological reports which they had received regularly over the course of years, as well as the rehabilitation reports, and they then recommended that this person be released on parole. I do not have the report with me here, but hon. members read the report in the newspapers. The board issued a full report, in which they recommended parole. There was one thing the board stated in its report which I found rather disconcerting as Minister when I was considering the matter, which was that they were not in a position to evaluate the public reaction and the standpoint of the public in respect of this case.

It is a well-known fact that the community demands justice from the State in the case of a crime. The public asks for vengeance. The public is entitled to tell the State that it should keep such and such a person out of the community. There I was, then, with a positive report as well as with a recommendation from a very respected judge who had been judge president, and I then had to try to make an evaluation. I then decided that it would be fair to my department and to myself, and that the public were entitled to have this information revealed to them. A moment ago the hon. member told me that the public are even entitled to read my circulars. I then decided that the public were entitled to read about these matters which should have been revealed in a court. There was no need to disclose this information in full, for I had too much pity for this person’s family to disclose this information in full. I felt that the public were entitled to know that a confession had been made—whatever this had cost the detained person to make, for this was something that he should have said in court—but I did not disclose the details of the confession. The newspaper concerned asked me for these. For weeks they tried to get this information out of me.

I now want to tell the hon. member that it is of no avail his interceding for the other newspapers with me. I discussed the matter with, other journalists, and they told me: “It was the luck of the draw.” They know me, and they know that the first person to ask me, gets the news. The newspaper concerned asked me about this matter weeks before the time, for they knew about this letter. When I decided that there were certain facts which I could disclose, I gave my department instructions to the effect that the fact of the confession and the letter from the judge could be disclosed. The judge said that he would not mind if this were done, and the hon. member is aware of that.

In addition I said that in all fairness to the prisoner we should disclose the recommendation of the department and the psychological report, and that we would then await the reaction. I did in fact receive a reaction. There were a few unbalanced letters which were totally opposed to a possible release under parole. The vast majority of letters intimated that, in view of the facts, the person could be released. I received a letter from the newspaper itself, in which it was stated: “When we publish something of this nature, we always receive a reaction from the people who are opposed to it. But in this case we did not receive such a reaction.” I exercised my discretion, and I assume full responsibility for doing so.

The hon. member may try to castigate me in this regard. If the hon. member thinks that I exercise my discretion incorrectly, then we will simply have to differ with one another, and I shall leave the matter at that. My approach to this matter was a bona fide one, because I believed that I had to give proper consideration to and make a proper evaluation of this matter. My personal feeling, on which I based my decision, was that, apart from the positive reaction of the public, I should not at this juncture release this person on parole. In my humble opinion consideration can only be given to releasing him a year before his ordinary parole time. Usually this would be after six years, but I am prepared to look at his documents again after he has been in prison for a full five years.

I now want to conclude, for the other questions which hon. members put to me I can dispose of in a shorter time.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I have nothing to say on the matters the hon. the Minister has just raised. I want to come back to something he said earlier on. Last night he referred to the fact that, if he found it necessary to detain people or to restrict them in any way for the security of the State, he would do so. He said he thought that he had the approval of most people in that connection. I just want him to know that as far as we are concerned, unless there is a declared state of emergency or a state of war in South Africa, we are against the exercising of any of these arbitrary powers by the hon. the Minister. I do not think that his opinion or the opinion of the Special Branch, which has made many mistakes in the past, is sufficient to allow the hon. the Minister to set aside all the protection that people in the Western world are used to enjoying from the might of the State, viz. the habeas corpus, which the hon. the Minister is suggesting he is entitled to abandon.

That brings me immediately to a subject which I have raised twice before in this House. I refer to the question of the detention of certain people under the Terrorism Act from 25 September last year following the pro-Frelimo rally.

There is a court case in progress.

Only about twelve of them are involved in that. There are others who are still in detention who, therefore, do not fall under the sub judice rule. I said that twelve people have been charged, but the figure is actually thirteen. Of the original 40 who were arrested, thirteen have been charged. I shall say no more about those people or about the twelve or so who have already been released. However, to the best of my knowledge there are still some 15 people in detention, plus another ten who have been arrested in the meantime on other charges under the Terrorism Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he thinks his interrogators are going to have extracted all the information they want from these people. It is now 8½ months since some of those people were first detained. Others, I admit, were detained at a later stage. I know that not all of them have been held incommunicado all the time. I also know the Minister has adopted the somewhat unusual procedure of allowing some of these people to go out, after which he has re-arrested them or told them to report back after a certain time. It is a sort of week-end parole he allows. I want to know whether any of these people are now being held under the 180-day law because on the last occasion I asked the hon. the Minister that question, he said “No”. That law, we were told, was specially designed to give protection to witnesses. Some of these people, we understand, have turned State witness.

Who are “we”?

We the public. Reports have appeared in the newspapers that some of these people have turned State witness. I think the hon. the Minister has had long enough now. He himself admitted when I discussed the detentions with him during the special debate on 11 March that it was necessary to handle this matter as expeditiously as possible. Also, we had assurances at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year, both from the hon. the Minister and from the Special Branch, that it was hoped that the matter would soon be dealt with, viz. that the people would either be charged or released. I think the hon. the Minister owes us some explanation, even though I realize that under the Terrorism Act he is empowered to give us no information whatever. As far as the people who are being charged are concerned, I want to know whether it is customary for the Police and the Special Branch to intimidate spectators who are attending that trial, or any trial for that matter. I read in the newspapers that the court was surrounded by armed policemen, that when spectators arrived their names were taken, that the Police were taking video tapes of the proceedings inside the court and that they were circulating among the spectators obviously recording conversations. As far as I am concerned, this is a definite method of intimidation of spectators at a court. To the best of my knowledge we still have public trials in this country where justice can be seen to be done. As far as I am concerned these are not proper proceedings outside and inside a court of law.

Hoping that the hon. the Minister will reply to what I have just said, I want to comment at once on some good news which appears in the annual report of the Department of Justice and which shows us that the hon. the Minister has in fact reduced the number of cases in which he has been using his powers under the Suppression of Communism Act. The number of people that he has prohibited from being within or leaving certain areas has been reduced from 67 in 1973 to 31 in 1974. The number of persons prohibited from attending gatherings has been reduced from 88 to 32. I am glad to say that he has either not renewed or has relaxed or revoked the banning orders in the case of 86 people during 1974 as against 77 people in 1973. I believe this is a good indication that the hon. the Minister is at least examining these cases with some care and has reduced the number of people he is restricting.

I am also glad to say that I see that the number of executions in South Africa dropped in 1974 to 40, which is probably one of the lowest figures for many years. Unlike the hon. member for Aliwal who spoke last night, I am one of those in favour of the repeal of the death sentence in South Africa. I was very glad indeed to get support from one solitary member in this House, although I know I will have many more now, from these benches, viz. the hon. member for East London City who also spoke on this subject last night. When I moved a private member’s motion in this House a few years ago, to my astonishment I did not get the support of a single member of Parliament for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the desirability of repealing the death sentence. This was a most astonishing situation. I am quite sure that with all the members who are here now since the last election, I will have a different response When I reintroduce that private member’s motion at some stage in the future.

I want to say something about prisons but before I do so I would like to join with those who have wished the retiring Commissioner of Prisons, General Steyn, a happy and healthy retirement. I have known the gentleman for a long time. My interest in prisons has been maintained over a number of years and I have always had the most courteous treatment from him. Indeed, I shall miss him, thinking about the voyages I used to make to Robben Island—we used to have some cosy little chats on the boat on the way over—and hope to make when and if the hon. the Minister relaxes his prohibition on my visiting Robben Island, which is something to which I take the greatest exception. I want to tell the hon. the Minister right away that his attitude must be unique in the Western world in that he does not encourage members of Parliament to take an interest in prisons. Heaven knows, this is an unpopular subject anyway. When the hon. the Minister finds a person or persons who are interested in prison affairs, he ought in fact to give them all the encouragement possible to visit prisons. I say this more particularly as in South Africa our prison system is covered by a veil of secrecy as a result of the Prisons Act which prevents the publication of information about prisons unless it can be proved to be completely accurate. This is something which it is very difficult indeed to do as one has to rely on statements made by persons in prison or by ex-prisoners.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, generally speaking, he has done anything about Robben Island. I asked him earlier in this session about the work that was provided for prisoners on Robben Island. There are persons there who are serving terms of life imprisonment. I asked him whether different sorts of work were provided for prisoners there. The hon. the Minister mentioned 12 categories to me, the first two of which were the usual forms of work—collecting seaweed and working in the lime pit. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister now how many prisoners are working in the other categories and which categories of prisoners are doing the other categories of work. I want to know how many of the political prisoners are doing the lighter categories of work. The latest figures which I have in regard to Robben Island—these may or may not be correct; perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell me—show that there are 240 ordinary criminals and about 344 political prisoners still on Robben Island. I want to know the sort of work these people are now doing.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has now given further consideration to two matters which I raised with him earlier this session by way of questions. The first deals with the transfer of South West African prisoners from Robben Island to prisons in South West Africa. I think it would be a very positive gesture in favour of détente and the prison situation vis-à-vis South West Africa if the hon. the Minister would do this. I think there are 46 or 47 South West African prisoners on Robben Island. It is extremely difficult for them to get anybody to visit them and more particularly because of the ridiculous arrangement whereby first-degree relatives only are allowed to visit prisoners. To the best of my knowledge only seven prisoners have been visited … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is strange that the hon. member for Houghton and her fellow party members should always be the people who advocate the cause of those who want to bring about change in South Africa through violence. Perhaps we should tell her again that as long as the National Party is in power, we shall give the highest priority to the safety of South Africa and her people. Furthermore, I want to tell her that she and the other champions of those indulging in violence will enjoy the same safety and protection that this National Party guarantees for the rest of South Africa.

In the time at my disposal I want to confine myself to a local problem which I think is one that also concerns many other hon. members in their constituencies. I am referring to bottle-stores in residential areas. I doubt whether there is anyone in this House who will have any objection to any business undertaking provided it is situated in the proper place where it causes no disturbance to the people living in the immediate vicinity. Probably not one hon. member in this House will object to the presence of a café or a butchery provided that they are there for the convenience of the people living in that residential area. However, I do not think any other business undertaking causes as many problems as a bottle-store does when situated at a place where it should not really be situated. It is disturbing to learn that an amount of R909 million, which constitutes 18% of the total consumer spending, was spent on liquor in South Africa in 1974. It is only second place to the 20,5% spent on red meat. Only in this morning’s Burger I read that Mr. Eric le Roux, chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board, addressed the Hotel Off Sales and Restaurant Owners Association and said, inter alia, that there are 5 736 public distribution points in South Africa. In addition he mentioned that liquor consumption doubled itself in South Africa since 1967. I think this is a grave accusation against South Africa. However, what is being done with the bottle-stores in the area of distribution? They are being brought nearer to the residential areas so that liquor may be more easily available to the people. Mr. Le Roux also asked his hosts yesterday whether they have considered the image they, dealers in a commodity which many experts regard as potentially dangerous, create among the public. He asked them what their attitude towards the consumption and abuse of liquor is. I considered the image of a great many liquor traders, and I think theirs is a poor image because all they want to do is to make money without rendering any service to the public. It will now be said that a procedure had been laid down in terms of which a complaint could be lodged with the Liquor Licensing Board, which will then decide about any further action that may be necessary. You will appreciate the situation when I tell you of my own experience of what was previously a peaceful residential area in which there were a café, a butchery, a green-grocer’s shop, a post office and a milk depot. I want to stress the fact that this residential area was quite peaceful until a licensee obtained the right to establish a bottle-store there. The problems this bottle-store caused, are most unpleasant for the people living in that residential area. Numerous complaints were lodged with the Police, and the Police did more than their duty. Numerous arrests were made on account of complaints about drinking and urinating in public, drunkenness, disturbing of the peace and trespassing. However, all these things were of no avail. Consequently, a complaint was lodged with the Liquor Licensing Board, and the Police watched the bottle store for two weeks and studied the activities there. In spite of the Police being present there numerous people were arrested again on the same charges. The objections were heard by the Liquor Licensing Board, but for some reason I cannot explain the Liquor Licensing Board decided that these activities may continue at this particular bottle store. I was there the week before last and it was shocking to see the concentration of Blacks on a Friday and a Saturday afternoon, Blacks who are not living in those particular residential areas but who come there from somewhere else. It is a source of concern when people try and keep their environment and pavements clean, and which are marred by empty Bantu beer containers strewn all over the place. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister. Even though nothing can be done about the bottle-store which I have brought to his attention, I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to assist by at least prohibiting the sale of Bantu beer in other residential areas which have to suffer under the same unpleasant conditions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take a decision in principle that a liquor licence will never again in future be granted in a residential area. Such a decision will then protect people against this nuisance. I can assure you, Sir, that a bottle-store which is situated in the immediate vicinity of an area that is exclusively intended as a residential area, causes most unpleasant problems.

Sir, during the course of this debate a considerable number of questions were put to me. I do not want to refer to the matter of the Christian Institute again, but hon. members who want replies to their questions, would do well to refer to page 14 of Die Transvaler of Wednesday, 4 June, where they will more or less find an answer to their questions.

Sir, this afternoon I would like to discuss the Jimmy Kruger Prison. This proposed prison will be situated in the Durban District, next to the area of the City Council of Westville. Last year I asked the hon. Minister how much this prison was going to cost, and he said that the estimated cost would be approximately R29 million. We notice that provision is being made for R50 million in this year’s Estimates, but that the estimated cost of the erection of this prison is approximately R52 million. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason for this increase is. Has the design been changed? Is this prison now going to become the largest prison in the country, and is it going to accommodate more than 5 000 prisoners, or is the Jimmy Kruger Prison going to be even larger because it will be a fine monument to him? I only hope it will not experience the same problems as did the Hertzog Tower.

Sir, I believe it is important to sketch the history of this gaol to hon. members. We heard last year in the Minister’s speech that he and his department had been looking for a terrain for this gaol since 1916. The department then decided upon this terrain next to Westville for this prison. The citizens and the City Council of Westville then adopted a standpoint against this matter. They made various attempts in this regard. What is more, they said they were prepared to pay the expenses involved in the design of this gaol on this terrain and to buy this terrain which the Government at present possesses, at the present market value. I personally asked the hon. Minister whether I could come and see him on this matter on 16 September last year. He agreed to this very courteously but the interview only lasted about five or ten minutes and as a result of the dissatisfactory interview which I had with the hon. Minister, I had to raise this matter last year in the debate on this Vote. The hon. Minister refused to make any changes, as I in fact also expected after my interview with him. When we realized how expensive this gaol would be, and what it would entail, we felt that this was a provincial matter as well; that this gaol which was going to cost so much money would be of importance for the whole province of Natal, and I then wrote to the leader of the United Party in Natal, to the leader of the National Party in Natal and to the Administrator of Natal to inquire whether they had ever been consulted as to where that gaol will be situated. I heard nothing more in that regard.

“Prison”.

Why do you not try to speak English sometimes?

Sir, in September last year the City Council of Westville repeated its decision that it will refuse to render any services to this gaol. It is generally known as the Jimmy Kruger Prison, and I now want to ask the Minister what he is going to do. Is he going to have legislation enacted by this Parliament to force the City Council of Westville to supply services? Because, according to Westville’s agreement with the City Council of Durban that gaol cannot be provided with any water. I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to ask the Natal Provincial Administration to try and do his work for him. We want to know what he is going to do, because I can assure him that the women of Westville do not only have pistol clubs under the guidance of the Police. They are so upset about this matter that they will go and stand in front of the bulldozer on this terrain. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to tell this House that the decision to erect this gaol there against the wishes of the people of Westville, is in complete conflict with the principles of democracy. I want to remind hon. members on the opposite side that if they think their Prime Minister has such a great deal of sympathy among the people who are not Nationalists at present, he should please not come to Westville, and especially not his colleague, the Minister of Prisons, because they are not welcome there. Sir, I believe this House should refuse to approve the R50 million which appears in the Estimates, because it will amount to R52 million and even more before that prison will be completed.

I should just like to deal with the matters which were raised by the hon. members who spoke yesterday evening. The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about the Law Commission. I just want to tell him that I am in full agreement with him that the Law Commission is here to stay. It has done tremendously good work in the year or so it has been in existence. At the moment, I think there are five full-time members, and it is our intention to enlarge the full-time membership to some extent, so that this body may become a more effective one, a body which will really mean something to our administration of justice, as it does indeed at the moment already. I should also like to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Vereeniging most sincerely for having referred to the Law Commission. I also want to make use of the opportunity to thank the members of the Law Commission very sincerely for the outstanding work it has done in the past year.

The other matter is the codification of our law. This is a very interesting subject. The hon. member for Vereeniging also touched upon it. It is possible, of course, to have different kinds of codification. It is possible to have a simple consolidation of Acts, which, to some extent, is also codification, making it easier to find, read and understand an Act. It is also possible, of course, to have codification of the law such as that which has been done in Europe. In this regard the task awaiting us is an enormous one. I am afraid I shall have to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that this is a matter which will still have to be argued out to a large extent. We shall most probably have to institute further inquiries into the practical possibilities in this regard, and we shall also have to see whether our law has reached a stage at which codification is necessary. Our legal system as well as our common law is still developing with decisions from our courts, and such things, and it takes a very long time before one reaches the stage where one decides to codify the law. I understand from the people of Europe that as far as codification is concerned, especially in Germany, the desired stage has not yet been reached here. I think they have had codification for a 100 years, but now they are starting to interpret the codification again, and there is once again a stare decisis with reference to court cases about the interpretation of certain parts of the codification. So one can continue. However, it is a very good idea and something to which I shall give thought, although we shall still have to discuss this a great deal.

I want to thank the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Brakpan sincerely for very positive contritions. An outsider remarked to me that the quality of debate by the Justice group in this House was exceptionally high. He was tremendously impressed by the standard. He was actually referring to the Government Party, of which he is a member. I did not say this to him, but I am sure that he could also have mentioned the United Party’s contributions if that had been raised. However, it was not relevant in our discussion. We were discussing our own party affairs. I can say, however, that the debate on this Vote was, in general, of a high quality, with a few exceptions, such as the hon. member for Pinetown’s contribution.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp spoke about escapes. He quoted very interesting statistics. He said that most escapes took place outside the prison, where the people were working. Once they were back inside the prison, there was a very sound security position. He mentioned that there should be an interdepartmental committee for liaison between the warder and the people living in the immediate vicinity. It is a very interesting idea. I shall have an inquiry made into such a possibility. Often one has farmers living in the vicinity of prisons in which long-term prisoners are detained. The prisoners often work both on the farms and on a prison farm. Some prisoners escape and flee into the mountains, because, in general, the areas are mountainous. The interdepartmental committee will be in a position to control the situation from prison to prison. For example, a system of communications can be established with farmers in the immediate vicinity. In the event of a dangerous prisoner absconding, the adjacent farms can be notified of the escape at once. The committee can help, for example, with the training of dogs and they can show people how to use dogs, how to guard a farm or a house; they can also equip or help guards around the house, for example. They can do a great deal to make people living near prisons feel more secure.

The hon. member for Jeppe is not here. He apologized very politely to me for his inability to be present today. He is out of town. Consequently I must address him in his absence. He made a very interesting speech, to my mind, on legal aid. As far as legal aid is concerned, we have now increased the amount to almost R1 million. That is the amount we are going to spend on legal aid. I can tell this House in general that the system is working exceptionally well. We are fortunate in having very good officials who understand the system and who can inform the attorneys as to how the system works and who qualifies for legal aid. There is definitely a very big improvement and great activity as far as legal aid is concerned. Legal aid is not limited to civil cases only; it is also available in criminal cases. There are many criminal cases in which assistance is given by means of legal aid. There are also cases with a political background in respect of which people apply for legal aid and are assisted. It has been submitted to me …

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. the Minister is on the question of legal aid, I wonder if he could tell us whether any consideration has been given to allowing prisoners in prison charged under the prison regulations to get legal aid for their defence?

As far as I know, there are no prisoners at the moment who have applied for legal aid. Legal aid is, of course, available to them, but it depends on whether they qualify. People who have one or more previous convictions usually do not qualify for legal aid. But cases which are brought to our attention will be dealt with on merit. I can give the hon. member that assurance.

They do not know what their rights are.

I can tell hon. members that the Director of Legal Aid …

I am sorry, but it seems to me that I did not put my question very clearly. When prisoners are charged under the prison regulations, is legal aid available to them when a charge is laid against them? If not, why not?

Oh, the hon. member is referring to a charge against a prisoner. In terms of the prison regulations, they do not get legal aid for that.

They ought to have such a right.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a further question? [Interjections.]

Order!

Are prisoners in those circumstances allowed legal representations?

Oh, yes, most definitely.

But they cannot afford it.

The board has one representative in each magisterial district in the Republic and legal aid is given to people who cannot afford to get aid in criminal cases or civil cases. However, we receive a very large number of applications. When we started four years ago, we started with R50 000 per annum, and at the moment, the amount which is appropriated for free legal aid virtually amounts to R1 million. All people who obtain legal aid, go to practising attorneys. These people get legal aid from the normal legal practitioners. Prof. Johnson compared our legal aid system with that of the U.S.A. in a report. When I was in the U.S.A., I had the opportunity of making a study of their legal aid system. I must say that there are many jurists and officials in the U.S.A. who are not satisfied with the way in which the legal aid system works in the U.S.A. Under their system, certain attorneys are appointed to give legal aid. Usually they are fresh from the universities and they receive a salary from the State. In the evenings, they visit the Negro areas to look for clients. They bold meetings and they incite people, as it were, particularly to bring actions against the State. Then, of course, they are used as the attorneys against the State. Many people in the U.S.A. told me that they were not at all satisfied with the system there. I can say without any doubt that, as far as I am concerned, our system is a better one.

†Then we have Dr. Dunbar, the executive director of the Peale Foundation in New York, who visited South Africa in August 1971 under the auspices of the United States-South Africa Leader Exchange Programme. He commented as follows on our legal aid system—

*That is what foreigners say about our system, I can just tell the hon. member for Jeppe that we are very satisfied with the system. I found the hon. member’s ideas very interesting, and I shall give attention to those things to which attention should be given.

The hon. member for Aliwal, in my opinion, made a very positive speech about capital punishment. Actually he stated the standpoint of this side of the House on capital punishment. I need not tell hon. members that it is a standpoint which differs completely from the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton, which she has just stated for us. It is interesting to me that the official standpoint of the United Party throughout has always been that they do not advocate the abolition of capital punishment.

That is still the case.

If it is still the case I want to say that the hon. member for East London City does not agree with his party.

I gave my personal opinion.

But is it not so that when you speak outside this House, you should interpret the official standpoint of your party? What will your standpoint be if you are asked outside Parliament what your standpoint is as a member for the United Party? [Interjections.]

We are a democratic party.

Yes, a democratic party without a policy. The hon. member for Griqualand East said this was still the party’s policy. Does the hon. member for East London City agree with the policy of his party?

Yes.

In other words, what you said last night is wrong? I see the hon. member nods in agreement. I am glad to see that there are at least a few disciplined United Party members. When they are challenged, they are very quick to return to the fold. With that I have dealt with the hon. member for East London City as well.

It is only Japie you still have to deal with.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp spoke about escapes. We have already discussed that.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about Klerksdorp’s prison. I want to tell the hon. member that I have great appreciation for his saying such kind words about my honoured and, in my humble opinion, great predecessor, with reference to his work in establishing the prison at Klerksdorp. My predecessor handed his office over to me in a very humble way. I said to him, “Well, you are leaving the office now. Is there anything I can do for you?” He made two requests only. The one request was so humble that I could not suppress a smile. He told me that he had been Minister of Justice, but that he would be terribly grateful if I were to make him a justice of the peace. I told him that he was automatically a justice of the peace. He replied that he wanted to regard it as a favour to be a justice of the peace in his old age. Then I asked him what the second thing was that he wanted. He said, “I do not want to have a prison named after me; that is not necessary, but I worked hard to establish that prison there. I shall be extremely grateful if you will consider having a small silver or bronze plaque put up at the prison to indicate that I opened that prison on such and such a day.” I am giving effect to that second request of my honoured predecessor. I want to thank the hon. member for Stilfontein for referring to him in this House. I underline the tribute which he paid to the late Minister P. C. Pelser. I was also pleased that he spoke of Col. Loubser. He is now dead. He was a man who worked hard for the department. The hon. member for Smithfield spoke about magistrates’ offices, but I have already elaborated on that subject.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Houghton, who picked another quarrel with me last night, as she has done several times before. The Le Grange Commission made a recommendation about Nusas in respect of that organization’s funds. The commission said that it believed that the funds were being abused. The report reads as follows—

This matter was referred to the Attorney-General. The hon. member for Houghton has been walking around for days with her chin in the air because I said in reply to a question of hers that the Attorney-General had refused to prosecute. The facts are as follows: The Attorney-General went into this matter. From an investigation of the books, it appeared that it was necessary to obtain a decision from me as to whether the inquiry should be taken further or not. The submission reads (translation)—

Following this, it would consequently have been necessary to send a detective, a bookkeeper and someone from the Attorney-General’s staff to Europe and America to find out whether those persons gave permission for Nusas to use the funds in a certain way. I can tell hon. members now that when the matter came before me for a decision on this point, I was of the opinion, because of my own experience as chairman of the commission and from the documents I saw, that the International University Exchange Fund and the World University Service would not furnish us with any information and that they would not want to talk to us about matters concerning Nusas. It would have been extremely difficult for my people to obtain any further information in America. I had to consider sending three of my officials on a very long journey overseas in an attempt to acquire the evidence which we would need for a successful court case or whether I should let this matter go. I decided, after I had seen what it would cost us, that it would be irresponsible of me to spend so much money on having three officials travel to Switzerland and then to America to investigate the matter there. For that reason I then gave instructions that those people were not to proceed abroad. Consequently we did not obtain the evidence and for that reason the Attorney-General then decided not to prosecute.

It is a pity you did not do it.

No, it is not a pity. It is a pity that the hon. member did not ask me what the true facts were before she started crowing about it. That is all.

*The hon. member again raised the matter of the people who are being detained, and I want to tell the hon. member that …

I am sorry, it is your colleague.

It is not my colleague, but you.

*The hon. member questioned me about the detention of these people. She says there are still 15 people who are being detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. The hon. member knows that the Terrorism Act provides that the person who is being detained in terms of this Act may be charged at any time in terms of section 3 of the Act. That is true, is it not?

Yes.

For that reason I am not prepared to furnish any further information in this regard at this stage.

Do you not think that it is time you go on with it?

I am not thinking and I am not prepared to discuss that matter at all.

*The hon. member asked me, “Whether it is customary to intimidate people outside the court?” She was referring to an incident when the 13 Saso members entered the court. I think the hon. member saw in the Press how they behaved themselves. They came into court and sang songs with their fists in the air to show the people that they were not afraid and that they wanted to incite a revolution. That is why it was essential for us, for the sake of the court, to stop people from doing the same thing outside as had happened inside. That is why it was necessary for order to be maintained. That is all. The hon. member may try as many different tacks as she likes. I want to give the hon. member the guarantee that she will find that the S.A. Police only do their duty.

Only?

They only do their duty.

I have more to say about that.

Do you accept it, or do you not accept it?

Is the hon. member making allegations to the contrary? [Interjections.]

The hon. member tells me, “You do not encourage members of Parliament to visit prisons”. I now tell the hon. member that she knows that that is not correct.

Not at all.

I tell the hon. member that she knows it is not correct. I personally have told the hon. member so many times that she can visit a prison just when she pleases.

Yes, but I cannot talk to the prisoners.

No, wait a moment. Did I tell the hon. member that? The hon. member knows that I told her that she could visit any prison just when she pleased.

On conditions.

No conditions at all.

*I told the hon. member that the prisons were open to her. Now the hon. member wants to “condition” me.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon. member imposed conditions on me by saying that she wanted to talk specifically to Nelson Mandela and those people.

Not the last time.

The hon. member did ask that. I told the hon. member that she could visit the prison as a prison. Then the hon. member said to me, “What do I want to go and look at the shell for. I have been there often.”

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The last time I asked the hon. the Minister—which was quite recently—I simply said that I want to go to visit Robben Island and talk to the prisoners. I mentioned no prisoner specifically.

I told the hon. member very clearly—and I repeat it across the floor of this House—that she could visit Robben Island, and that she could look at the prisoners, but that she might not talk to the prisoners.

What is the good of that?

I can tell the hon. member what is good about that. The hon. member can look at the prisoners as well as the food which they get and the rooms in which they live. The hon. member stood up in this House last time and admitted to me —the hon. member must listen well, because I do not want to speak about this again—that she had received a number of letters from prisoners, also from prisoners on Robben Island.

I never said that. I said from prisoners everywhere in South Africa.

I still say you do get letters from Robben Island.

As a matter of fact, I have letters from Robben Island.

That is quite correct.

I will have to look through a large file of letters to find these letters.

When the hon. member for Houghton says: “I have to look through a file,” hon. members must know what to expect. I told the hon. member last time that it was against the law for persons to smuggle letters out in this way to Members of Parliament and for the latter to keep such letters and not return them to the authorities …

[Inaudible.]

Just keep quiet a moment. I told the hon. member at that time that it was an offence to receive letters without handing them over to the authorities, because in that case the hon. member would be an accessory to an offence committed by a prisoner. The prisoner is encouraged to commit another illegal act of the same kind.

I am not your stool pigeon.

Are you not my stooge?

I said “stool pigeon”.

Are you not my stool pigeon?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop making so many interjections.

The hon. member for Houghton ought to get no reply.

Now the hon. member is sitting with a number of these letters. Last time I asked her to let me have these letters, so that I could see what the prisoners’ complaints were. I should go into the complaints to see whether I could find a solution to them. However, the hon. member answered, “I will never give you a letter of one of those people”. The hon. member has the cheek to ask me once again to visit Robben Island and to talk to the prisoners.

Does the hon. the Minister not know that I sent a long report to the Department of Prisons listing the complaints I had received as well as enumerating the prisons from which I had received the complaints. I sent them to the Commissioner of Prisons and I have his reply.

As a final point, the hon. member asked me whether I would send the South West African prisoners on Robben Island back to Windhoek or to any other prison in South West. I can assure the hon. member that we are considering the matter. But I want to put one thing very clearly to her. I have personally seen Herman Toivo on Robben Island, that person whom the hon. member wanted to visit last time, and I can say that Herman Toivo is no more a South West African than I am. Herman Toivo is from the Cape, and he started in the Cape Communist Party. He founded Swapo here. Even if I were to take all these South West Africans to South West, I shall not send Herman Toivo back, since he is one of the biggest communists that I have ever seen.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, my time has almost expired.

May I please ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes.

I thank the hon. the Minister. I did ask him earlier this year whether he was going to give further consideration to closing Robben Island altogether as a prison, and I would like to know whether he has an answer.

Sir, consideration is being given to closing Robben Island, for certain reasons, the most important of which is the water position. I told that to the representatives of the International Red Cross when they visited me after they had paid a visit to the island. Before they went there, I told them that we would close the prison there in due course and that we would find another place for the prisoners. Sir, do you know what they told me upon their return from the island? They said that they were not so sure that those people would like the prison to be closed.

It is the view.

I do not know whether it is the view; it may even be the food. The fact remains that if I get any resistance to the removal of the prison, it is going to be from the prisoners there.

*Sir, there is one last person to whom I suppose I must reply. He addressed me in such a way that I ought not reply to him. I am not angry with him, because I can endure it just as any other person can endure it, but the way in which he addresses people is of such a nature that he does not deserve an answer. He can call that prison what he likes in private; it will not hurt me. I shall not be chased around by an impertinent whipper-snapper.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “impertinent whipper-snapper”.

I withdraw them. Sir, I want to say this to my young friend. I took the trouble after he had spoken to me—although one receives no recognition from his type—to visit Westville myself. I am glad to hear that the Westville people will chase me away. They may rest assured that I shall not put my foot there again. I do not go where I am unwelcome. I thought to myself that he would probably raise the question here again, and I told myself. “Go and have a look at the place yourself for the sake of decency. If the man’s standpoint is justified, then you have seen the place for yourself and then you can discuss the matter with him or explain to him what the position is”. Sir, all I want to say is that I went to look at the place and that I am satisfied that the prison should be erected there.

Can I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I shall reply to no questions from that gentleman. I just want to tell the hon. member one thing today: He said in the previous debate on this Vote that my prison staff would not fit in with his Westville people.

That is not true and you know that as well as I do.

Order!

I am glad that he says that it is not true. He accepts now that he cannot hold anything against the prison staff. I want to tell him that I have more graduates in the prison service than there are in that town. If my prison people go to live there, then the Westville people can be very grateful that they are getting this type of person there.

That is a red herring and you know it.

It is not a red herring. It is in writing and I shall show it to the hon. member.

It is a report from Die Nataller.

Sir, in conclusion I should just like to say thank you very much to all the hon. members who took part in the debate, for their very positive contributions. I sincerely want to thank my justice group in Parliament, under the competent guidance of the hon. member for Waterkloof and the secretary and vice-chairman of the group, for the assistance which they gave me. They have really been a source of strength to me in this debate, and I appreciate it very much. I also want to thank the Department of Prisons, from the bottom of my heart, for the good work which they do for us in difficult circumstances. I think that the Committee as a whole will support me in this. I should also like to say thank you very much to the Department of Justice as a whole for all the work which they have done during the past year. It is a large and a difficult department. I might just mention that I have received many reports from judges, who visited prisons during the recess and sent reports to me. The reports are all positive, and I express my appreciation to the judges for the extra trouble which they took, particularly when on circuit. We have a large department with magistrates, prosecutors, attorneys-general, clerks of the court and master’s offices, deeds offices, law advisers, the National Liquor Board and its chairman, and I want to express my hearty thanks to one and all of them for the very hard work which they have done.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 42.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, this is a Vote which, I think, every year we feel we do not have enough time to discuss. When one looks at the Police report for this year, or at the report for any other year, one sees what a huge area of activity the S.A. Police in fact cover. At this time perhaps the most important of all the aspects of their activities which we would like to deal with is the question of the combating of crime. There is no doubt whatsoever that crime in the urban areas has reached proportions which we had not expected it to reach in the past, having regard to all those things which were done and planned in respect of crime. Now the Police, I think one must appreciate, are obviously our first line of defence, and law and order is the basis and foundation of our democratic system. Security is the foundation of our whole democracy. It is in the hands of the Police Force that the responsibility for maintaining this lies, and I think it might be as well for some people to remember this and to remember also that the rule of law operates only in a climate where you have in fact the rule of order and your security is unimpugned.

One of the obvious complaints is that there are not enough people on foot patrol; there are not enough “bobbies” on the beat. I think there is no doubt whatever that he mere presence of a policeman on the beat in the street acts as a deterrent.

You are taking Von Keyserlingk’s speech away from him.

I will come to that. It is the best deterrent that there is. One knows that there is a shortage of policemen, but what I am concerned about is whether the allocation of priorities in respect of the duties of the Police is such that sufficient attention is given to the presence of policemen. I am not talking about the presence of policemen at night only. In fact, on occasions I think it is more important that the policeman should be on beat in the daytime than at night, especially in the built-up areas, for the obvious reason that people are around in the streets and in public places in the daytime, whereas they are usually at home at night.

I want to deal with some of the figures that were given in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Umlazi. Sir, seeing that the hon. the Minister has mentioned the hon. gentleman’s name, I should like to mention that he is the secretary of the Police group of this party, and that he unfortunately cannot be here because he is confined to bed on doctor’s order with a high temperature. He asked some questions as to how many policemen were on beat throughout the Republic between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., which I think is two shifts, on three days, 8, 11 and 12 April. That was a Tuesday, a Friday and a Saturday. I shall take the Friday because I think Friday is a day on which more policemen are probably needed to show themselves in the streets and public places than on the other two days. The figures show that out of the establishment in Pretoria there were on beat, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., three White policemen, 12 Bantu policemen, one Indian and four Coloureds. In the case of Durban, during that time there were 13 Whites, 32 Bantu, six Indians and two Coloureds. In Cape Town there were 22 Whites, no Bantu, no Indians and one Coloured policeman on patrol. The figures in Johannesburg, which were higher, were 63 White patrolmen, 167 Bantu, three Indians and two Coloureds. I think those figures are somewhat startling because they indicate, in relation to the policemen who are surely available, that a very small number indeed are detailed for beat duty. As I have said, the presence of a policeman in the streets is of considerable importance, and the complaints are myriad in this city in which Parliament is situated of the kind of situations that occur when people are en route to the station from work. They are confronted by a few ruffians who want 20 cents or whatever the case may be. The people feel obliged to give them the money because otherwise they might well be roughed up. They see no help anywhere around in the form of a policeman. I think it would instil tremendous confidence if much more attention were given to this. If the number of policemen, disclosed by the figures I have quoted, were on duty in the major centres, it is not surprising that the crime rate in public places and on the streets is as high as it is. Obviously one has to augment the police in this regard. Foot patrols have been asked for in urban areas such as Green Point, Sea Point and Constantia, but they have not been introduced because the answer has been, as I understand it, that there is a shortage of staff. Such, patrolmen were frequently requested but were not available. Police Reservists have, however, been established in some areas, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to the nature of the encouragement his department is going to give to such persons. I hope he will also indicate to us that sufficient is not being done and that he will tell us what, in fact, he proposes to do. We note that the Coloureds in their townships have made their own efforts to do their own thing there. I feel that tremendous help and encouragement should be given.

Let me now come to the shortage of policemen itself. There is no doubt that the life of a policeman is one which is most difficult, although it is one which is the most rewarding to a dedicated man, that there can be. When one examines the starting salaries of policemen, however, it is not surprising that one finds that the authorized as against the actual staff position, as far as White people are concerned, shows a shortfall. We should like to say now to a new Minister what we have already said before. One hopes that a new broom will sweep clean in this regard. We believe that it is time that the Police were divorced from the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission lays down salary scales relating one type of civil servant to another. One cannot possibly compare the duties of a policeman with those of anyone else in the Public Service. There is no possibility whatsoever of doing so. Quite apart from the fact that policemen get no overtime, they are on duty 24 hours a day. If they have made an arrest or two on night duty, they then have to appear in court in their own time. This is apart from the other difficulties they are subjected to, for example, border duty. There are the dangers they are subjected to, etc. The Police Force cannot possibly be compared with any other section of the Civil Service. Until such time as we can provide salaries commensurate with their duties we are not going to be able to maintain the manpower required in our Police Force. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate what his views are on this subject. I hope he will indicate that he intends to have the situation ameliorated.

In the manning of crime patrols, I wonder whether attention should not be given to the question of arming non-White people who go about their duties in the urban areas. The situation in the Bantu townships is a frightening one for anybody. I must say that those of us who practise in the courts are aware of the situation where people are murdered in townships and nothing is done about it. They do not report the matter until the next day because they are scared to move around the streets, even to go to the nearest police station. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North, seen in its entirety, was in fact a compliment to the hon. the Minister of Police, the retiring Commissioner of Police, and the Police Force as a whole. The hon. member did not really express any criticism, and he made remarks to which I am not going to reply. One of the hon. members on this side of the House will also discuss the policemen on patrol duty. As far as the sentiments of the hon. member on the separation of the Police from the Public Service Commission are concerned. I should like to say that it is an idea which will first have to be tested in order to be proved correct, for not only do we have a staff shortage in the South African Police; there is also a staff shortage in numerous other Government Departments. If we have to blame the shortage of staff on the association between the Public Service Commission and the Department of Police, surely we can do this in regard to all Government Departments. It would mean that we would have to eliminate the Public Service Commission. I shall leave this matter at that; I shall not go any further into the arguments of the hon. member for Durban North, for as I said, his speech as a whole was in fact a compliment to the Police Force.

I should like to refer to the annual report of the South African Police. Before I do that, I should like to say that I have heard that this will be the last session of Parliament which the Commissioner of Police will attend because he is going to retire at some time or other. From this side of the House we want to assure him, in the first place, that we enjoyed working with him. I was never turned away from the office of Gen. Crous and I can say that I at all times received only friendliness, obligingness and co-operation from him. Since he is retiring now, I think he can retire with the greatest satisfaction and look back on a life which was full of service and probably of adventure too. We trust that he will enjoy many long years of peaceful retirement.

The annual report of the Commissioner of Police for the year which ending 30 June 1974, commences, appropriately, with a roll of honour, and that roll of honour commences with a list of the names of policemen, White and non-White, who gave their lives in the service of South Africa. In the case of Whites, six of the eleven members of the Force who are mentioned, lost their lives on the border. In the case of the non-Whites, only one out of 16 lost his life on the border. The others were killed while on duty in South Africa. I think that the work of a policeman, whether it is on the border or locally, is dangerous work and that a part of his work constitutes the possibility that he may lose his life. Therefore I should like to say that our hearts go out to the families of those who lost their lives. I think we should bow our heads in silence for a moment as a tribute to those who died. I should also like to refer for just a moment to the persons who received honourable mention. In this regard I should like to say that it is well and proper that we should make awards to members of the Force who distinguish themselves in some exceptional way. The first person who is mentioned in the report in this regard is Lt. Slabber. I would urge hon. members of the House to read the story of the heroic deed of Lt. Slabber as it is presented in the report. The story reads like a novel. I should like to record here that it was my privilege to meet Lt. Slabber shortly after these events had taken place. It was a privilege for me to shake his hand. I remember Lt. Slabber, but not because I was told when we met that he had done a heroic deed; nobody told me that. I only heard about it after I left his observation post on the border. I remember that young man with whom I was only able to speak for a few minutes, for his modesty and charm, but also for his quiet strength. I think he is someone of whom the Police Force may be very proud. He is, indeed, also an example of all the other men to whom tribute is paid through the awards they are granted.

There is something else in the report which I should also like to discuss. It is a very delicate matter I am referring to and it has a bearing on what the hon. member for Durban North said about the shortage of members in the Force. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph (62) under the heading “Recruitment”, where it is indicated that of the 1 733 White male applicants who were approved during the report year, only 83 were English speaking. I am not making politics now; our population ratio in South Africa is: Afraikaans speaking, 57,05% and English speaking, 37,28%. In the South African Police 13,5% of the members are English speaking and 60,5% are Afrikaans speaking. I think the Police Force is a part of the public service to which both population groups should at least make their contribution. I should like to request the members of the Opposition parties and the newspapers which often have a great deal to say about the Police and the combating of crime, will say something positive in this regard so that the language group to which they belong will also make its contribution to the Police Force, for I believe that he who serves the country and who defends the country, will eventually inherit the country. I shall leave it at that.

I should like to refer to another matter very briefly. I hope I shall succeed in disposing of it in the short time I have left. I am really mentioning this matter because of what the hon. member for Sea Point, who unfortunately is not here, said. I believe, however, that the brain and the strength of that party, the hon. member for Houghton, will speak in this debate…

What did you say?

I am paying you a compliment. I am saying that you are the brain and power of your party. Indeed, you should have been the leader of that party. I hope you will be able to reply to the point I am going to make as far as Sea Point is concerned.

I shall do my best.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to crime in Sea Point in a little newspaper published by the Progressive Party called Sea Point, of February 1975. He asked that there should be more policemen on patrol duty and that the Police should combat all crime. He also asked—just let me see what his words were—for “more anti-social behaviour” from the police.

No, you must have got that wrong.

In any case, that is what he complained about. Sea Point is a sleeping place for non-Whites who are in Cape Town illegally. In the mornings there are 31 non-White buses from Sea Point to Cape Town between 6 o’clock and 11.30, apart from the non-Whites who are transported in mixed buses and who commute to Cape Town by other means of transport. The only conclusion one can arrive at from this, in view of the fact that people who make use of means of transport in the morning, commute from the places where they sleep to the places where they work, is that they sleep in Sea Point although they are not allowed to sleep there. A further conclusion one may arrive at, is that the residents of Sea Point allow them to sleep there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Waterkloof in his expressions of gratitude and good wishes to Gen. Crous, who as we heard, will perhaps retire during the course of the present year. South Africa can be proud of a man like Gen. Crous for what he meant to South Africa, and for the milestones and monuments he erected for South Africa. I believe he will be remembered for a very long time, especially with regard to his work in the South African Police.

I should like to begin my short speech as well by referring to the report of the Commissioner of Police. It is really a very illuminating and splendid report. I should like to congratulate Gen. Crous, as well as those who assisted him in compiling it. When we look at the establishment of the South African Police, we find that there were about 16 802 White police staff, as against 15 713 non-White policemen. I am now referring to uniformed policemen. When one compares this number of policemen with the population of the Republic which is nearly 25 million, one realizes that these 32 000 policemen are performing a miraculous task in maintaining law and order in our country. For every 1 000 persons in South Africa there are approximately 1,39 policemen. That is all the more reason for congratulating them on the work they are doing in South Africa. One asks oneself to what the success of the South African Police may be attributed as far as the combating of crime and the safeguarding of our internal peace and security are concerned. Firstly, one can think of the dedication they have for their task and the discipline which exists among them. I also think, however, that we should pay attention to the scientific and expert manner in which they do their work.

I should like to dwell this afternoon on two divisions of the Police in particular, of which very few people are aware and which I think it is very important that people should know about, namely the South African Criminal Bureau, in the first place, and the Scientific Forensic Laboratory in the second. If people could only realize the work which these two divisions of the South African Police are doing, they would take off their hats in gratitude for these two tasks.

This year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the South African Criminal Bureau. It was officially established on 1 April 1925. During this half century this bureau has meant to South. Africa what very few other departments could have meant to South Africa. I believe if people know what the work of this department is, they will have a better realization of what the task of the Police is in the combating of crime. The establishment of the South African Criminal Bureau actually started with a certain Col. Clarke in 1898 in Natal. He realized that there should be a detective division of some kind of the Police and he started to propagate it. The authorities accepted his suggestion and a start was made with the detective division. Col. Clarke, however, also had problems in identifying criminals who had previous sentences and he began to make a study of the fingerprint system which Scotland Yard had begun to evolve in England. He then recommended to the authorities that the fingerprint system should be applied here in South Africa. At first they did not want to know anything about it, and he then started to introduce the fingerprint system we have at present, at his own cost. He started it at his own cost and only in 1901 the authorities started to accept it. The other provinces followed systematically and offices were established in all the other provinces. The Police then felt that they should house the fingerprint division in one central place. They began to take the initial steps, and so we find that serious attempts were made since 1920 to establish the fingerprint division in one central office. There were problems with regard to office space, etc., but all problems were eventually overcome and on 1 April 1925 the South African Criminal Bureau was officially established and housed in Pretoria. Time unfortunately does not allow me to tell what the duties and functions of the Bureau include. I am thinking only of the recording and preservation of accurate details aiming at identification, the furnishing of particulars in regard to previous crimes, sentencing, the scientific investigation of crime, etc. The Criminal Bureau is subdivided into a few divisions and I should like to mention those very quickly to hon. members. Apart from the administrative division which has to be there, there is, in the second place, the so-called White and non-White tracing room. That is where the members who are associated with that have to do with trained fingerprint experts. They are responsible for the tracing of previous sentences of persons. Out of that there again follow the various branches to take fingerprints at scenes of crime in order to have a countrywide network of fingerprints. When we visited them two years ago, they showed us what they do to trace the fingerprints. It is amazing how quickly they do it. One person there took out a request he had received a short while ago, within a few seconds he opened the drawer and was able to show us all the previous sentences. Another section of the Criminal Bureau is the ballistics division. That is where microscopic comparisons of marks are made. I immediately think of rifles and any firearms which eject cartridges. It is their task to identify the bullets as coming from the particular firearm. We also have the handwriting section where experts are trained to investigate and make comparisons of handwriting, typewritten words, other documents and also to do etching work in order to trace original etchings on metal. There is a photographic section which is responsible for the drawing up of plans and the taking of photographs, especially at the scene or crime. There also is the police newspaper which is circulated to all offices and which keeps the police informed of the activities there. There are so many divisions of this extremely important Bureau, that I am unable to mention all of them. I should just like to say a few words in connection with the scientific forensic laboratory which started in 1970 with the analysis of hair. In 1972 the laboratory was officially established as a subdivision of the Policé. Originally it was a division of the Criminal Bureau. I should like to mention the name of the person who is in control there. He is Brig, Neethling, or Dr. Neethling, as many of us know him. The work this man does there and already did in that forensic laboratory, is amazing. He showed us a number of these projects. I think of serology. It has to do with the analysis of body fluids such as blood, seminal fluid, saliva, sweat, etc. Then there is the question of drug identification, hair identification and toxicologic investigation, which has to do with toxic substances. Then there are the general investigations. We saw there how they can establish immediately from what car a certain type of paint comes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but what has happened now is exactly what happened at the start of the debate. I wanted to rise before the hon. member for Durban North could do so, in order to make an announcement, and then he beat me to it. Two hon. members have now already referred to Gen. Crous and I think it is only fair that I should inform hon. members on the other side as well of what the position is.

Gen. Theodoras Johannes Crous, SOO, joined the South African Police in 1933. He has already received the following medals: The Africa Service Medal, the Africa Star for Merit, the Police Star for Loyal Service, the Police Star for Distinguished Service and the Medal for the Combating of Terrorism. On 1 July 1971 he attained the rank of lieutenant-general, and on 1 December 1973 he reached the top of the ladder in the South African Police with his appointment of Commissioner. In 1942 he married Rina Kruger and two boys and a girl were born of the marriage. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to Gen. Crous as Commissioner of the South African Police for the past two years, especially for the zeal which he displayed and the hard work he did to the interests of the South. African Police and to the interests of the security of South Africa. During my term of office, first as Deputy Minister and subsequently as Minister, I came to know him as a friendly, genial person and as a person who is always loyally at his post. It was a Divisional Commissioner in South West Africa in particular that he achieved great fame, especially in regard to the combating of the first attacks by terrorists on our northern borders, when he was often personally involved in the fighting. I should like to thank Gen. Crous sincerely for the pleasant cooperation and active support I received from him at all times. In a very responsible position he acquitted himself in an excellent manner of his task. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that during the time he and I worked together, we came to know each other intimately. I had the experience that if one had problems in life, one need not go further than to have Theo Crous next to one. I should like to express the hope that, whatever the stars foretell for him, he still has many fruitful years of life ahead of him, that he will enjoy good health, and that he will always be able to remember the enormous contribution he was able to make in the interests of the Force and South Africa.

Furthermore, Sir, it also gives me great pleasure to announce that Gen. Crous will be succeeded by Lt. Gen. Gerhardus Lourens Prinsloo, SOO, as Commissioner of the South African Police as from 1 December 1975.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow the somewhat euphoric peroration of the hon. member for Potgietersrus, but I will follow the hon. the Minister and say that I should like to associate myself with the remarks he has made concerning Gen. Crous. Gen. Crous has become well known in South Africa over the past number of years for the work that he has done in the Police Force, and I believe that the good wishes not only of this side of the House, but of the many people in South Africa who have felt the benefit of his work, will go with him in his retirement. Mr. Chairman, I should like also to welcome the appointment of Gen. Prinsloo and wish him well in the task that lies ahead of him. Sir, I do not believe that the Minister will deny that the combating of crime in South Africa is very much an uphill battle, particularly in view of the manpower shortage. One only has to note the virtual disappearance from the streets in recent years of uniformed policemen to come to the conclusion that the department in fact is suffering from an acute manpower shortage. It is apparent to me that the underlying reasons for this shortage of policemen for the purpose of fighting crime are numerous and include several factors.

Some of these factors include, for instance, the still large volume of work that is being performed by the Police Force for other departments and even for municipalities, work which is actually extraneous to the department. In this connection, while I understand and know that steps are being taken and have been taken and are contemplated to reduce this type of activity, I do trust and hope that the hon. the Minister will do all in his power to reduce the strain placed on his department’s manpower by this extraneous work. The second factor relating to this shortage, as I see the position, is that while South African Police activity in Rhodesia may soon be ended, I do believe that the department will none the less continue to hold men available for emergency duties of the same nature, whenever they may be needed. At this point, Sir, may I pay a tribute to the men of the South African Police Force who in the past have, I believe, fulfilled their task admirably under most dangerous circumstances and in the remote regions of various parts of Southern Africa, particularly during the last year.

Several of these people will never come back to their families. These policemen who have died for their country will not be forgotten. They have played their brave role in the defence of South Africa. They have done much to make the Republic a safer place for all races to live in, and I want to say that we on this side of the House are grateful for the work that they have done.

I think a third reason for the problems which are being encountered by the department in the combating of crime, is the still enormous amount of time spent on the prosecution of persons for statutory offences. While the estimated prosecutions per 1 000 head of the population continues to drop—and I may say that this is most pleasing—the number of prosecutions of persons for statutory offences which are concerned in most instances with the enforcement of apartheid is awesome. 95 219 persons were prosecuted, for instance, under the curfew regulations. Under the heading “Registration and production of documents”, we read in the annual report that some 194 000 persons were prosecuted. The list goes on and on. Over ½ million persons were prosecuted criminally in the year under review for actions which in no other country in the world would be regarded as criminal offences. I realize, Sir, that this is not the occasion to launch a debate on separate development in all its murky facets. The Police Force are doing their work as instructed. However, I must point out once again that the fight against crime and the fight against criminals in this rapidly expanding community in my view is being severely handicapped by the continued deflection of the attention of the Police Force to the enforcement of pass laws and petty apartheid. Car thefts, burglaries, assaults and drunkenness on the roads, despite the impressive figures of prosecutions given in the report of the Police Department, are still the bane of the lives of the average South African today, and the growing number of unsolved crimes bears testimony to the very real problems which confront us.

Sir, I am the first to agree that some steps are being taken to improve the situation. The Police Reserve, for instance, of ex-policemen has now been established and is functioning. Members of that Police Reserve Force are rendering valuable service. We can look at another aspect where the Minister is trying to solve the shortage. There are more women being recruited and trained and being integrated into the various work spheres of the S.A. Police, and I believe they are playing a successful and increasing useful role in the work of the Police. In terms of legislation passed during this session, we have the situation now where volunteer national servicemen will serve their training time as policemen. It is hoped they will learn many useful facets of Police work and will also learn to be of service to the community and to be of assistance in many respects to the permanent Police Force. Then we have the volunteer reservists who continue to render priceless service at no cost to South Africa through the many police stations to which they are attached. The position in regard to this branch, the reservist policemen, and its active membership remains in my view somewhat static, and it seems to me that recruitment in particular is being handled on a somewhat haphazard and ad hoc basis. From time to time mention is made on the radio and in the Press of the work these people do. They are mentioned at various functions and meetings, and there is a fair amount of recruiting going on on a personal level and through the various police stations.

However, I do believe that this is not sufficient: it is not enough. There are hundreds of thousands of South Africans, Black and White, who even today are totally unaware of this sphere of service in which they may play a part. Often only a crisis, such as recently occurred in the constituency of the hon. member for Constantia, or as from time to time occurs in various Black townships, leads to an intensification of recruitment, and then only on a local basis. The 1 918 members recruited last year as against the 1 030 who signed or became inactive, is in my view not nearly enough. I believe the Minister and his department should shake themselves loose from this lethargy which appears to be gripping them in regard to the recruitment of Police reservists. They should prepare, motivate and implement a really intense recruitment campaign of reserve policemen which should cover citizens of all colours. Particularly in the field of Black, Coloured and Indian recruitment, this is becoming an urgent priority. My view is that such a campaign will succeed beyond the Minister’s present vision, and if it does succeed, which I am sure it will, it will provide a major weapon in the combating of crime. For the benefit of the hon. member for Waterkloof, I may say that this is in fact one area in the Police Force in which the English-speaking section plays a very full role.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to convey the sincere congratulations of this side of the House to Lt.-Gen. Prinsloo on his promotion to the post of Commissioner of the S.A. Police, to succeed Gen. Crous. I should like to give him the assurance that we on this side of the House, and the Justice Group in particular, look forward to wholehearted co-operation with him, as with his predecessor, and, in addition, with his staff and with the S.A. Police as such. Sir, the S.A. Police have a proud record. The S.A. Police have a history of which any member of that force can, rightly be proud. Anyone who attains to the highest rung in our S.A. Police can rightly be proud of having done so, and I should like to congratulate him on his achievement.

The hon. member who spoke before me, like the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. members on this side who spoke before me, levelled no real criticism at the S.A. Police—and that is as it should be, too—or against the task of the S.A. Police, the way in which they carry out that task and the duties they have to perform every day. The hon. member referred to the scope of the work the S.A. Police have to perform and the fact that in his opinion, some of the work is, in fact, unnecessary. However, there was one thing which he was unable to criticize, and that was the way in which they performed their task. It is as well that we do not argue in this debate about why they have to perform this task. Over the years the S.A. Police has built up an image among our public, an image of which one can rightly be proud, an image which testifies to ability and preparedness, an image which inspires confidence, an image of discipline. I, too. want to associate myself with the references made by previous speakers to the Police report for the year under discussion. When reading this report, one finds abundant proof of the image of the Police among the public at large. I also want to convey my sincere congratulations to the Commissioner on this report.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the number of recruits who applied and were approved for employment during the year covered by the report. He referred to the fact that only 83 were English-speaking. This represents barely 4,7% of the total.

I should also like to associate myself with the point of view of the hon. member for Waterkloof, that our English-speaking fellow-citizens should do their share in this regard as well. When he took part in this debate last year, the hon. member who spoke before me also referred to reservists. Last year, too, the hon. member made an outstanding contribution in this regard. He said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, Vol. 52, column 6424)—

Those were the words of the hon. member for Sandton last year. These words of his apply equally to members of the Permanent Police Force. I said that the Police project an image of preparedness and efficiency. This is so because the Police have in their ranks people who have been trained for their task. The hon. member for Potgietersrus referred to one specific section. Very recently I had the privilege of co-operating very closely with the Security Police over a long period in regard to a certain investigation. What struck me was that these people were students of their subject. When it is a question of people who are guilty of activities subversive to State security, when it comes to ideologies which have to be weighed up against each other, ideologies which are dangerous to South Africa, the Police know exactly what they have to do. They are people capable of evaluating the situations they are called upon to investigate from day to day.

That is why our Police Force is effective and that is why it is a pleasure to be associated with and to co-operate with members of the South African Police. The South African Police have been building up this image for many years, and it would be a pity if that image were to be undermined. There are certain types of work which sometimes create the impression among the general public outside the Police Force that the Police adopt undesirable methods and that the actions of the Police are harmful.

Here I have in mind the trap system. Unfortunately, it is a fact that many members of the public and sometimes, too, people who ought to know far better, have mistaken ideas and impressions concerning the trap system. Some types of offences are investigated by the Police in this way. I have in mind, too, crimes against the person, against the individual, crimes such as murder, assault, robbery and so on. In these cases the person whose right is being interfered with immediately lays a charge with the Police and they then know exactly what they have to investigate. Then there are other kinds of offences which take place continually and which are not committed against a specific individual, e.g. offences against the State, against companies or against the community, without the right of a specific individual being affected thereby.

In this regard I have in mind offences such as peddling in drugs and dagga, illicit gold and diamond trading and so on. Offences of this kind must be combated and this process must be initiated by the Police. However, the public can play an important role by keeping their eyes open and when they become aware of suspicious incidents, bringing them to the attention of the Police. Now, it is a fact that the Police have to initiate these matters. Sometimes the only way in which they can act is to set a trap for such a person, having first ascertained by way of an affidavit that he is engaged in illegal activities of this nature. In the past it has become evident that this is the only method of bringing an offender to book.

I say it is a pity that the public sometimes have the idea that by setting traps, the Police want to ensnare innocent people and that they sometimes do this merely because they feel like it or because they have something personal against Mr. A or Mr. B. That is not true. The Police simply do not work that way. It is sometimes asked whether the Police cannot warn these people. I want to refer to a statement issued on 7 November 1969 by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the present hon. Minister of Transport. It concerned the question as to whether a man about whom the Police had obtained information in advance, to the effect that he was engaged in smuggling activities, should be warned in advance. The hon. the Minister said (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that a little later on in the debate the hon. member for Houghton will want to make reference to the retirement of Gen. Crous and the appointment of Gen. Prinsloo in his place. Suffice it for me to say very briefly that of course I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in connection with. Gen. Crous. I also want to wish him a very happy retirement. At the same time I want to extend the warmest congratulations to Gen. Prinsloo on his appointment.

The hon. member who has just sat down made reference to the speech of the hon. member for Waterkloof earlier in the debate. The hon. member for Waterkloof referred amongst other things to the very difficult and dangerous work of the Police Force. I want to associate myself with the sentiments he expressed in that regard. Their work is of course extremely difficult and hazardous. Only recently when we were discussing other matters in the Select Committee on Pensions, a single instance was brought before us of a young policeman who was very severely injured in the course of his duties. He was stabbed while on duty in the middle of a city and, as a consequence, is paralysed for the rest of his life. That is only a single example of the kind of danger the police face day and night. Of course one would want to commend them for the very difficult work which they have to do under incredibly difficult circumstances.

The hon. members for Waterkloof and Koedoespoort also mentioned the very small percentage of English-speaking people involved in the Police Force. I want to make it very clear that I believe that the work of the Police Force is important and that, therefore, it is very important that all sections of our community, English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people, Whites and Blacks, are fully represented in this very difficult work. I want to make that very clear indeed. It is distressing to note that so few English-speaking people are actually joining the Police Force or becoming Police Reservists. I would hope very much indeed that that situation will change very rapidly.

The hon. the Minister in his speech yesterday evening made reference to certain acts of urban violence in South Africa. I want to come back to the whole question of violence in our cities and in that regard I want to refer specifically to certain instances which do not seem to have been solved satisfactorily as yet. For example, on 7 February this year the hon. member for Houghton put a question to the Minister in connection with certain explosives found in various areas, in Long Street, Mowbray, in 90 Surrey Street, Goodwood, and in St. George’s Cathedral, Cape Town. The hon. member asked whether the hon. the Minister would care to make a statement on these incidents, to which the Minister replied “No”, but that investigations were continuing. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how these investigations are proceeding and whether anybody has been brought to book or has been charged in connection with these incidents. I think the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in the debate last night were most unfortunate. Unless I misunderstood him, I got the impression that he did not take a very serious view of the fact that sticks of dynamite were planted. Although they were amateurish in design, surely no one can imagine that this kind of violence can ever be thought of lightly. So many of these incidents have occurred and I assume that the members in this House who in yesterday’s debate expressed themselves so vehemently against violence and who charged the Christian Institute, for example, of being a danger to the State, would regard the planting of bombs in churches and homes and the burning of cars as being of equal importance because these actions endanger the lives of many people in the cities and thereby also the lives of many other people, including the lives of those hon. members and my own. [Interjections.] No matter who the people concerned are, and what our attitude towards them might be, I would imagine that, unless the murmurings to my left signify some other opinion which we should then like to hear, we are all against violence in any form. I assume we are all against terrorism, whether it is on our borders or in our cities, and against violence of any form. Therefore, the task of the Police is a very difficult and dangerous one. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. the Minister that there is no point in our defending our borders if right within our society there are acts of violence perpetrated which do not seem to be controlled or finalized or in respect of which it is not discovered who is responsible. [Interjections.] This does seem to be worrying some of my friends across the way a great deal. I cannot understand it and really find it very difficult. The fact of the matter is that people have suffered from this violence. Last Sunday was only another example, when during a service a report was received that a bomb had been planted in the Cathedral. All the people had to leave the hall and investigations were made, but no bomb was found. It only takes one of these things to go off to damage, to cripple and to kill a great number of people. We are all aware of this. Therefore I think this matter is of the utmost importance.

What do you suggest?

This is what I am going to suggest. Just give me a chance, because this is a very important matter.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I only have about three minutes left.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Thank you very much indeed for your protection, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is that there is a very long list of reported acts of urban terrorism which seem still to be continually being investigated with very few of these ever being solved. I appreciate that it is difficult and all I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether there are any leads. Are they making any progress, has anybody been arrested in this connection and what action is being taken by the Police? I admit it is difficult. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not, but one would like to know. One reads, for example, about the attacking of a car with a petrol bomb, where the driver of that car only just escaped with his life. There does not seem to be any report about that. Then there was the fire destroying St. Thomas’s Church Hall and the attempt to set fire to the Ecumenical Centre in Mowbray where the Christian Institute is based. Shots were also fired at the Claremont home of the Rev. Theo Kotze, with a bullet shattering a window. So many of these things are happening and I believe—I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister and the Police also believe—that no matter who they are, if acts of violence are being visited against people in South Africa, no matter what their political views might be, they deserve the protection of the Police. The only thing I ask is whether we could have some indication from the hon. the Minister as to how far the department and the Police have advanced towards solving the continuing number of terrorist attacks in our urban areas against certain people.

Mr. Chairman, at the start of his speech the hon. member for Pinelands expressed appreciation for the dangerous work performed by our Police. This was a welcome note coming from him because it is true that the S.A. Police protect him and his people too. It is just a pity that the hon. member adopted the same old attitude and went out of his way to try and protect and justify the Christian Institute and to indicate that the Police were supposedly not doing their duty in regard to the implementation and the investigation of the matters affecting this Institute. The hon. member need not be afraid, because the police will also look after him and see to him. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply very effectively to his arguments later in the debate.

The problem of a properly equipped and effective police station in my town, Verwoerdburg, has been one which various hon. Ministers of Police have struggled with over the years. I am now very pleased: to convey my sincere thanks to the present hon. Minister for having been able to inform me recently that a new police station has already been approved and has been placed on the five-year building programme of the Department of Public Works. We appreciate this, but the need there is a very pressing one. I wonder, therefore, whether this matter could not be expedited a little. I know that this is not in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice, but I am convinced that his word will carry more weight with the hon. the Minister of Public Works than mine will, and that is why I am asking him to be so good as to furnish assistance in this regard.

Along with the question of the provision of a police station, however, we also have the problem of the provision of adequate staff at that police station. This is not a unique problem—the report of the Commissioner of Police mentions this too. We read on page 4—

I am fully convinced that the position is by no means critical, because in spite of the staff shortage, a mere 1,39 policemen per 1 000 members of the population succeed in bringing down the crime rate. Looking at page 7 of the report, we see that there has been a drop of over 9 000 under “offences” and a drop of almost 110 000 under “in fringements of the law”. This is a feather in the cap of our police! South Africa is in a state of war in the sense that we are waging war against crime and subversion. We are waging this war every day. This report by the Commissioner furnishes ample proof that this war is not merely one of words, either. We have read about and been deeply impressed by the roll of honour of men who have lost their life for South Africa in the course of this hard-fought struggle. Because it is in the interests of South Africa that we should win this struggle for law and order—it is of vital importance—it is also of cardinal importance that we should have fully trained policemen to perform that task. I should like to take a brief look at what has already been done and at what we could possibly still do to supplement this shortage.

In the first place we have the reservists, to whom reference is made in the report. According to the report there are more than 8 000 active reservists operating in South Africa today. These are people who have to perform the task of our police when the latter are called up for service elsewhere. These reservists are undoubtedly deserving of our sincere thanks. However, there are too few of them. 8 000 active men and 8 000 on the reserve list are too few. They cannot do all the work when more serious problems develop. We must get more of these men and the question: What can we do to get more? is a vital one. Remuneration is not what these people are looking for. To them it is a privilege to work in the interests of the people of South Africa. I think it is the task of all of us here in this House, when we discuss this matter with our voters, to urge people to join the police and render service to their fellowmen in this way. In the second place, there is the system of training of national servicemen. We heard this week that the Defence Act was being amended so that national servicemen could be trained as full-fledged policemen. This is a step in the right direction and I think we can congratulate the hon. the Minister on his far-sightedness and on ensuring that these matters are given the necessary attention in good time.

However, there is a further problem and this is the issue of extra-departmental services. According to the report the Police still do an enormous amount of work for other departments. Even though this work has been reduced by 700 000 man-hours, more than 1 600000 man-hours per annum are worked on behalf of other departments. Although for various reasons it is impossible to put a stop to this entirely—the police do, of course, have a State function as well—I do think that this could be reduced further. I shall mention a few examples only. Is it really necessary for a trained police officer to trace debtors, sign summonses, collect fines or even read meters on behalf of another State department or local authority? In my opinion we can farm out this work on contract to an increasing extent, to people who are geared for that specific task. I am convinced that we shall be given good service by these people. Then, too, there is the question of salaries and allowances and prospects of promotion for our permanent policemen. The hon. member for Durban North mentioned this and I agree with him to a certain extent in this regard. In spite of the valuable work performed by our reservists, it is a fact that it is our constables and sergeants who have to perform this work in the midnight hours—because our reservists occupy permanent posts elsewhere. We certainly cannot do without these people. Consequently, we simply must find them. The salary scales of the Police Force are on the same basis as that of the Public Service, but because a policeman seldom works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.—in contrast to other Government officials and workers in the private sector—however important the work done by these people may be—and, for example, it is often expected of policemen to arrest a maniac at gunpoint in order to protect society, our policemen already receive a privation allowance as compensation for this extremely dangerous work. I want to emphasize that the principle underlying this is correct. However, the question is whether these people receive adequate additional remuneration. When considering this, we must definitely take this aspect into consideration. In my opinion, a further bottleneck is the relatively slow promotion of policemen in the lower and even in the higher ranks. In contrast to the rest of the Public Service, a police officer has to sit for an examination before he can be promoted. In contrast, Government officials are promoted after a successful merit assessment. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to consider promoting our younger policemen, too, without their having to write their examination.

Owing to a lack of time, I cannot dwell on these matters any further, but I feel that in view of the delicate situation in South Africa as regards the issue of the maintenance of law and order, a re-evaluation of the real importance of the policeman’s duties would not be out of place. I am not asking for impossible salary increases, allowance adjustments and prospects of promotion, but only that when we reconsider these matters in the future, they will be considered in the light of the various aspects I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hon. member for East London has tried to stand up again. I apologize for interrupting him. If he exercises a little patience he will get his opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Pinelands has told me that he will not be here this evening to hear my reply. He has mentioned a matter which I consider rather important and I think I should mention it at this stage. I am referring to the situation relating to urban violence. I would like to say categorically that as far as the Police is concerned, we will try to protect anybody against any person who wishes to use violence. When we endeavour to maintain law and order we are not interested in the political views of any person.

As far as the Police Force is concerned, I would like to say that we have given attention to all the matters the hon. member for Pinelands has raised. We found that none of the bombs was dangerous at all. Another aspect about these bombs is that we found no finger prints on them whatsoever. I will leave it to the imagination of the hon. member to establish just how difficult our task is to try to trace the origin of this type of thing. However, investigations are proceeding; we have not closed the file on the case. We are keeping an eye on things. The hon. member must forgive me if I am not, for obvious reasons, prepared to tell him how far we have progressed with the investigation. To say that in South Africa’s Parliament would be to give the necessary warning But I also want to indicate that bomb warnings are every-day occurrences. Our society, like every society, has its percentage of cranks who pick up the telephone and warn people that a bomb will explode at a certain time at a certain place. Sir, unfortunately for us the South African Police cannot take a chance, so even when we feel that the warning comes from a crank, we must investigate and take the necessary precautions. That is why we cleared the church; we had no option. As the hon. member correctly put it, it would be a disastrous thing if a bomb were to explode there. We therefore take notice of all these telephone calls; we make a quick check on all of them and then take steps to ensure that the place concerned is safe. The warning may be a hoax—unfortunately one gets this sort of thing—and it may prove to be a waste of time to check but we nevertheless do. I want to give the Committee the assurance that the South African Police will do and are doing everything in their power to safeguard the people and to see that violence is not perpetrated against citizens peacefully pursuing their lawful activities.

Mr. Chairman, just before the Minister rose to speak, my benchmate, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, made a very well-considered plea on behalf of the policemen and the Police Force. I should like to say a few words about those members of the Police Force who are unable to speak for themselves. In fact, I want to discuss the right hand of the policemen and the Police Force. Sir, since the earliest times the horse and the dog have been among the best and most faithful friends of mankind. Through, the centuries, both of these animals have played a vital role in the maintenance of law and order. Nowadays the horse has virtually disappeared from our Police Force, but nevertheless it is interesting to note that as the role of the horse in our Police Force has diminished, so the role of the police dog has developed. Sir, the South African Dog Unit originated in 1911 when lieutenant M. J. De Jager of the Transvaal Police was commissioned to bring certain police dogs back with him from Europe. At that stage, lieutenant De Jager was in England for the coronation of George V. After investigating, he purchased two Dobermann Pinschers in Scheveningen in Holland. In the same year, 1911, the first dog school was established at Irene near Pretoria where it was situated for twelve years before moving to Kwaggaspoort in 1923, where it still is today. Sir, the Dobermann Pinscher is a very intelligent dog, but it was very soon found that South African conditions were, in fact, too severe for this dog and that crossbreeding would have to be applied. A South African tracker dog was then bred from this cross, viz. from a cross in which the Dobermann was used for his intelligence, the Rottweiler for his stamina and the English bloodhound for his sense of smell, and so, Sir, without great fanfare and without publicity, a South African tracker dog was bred which, as became evident, was a major asset to the South African Police in its efforts to combat crime. Sir, it is very clear that these dog masters of ours had a winning formula second to none, a winning formula the principal constituents of which were intelligence, stamina and a sense of smell. Sir, since we are on the eve of a wedding between two opposition parties, one asks oneself whether those involved should not perhaps consider making use of this winning formula, too. It is a proven formula, and we all know that if we were able to breed into it the necessary intelligence, stamina and sense of smell, they might be able to bring into being an ideal Opposition. Sir, it would not be easy to find anyone with a better nose for political matters than the hon. member for Houghton. Possibly the only problem is that the nose of the hon. member for Houghton is perhaps more sensitive to black objects than to others. Sir, I am told it is true— possibly it is not true …

Order! The hon. member must deal a little more specifically with the Vote.

Sir, I am told it is true that the hon. member has ordered a television system with a black filter because she is sensitive to white. And when it comes to stamina, the Rottweiler is a very strong breed of dog which we have hybridized with the bloodhound, and here I cannot think of a better example than the hon. member for Yeoville, who is also a man with a not inconsiderable nose. But our biggest problem will be in respect of the Dobermann’s characteristic, and here the emeritus clergyman had better assist the emeritus professor. In 1961 a start was made with the training of patrol dogs, and it was found that the German sheep dog was in fact ideal for this purpose. In 1971 a start was made with the training of dagga dogs, dogs which were very sensitive to the smell of dagga, and here it is particularly the Labrador and the Dobermann that are used. Whereas it usually takes six months to train a tracker dog, a dagga dog and a patrol dog are trained within four months. Whereas the dagga dog and the patrol dog are, in the normal course, used when a crime has already been committed, the patrol dog is used today for the prevention of crime, and not only for the prevention of crime but, to mention only a few instances, to support and protect his handler and to preserve public order and also as a deterrent, for the implementation of safety and security measures and to an increasing extent, nowadays, for border duty. Sir, I can assure the House that the sound of one of these dogs pursuing a man is not a pleasant one. It is a pity that neither the hon. member for Bryanston nor the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are present today, because one evening I saw how very large people sprang through the window of a primary school in Rissik. I can assure you that I saw this myself. That evening the chief spokesman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, had rather a hard time.

If the hon. member does not have sufficient material, there is still the sausage-dog. [Laughter.]

Actually, I just wanted to make the point that one cannot say that these Police dogs have any lack of impartiality or that they have any colour prejudices. In 1974 the tracker dogs alone were involved in 3 289 cases in South Africa, whereas the patrol dogs were involved in 66 289 cases, cases in which, through the action of these dogs, lost and stolen goods to the value of R28 000 were recovered. For various reasons, South Africa is already well-known throughout the world and in many cases is famous, but I do not think that the renown which these dogs and the instructors have already won for South. Africa is generally known. We have already provided dogs, not only to our neighbouring countries, but also to countries such as Zambia, Malawi, Hong-Kong, Eritrea, Israel and Italy. Not only have these countries been provided with dogs and know-how, but South Africa has also assisted and been instrumental in the establishment of dog schools in those countries, and their instructors have been trained in South Africa. It is, therefore, by no means remarkable that today one hears Afrikaans terms even in countries like Israel. In the continual struggle against crime and criminals, these dogs are often injured and killed. For example, four patrol dogs have already been knifed to death. In addition, four patrol dogs have already died on the border. There are dozens of examples of heroic deeds performed by these dogs and we also read of awards made to these dogs where they have saved their handlers and, in doing so have sometimes been wounded or even killed. I should like to make a plea to the hon. Minister today, that additional land be purchased at Kwaggaspoort to enable these dog masters to have their dogs exercised and trained there so that they do not have to transport their dogs from Kwaggaspoort to the grounds of Onderstepoort where there is sufficient space, as the position is today. These trainers do outstanding work and we ought to ensure that they have only the best facilities at their disposal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East is obviously a dog lover. We are watching this with interest because we know what happens when two different types of dogs get into the same kraal together. Invariably there is a terrible fight. I am afraid that this might well happen. The hon. the Minister of Justice had this little fun with me earlier on, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Police just exactly what the United Party’s policy is in relation to the death penalty. I think he knows what it is. In our estimation the presiding officer of any court who is under obligation to apply the death penalty should have the discretion in every case. Whether he should apply the death penalty or not should be left to his discretion. We would also allow automatic right of appeal in every case where the death penalty is actually imposed. I am sure the hon. the Minister realizes how I would exercise my discretion if I were a judge sitting on a Bench under such circumstances.

What I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about has been raised previously by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. He said that he was pleased to see that national servicemen were now going to be trained in the Police Force. I agree with him that this is a very commendable method of encouraging young men to take an active part in the Police Force. As I understand the matter, 500 national servicemen are going to be drafted and that all those enrolments in excess of 500 are to be cut out because the number will be kept at 500. I also believe that the hon. the Minister stated the other day that if there were not enough to make up the figure of 500, others would be brought in.

I made a mistake the other day. We shall only take those who are willing to join.

I am glad there is clarity about that. Last year the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that he would not take people into the Police Force who were not willing to join. The position is now quite clear, however, in that the Minister has stated that they will not take unwilling persons. What I want to deal with here now is an attempt to ensure that more people join the Police Force. I have one suggestion to make. I believe that the present position in the Police Force is such that there are some members who are designated as tradesmen, for example, carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, etc. They are all entitled to wear the uniform of the Police, they carry a rank in the Police and are paid by the Police. There are also people like mechanics who are in the same situation. As I understand it, if they work overtime these people are entitled to overtime pay. If that is so I do not believe it is the right thing to do because normally the patrolman or beat policeman does not get any overtime pay whatsoever.

They do not get overtime either.

If the hon. the Minister could satisfy us on that point we would be very pleased to hear from him because I have information to the contrary. In any event, the hours of work of the tradesmen are specific, whereas in many cases, particularly in the small country districts, the ordinary patrolman does do overtime which is supposed to be deducted from his full hours of service every week. However, this very rarely happens. I believe that is an anomaly which must be rectified in the Force. Secondly, I also want to mention the fact that there is still grave dissatisfaction among the Police themselves because of the pay which the Railway Police are getting in contrast to the pay which they themselves receive. The hon. the Minister has already dealt with this matter. He has said that the Railways is a different organization. I understand that clearly. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. the Minister that as long as that anomaly exists there is going to be dissatisfaction in our Force itself. I believe that in some way or other this difficulty must be overcome. I just want to mention a difficulty which I believe is facing the Police in regard to the crime of public violence. It is particularly evident in the country areas where one finds that the young Blacks who are living with their parents gang up together in what they call in the colloquial language the Kwedini gangs. They have a form of national sport where they gather together to “play with sticks” as they call it. This form of sport of theirs takes place on a Sunday afternoon and they play it on private property and sometimes even on public property. This is overlooked, as I can understand. However, these gangs on occasions meet each other and it results in a fight. On numerous occasions these fights have resulted in the death of people, the most gruesome injuries and the most terrible wounds. On many other occasions there have been no deaths. If there is a death, the matter is investigated thoroughly by the Police authorities and they have the most difficult task in getting together the people who were involved and bringing a charge against them under the crime of public violence. It is a most difficult charge to prove and it means that the Police authorities spend hours on investigations and on tracking and tracing these people. I believe that the hon. the Minister should first of all give some attention to endeavouring to prevent this fighting. How he can do that, I do not know, but I believe a law could be passed which would prevent this form of gathering. Perhaps these youngsters should not be allowed to carry out their traditional custom of stick fighting because it leads to violence. The second thing to do is to take a careful look at the Transkeian Code because it sets out a crime which is very easy to apply and allows the Police far less time to investigate such fights. They simply gather the people together and charge them with public violence in terms of the Transkeian Code and then, ultimately, a prosecution takes place. In my experience it has certainty been proved that it is far easier for the Police authorities to investigate a case and to carry through a prosecution under those circumstances than it is under our law on public violence.

There is another matter which I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention and that is the question of Police prosecutors. In the hundreds of small towns which we have throughout the Republic we find the Police carrying out the very necessary and a very onerous task of prosecuting in the place of public prosecutors. I want to say that I am disappointed that no mention is made in the report of the Department of the function which the Police are carrying out in that regard. The second factor I want to raise is that it appears that the training of the Police prosecutors can be improved. If one looks at the report of the Department of Justice itself, one finds that the number of trainees from the Police who undergo prosecutors’ courses has dropped. There were 19 in 1973 and only 16 in 1974. I believe that this is wrong. The emphasis today is upon the training of all legal officers such as prosecutors, magistrates and judges, so that we can have a form of court trial which will go through up-dated to today. I also see that the number of persons in the S.A. Police who have taken judicial courses has dropped from 22 in 1973 to 11 in 1974. I believe that this trend should be given attention to by the hon. the Minister. I believe that the question of Police prosecutors should be clearly set out in the report so that hon. members of this House will be able to assess the position in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City will probably not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech. I want to refer to details publicised by the hon. the Minister of Police during this session, details relating to questions put to him by the hon. members of the Progressive Party concerning the number of persons killed or wounded by policemen in the execution of their duties. I want to summarize these details briefly and refer in particular to the position in the last six months of last year, the period covered by the latest statistics. During this period, policemen using firearms killed 52 people and wounded 159. Of these, 41 were killed and 141 wounded in the course of attempts to escape arrest. I believe it is necessary, merely from a statistical point of view, for the Committee to be furnished with additional data. During the same period, six members of the Police were killed and 49 seriously injured in the execution of their duty. This does not include casualties resulting from car accidents and border duty. Over the same period, the number of arrests for serious offences numbered far more than 200 000. This means, therefore, that for every 10 000 people arrested for serious offences, only 2,4 persons were killed and eight wounded. A further significant figure is that over the same period, more than 2 000 were cases of escape after arrest. In other words, these were cases where, under the circumstances, members of the Police Force were entitled to use fire-arms against these people. The last item of information in this regard which I want to provide is the fact that of all the cases to which I have referred in which people have been killed or wounded, in only one case did the Attorney-General order that the policeman in question be prosecuted. During this session, details relating to offences committed by members of the Force, too, were requested by the hon. members of the Progressive Party. Briefly, the details are as follows. During 1974, 180 policemen, White and non-White, were found guilty of ordinary assault, 25 of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and one of culpable homicide. For the sake of completeness I should mention that a substantial percentage of these cases were assaults which did not arise out of the service of the members. To put this statistical picture in perspective, I just want to refer, too, to the latest annual report, which indicates that in the year 1973-’74 dealt with by the report, the Police Force dealt with about 340 000 offences and 1 800 000 infringements of the law which were referred to the courts.

The statistics alone fall far short of giving a full picture of the policeman’s position They fall far short of justifying the drawing of conclusions. It is necessary to consider the nature of the policeman’s work, the conditions under which he carries it out and the legal consequences of his actions. The special position in which the policeman finds himself is usually not grasped by the general public, since we are used to a peaceful and orderly existence. Innumerable court cases provide some indication of the delicate and ticklish situations in which members of the Force sometimes find themselves. On the one hand, they have to guard against not carrying out their duty in the maintenance of law and order because if they fail to do this, they will be criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, they have to display the necessary legal knowledge and experience so as not to contravene the normal principles and rules of law in the execution of their duties. What is also important is that their decisions as to the action to be taken often have to be made under pressure, and within seconds.

In the latest annual report, mention is made of the fact that the South. African Police Star for Merit was awarded posthumously to Bantu constable Mabaso—I can recommend that hon. members examine the circumstances of this case, and every one will be impressed by the sense of duty and meritorious conduct of this constable and; the courage he displayed. On reading these particular circumstances my thoughts turned involuntarily to the pitfalls he had to avoid to be able to do what he did. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into the details of the case. In any event, this constable, although himself unarmed, attempted to arrest an armed criminal under dangerous circumstances. Pitfalls are something that every member of the Force has to contend with when he has to take action. In the first instance, he has a few moments in which to decide to take positive action, he takes his life in his hands. If he should decide rather to beat a retreat, he will probably be charged with having neglected his duty, and on conviction will probably become yet another of those who are branded as having broken the law and will probably become merely a figure in the statistics. The question often occurs to me how we as ordinary citizens would act under those circumstances. It is at the critics of the Police in particular that I want to direct this question. When he has arrested the offender, what he does in the course of those few seconds will be placed under the critical searchlight of our courts. What he does there under pressure in the course of a few seconds will later be considered by lawyers in a quiet atmosphere in order to determine whether his actions, viewed objectively, were reasonable under the circumstances. There are innumerable possibilities. Possibly he deprives the offender of his weapon, as the late Bantu constable Mabaso was unable to do. If he were to succeed in doing so and were to kill the offender in the struggle, he might put himself in the position of standing trial on a charge of murder, culpable homicide or assault. My plea, therefore, is that those who criticize should make an effort to put themselves in the position of the policeman, who very often has to act under the pressure of circumstances and in emergency conditions. Under no circumstances do I want to plead that unlawful action be condoned; I am only appealing for a greater understanding of the work of the policeman, instead of merely paying lip service on certain occasions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a short time ago, certain of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House, inter alia the hon. members for Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Meyerton and also my respected predecessor in this House, made representations to the department concerning the construction of a police station in the Bantu township of Sebokeng, situated in the Vaal Triangle, and also in regard to the improvement of the police station at Residensia. It is heartening to note that the Department of Public Works has already been requested to renovate the buildings of the old Residensia police station. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to convey heartfelt thanks for this to the hon. the Minister and his department. It is pleasing, too, to note that the Department of Public Works has already been requested to investigate the building of a new police station at Sebokeng. What with the rapid development at present taking place in the Vaal Triangle, and in view of the resultant rapid development of the Bantu township of Sebokeng, it has become essential for a police station to be built there to contribute towards the combating of crime in this area. In all modesty, I ask the hon. the Minister that the building of this police station should, if possible, enjoy priority and that if possible, temporary buildings be constructed in the meantime in order to provide for the everyday and growing needs there. On behalf of the hon. colleagues I have mentioned I want to express thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department and to Gen. Crous for what they have already done in regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister is deserving of our sincere thanks and appreciation.

The Police can report that crime in general, and offences involving violence in particular, are under control. Despite the manpower shortage, even at police stations in Bantu residential areas, the police are doing everything in their power to fight and combat crime as far as possible. The Vaal Triangle in particular is developing into the industrial giant of Southern Africa. As we all know, development has its problems, too, but it is pleasing to be able to mention here that the Police in the Vaal Triangle, both White and non-White, are keeping pace with the development there and are to be praised for the services they are rendering there. They sometimes render those services in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. All of them are deserving of our sincere thanks and appreciation. In this area a need had also arisen for the Black people to co-operate in maintaining law and order in the townships and to obtain a say in the maintenance of law and order there. A Bantu branch of the Reserve Police Force has been established there with a view to affording these law-abiding Bantu the opportunity of assisting the Police in the combating and prevention of crime in their own residential areas in order to cultivate in them, too, a pride in performing a service and a task for their own people, in playing a part in the maintenance of the security of the inhabitants of their particular areas, in playing a part in the maintenance of law and order and combating the prevention of crime there. These reservists are specially trained for their task. In general, they make an enormous contribution to the combating of crime, but particularly in the evening and over the weekends. Who knows their townships better than these people themselves? They are the people who should have first-hand knowledge as to just where disturbances and mischief is brewing. We convey our thanks to these reservists and to all other reservists, for their valuable and highly appreciated services which, they offer in order to help alleviate the burden resting on the shoulders of their overworked permanent colleagues. The fact that they do not receive compensation for their services is appreciated. Everything that they do, is free. Their unselfish activity is therefore undoubtedly the result of dedicated service to their community and loyalty to their fellow-men.

The Department of Police is making vigorous efforts to develop further the Bantu branch of the Reserve Police Force here and in other areas, the better to utilize their services. Senior officers of the Force avail themselves of every possible opportunity to promote the image of this branch of the Police so as to recruit new members. In addition, the station commanders of the various police stations and all officers see to the recruitment of new members by means of personal contact. The radio and newspaper media are also invaluable in this regard and are therefore used to propagate this highly important matter among the general public. A very interesting and encouraging phenomenon to be noticed in this regard when one talks to the reservists and inquires about their activities is the fact that the reservists themselves are among the most successful recruiters of new members. We can ask whether the real responsibility in regard to this matter does not rest with the Bantu himself. When I looked at the figures, one notes that there are only about 3 700 non-White reservists in the whole country, and in the Vaal Triangle area there are only eight of these Bantu reservists in the Sharpeville Bantu residential area and 22 in the Sebokeng Bantu residential area. Is it not time for responsible and law-abiding Bantu to realize that the maintenance of law and order and the combating of crime in their townships is not the duty of the White or the permanent policeman alone, but that they can and must make a contribution in this way within the framework of the law, in an organized and disciplined manner, not only in order to be of assistance to the Police, but also in order to render a service to their own townships and fellow-men?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot claim to know the Commissioner of Police as well as I know the Commissioner of Prisons, but I would like to add my good wishes to those that have already been uttered about his retirement and to wish him success as well. I hope that I will not have to know him any better!

Firstly, I want to say that there are one or two good things in this report. So, let us have the good news first. I must say that I am not including this rather glamorous picture of the hon. the Minister among the good things. I must admit, though, that it is not a bad picture of him.

Do you want my autograph?

The hon. the Minister is looking rather clever in the picture. I do want to comment on the report where it states that the Police did particularly good work during the flood havoc towards the end of last year. I think that all of us in the House would commend the Police for the excellent work that they did during that disaster in the Free State and elsewhere where they did a great deal of rescue work, among all sections of the population. Having said that, I want to go on by saying that I think the Police spend an inordinate amount of their time doing duties for other departments. The Commissioner was good enough to give me a long list of the extraneous duties carried out by the S.A. Police for other departments. I counted no less than 30 departments with which they were intimately involved, doing all sorts of daily work. Some of it seems to be well outside the type of duty one would normally expect from policemen. I realize that it is because the other departments are probably short of personnel, but I must say that it seems to me that we are wasting the time of a lot of trained men by letting them do all manner of jobs which should really be done by untrained people or people in other departments whose work is not so urgently required in other directions. In a country where we have a great deal of crime—I might say that a lot of it is undetected as it is for example in Soweto where numerous unsolved murders are committed—it is to my mind a waste of time to have people with training devoting themselves to this sort of thing. Those are two of the things I have to say.

I now have to be somewhat more critical than anyone else in this House has been up to the time of going to Press and I would like to say …

That is a surprise.

The hon. member is looking very eager. He must be waiting for this. I think the number of people shot and killed by the Police while attempting to escape arrest is inordinately high. In other countries the Police have to capture their men without shooting them. What it means in effect is that the Police are executing people who often commit petty crimes and are indeed executing people who might well have been found innocent in a court of law on a subsequent date. Although the hon. member over there might be keen on executions I do not happen to be keen on them. In 1974 96 people were shot and killed by the Police and in the latest six months for which I could get figures 37 of the 46 who were shot between 1 July 1974 and 31 December 1974 were shot while attempting to escape arrest. I realize that the Police do a dangerous job and I realize that they have to be in a position to defend themselves against violent criminals, obviously. However, when a man is running away I do not see that it is necessary to shoot him and to shoot to kill.

I want the hon. the Minister to tell me just how strongly it is impressed upon policemen that they must use firearms only as a last resort, because that, I happen to know, is what the Police regulations contain as an instruction. That is one thing I would like to raise. I have raised it previously. I usually get a blast from the hon. the Minister, who tells me that I am only too keen to see policemen being killed in the process of carrying out their duty and all the rest of it. He knows perfectly well that that is a lot of nonsense, but it makes good copy for the Nationalist newspapers. I would like the hon. the Minister to know that I raise this in all earnestness and without any such violent thought in mind.

I also think that the hon. the Minister retains too many policemen convicted of assault—note the words “convicted of assault”—by the courts of law in the Police Force. It gives the rest of the Police Force a bad name. Far too many cases of guilty of common assault, assault with intent and culpable homicide are reported as far as the Police are concerned. In 1974 there were no less than 180 such cases of common assault, 25 of assault with intent and one of culpable homicide. Of the 180 policemen convicted of assault, 14 had previous convictions of which ten were for assault. They had previously been convicted of assault. These obviously are men who do not have the correct temperament and who do not react correctly on the spur of the moment. I am sure this is the type of case the hon. member for Eshowe was talking about earlier this evening. People like that should not be in the Police Force. If their reaction on the spur of the moment is violence and assault, then I do not believe they are the sort of people we ought to retain in the Police Force.

I would like to see the hon. member for Houghton’s reaction.

I must admit that my reactions are very often violent as far as that hon. member is concerned and it is highly likely that they will be translated into action one of these fine days. I am, however, not a policeman and it is very unlikely that I would ever apply to be one … [Interjections.]

You would not qualify …

I do not think the hon. member would qualify either. I doubt whether he has either the education or the intelligence to be admitted to the Police Force. Of the 14 that had previous convictions, only two were dismissed from the Force. Of the 25 convicted of assault with intent, two had previous convictions and of these two, one was dismissed. Of 166 convicted of assault and with no previous convictions, eight were dismissed. Of the 23 convicted of assault with intent and who had no previous convictions, one was dismissed.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Sir, I should like to exchange a few ideas on the subject of the relationship between the public and the Police service, and in this regard I should like to quote from three different newspaper extracts. The first extract reads as follows (translation)—

The second passage I want to quote, entitled “Constables stabbed” reads as follows (translation)—

The last passage I want to quote reads as follows—

Sir, these three extracts furnish a picture of what happens in the daily life of a police officer. The image they present is one of fearlessness, loyalty, a spirit of sacrifice and the will to co-operate with the inhabitants of the country, irrespective of their colour.

Sir, the time has come for us in South Africa to ask ourselves this simple question at this point in time: What is a police man? In these times, when the enemies of South Africa want to discredit and humiliate the Police with all the power at their disposal, when agitators are out to bring the administration of justice in this country into discredit, when doubts are being sown with regard to the effective protection which the South African Police is able to afford the inhabitants of this country, and when use is made of these communist methods to undermine authority, we have to ask the question: “What is a policeman?”

Sir a policeman is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the Republic of South Africa and the right, too, to protect his own life. If it is necessary for the policeman to fire and if anyone is killed as a result, then I want to put it clearly that the Police are entitled to protect their own lives. Sir, a policeman is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa who sets an example as to how a patriot should act in the interests of his country, his country right or wrong. Our police are people who live according to that motto. When people or newspapers inflate distorted reporting, for domestic or foreign consumption, at the cost of the South African Police, and are constantly attempting to put the South African Police in the dock, when it is said that “the police are executing people”, when it is said that “the impression is created that there is an unbridled increase in urban terrorism”, when it is said that there are “criminals” in the Police Force, then I want to say to those people that they are speaking directly to the heart of our enemies. But the matter goes further than that:

These people are trying to break down the psychological resistance of our White people against domination, so that one has to ask oneself whether it is still worth the trouble to be a patriot. But fortunately for South Africa, the deeds and the record of our South African Police carry a lot of weight, so much so that we in the Republic still have the highest regard for the policeman in his blue uniform. I know therefore, that it will be an honour for the young men, the sons of South Africa, to be assigned to the Police in order to do their duty to the Republic there. Furthermore. I can recommend this to the young people of South Africa, because I can hardly think of any better training for a young man who wants to equip himself for his future. He will meet people whom he would otherwise never have met and he will have adventures which he would otherwise never had had.

I have referred to the record and the deeds of the S.A. Police and I want to mention a few figures relating to three aspects only. The first is that of the combating of crime. Between 1959 and 1974 the crime rate dropped from 118 indictable offences per 1 000 inhabitants of the Republic to 19 indictable offences per 1 000 inhabitants. If one were to give the figure for 1959 the index number 100, the index number for prosecutions in 1974 would be 16, and this is so in spite of the fact that there are 3 434 unoccupied posts in the Police service and that a not inconsiderable number of our Police are serving on our borders, and that the Police perform a great number of tasks for other departments in the country. Sir, this testifies to efficiency, productivity and dedication. This drop in the crime rate has taken place in a country in which there are only 1,39 policemen per 1 000 inhabitants. In England there are 1,9 policemen per 1 000, and in the USA there are 2,1 policemen per 1 000. In other words, South Africa is by no means a police state. These figures afford proof of efficiency and productivity in the South African Police Force, something of which we may be proud.

The second aspect I want to mention relates to the anti-insurgency and anti-terrorist services performed by the Police. In this regard sacrifices are made by people who carry out patrol work in long grass, in hot valleys where the mosquitoes and the midges and all the other things can afflict one. In order to indicate what sacrifices are made, I want to mention that in 1973, six of our policemen died and 22 were injured. In 1974, eight died and 45 were injured. This is an escalation of violence which simply cannot be allowed to continue. This application of patriotism is not the theoretical application of a man sitting and talking in front of an open fire, but is the practical application of patriotism which costs one blood and sweat. When, therefore, I refer to the newspaper editors mentioned previously, I want to ask them, on the one hand, whether they, too, display the patriotism towards South Africa which these policemen display, and whether, on the other hand, they are not ashamed of the image of South Africa, which they project.

Thirdly, and lastly, I want to mention the fact that our security police maintain peace and order within the country. I need not elaborate on that, except to say that we know we are in safe hands.

At this stage I want to ask a few questions. What better way is there for a young man to serve his people than to undergo his training in the police? What better way is there for a citizen of a country to show his patriotism than to join the Reserve Police Force? That is why I am making an earnest appeal to my fellow-citizens.

Order! I cannot follow the hon. member.

I say that that is why I am appealing to my fellow South Africans to look at the South African Police in a new light, to look at our men in the blue uniforms and recognize them as the patriots they are, people who deserve their support. They would like our co-operation. It is our privilege to hold high their good name. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. gentleman because, as he will appreciate, if you could not follow him, neither could I. However, I should like to say one thing about the hon. member for Houghton who spoke before him. She said that the Police were executing people who escaped from their custody. I am sorry that she is not here but it is typical of them that after they have had their say, they leave the chamber. I think hers was a scurrilous attack on the Police which does no credit to this House whatever. [Interjections.] Those hon. gentlemen and that lady are always looking sideways at the Police. Perhaps sometimes they should try to put themselves in the place of the Police. It is true that the Police are wrong sometimes. One hopes that on those occasions these people will, in fact, be dealt with by the Police themselves, quite apart from any other criminal sanctions that might be applied to them if they have acted wrongly. However, I shall come back to that subject later. [Interjections.]

Because the hon. the Minister announced only after I had spoken initially in this debate that the Commissioner of Police, Gen. T. J. Crous, was to retire, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to associate myself and my party with the sentiments the hon. the Minister expressed in respect of this gentleman. I want to say that he reflects all that is good in the traditions of the Force. To be the Commissioner of Police or a general in the South African Police is some achievement because it is the only Force of its nature that I know of in the world where, to become a general, one has to begin as a constable. This is so of every person in the Force. He begins as a constable and he may end up as a general. From what we know of Gen. Crous he deserves his retirement and he carries with him not only the thanks of this party, but the thanks, I believe, of the whole country.

Hear, hear!

The Force comes in for a lot of criticism. It naturally comes in for a lot of criticism because it is the job of the Force to enforce the law. I think it should be remembered—the hon. vociferous gentleman from Sandton should remember this—that the Police do not make the law. At the moment the law is in many respects being relaxed and changed for the good of law and order and for the good of those who are obliged on behalf of us all to see that it is enforced. This is terribly important. The law itself is terribly important in relation to the Police. It is important because the image of the Police is terribly important to the maintenance of law and order in our country. The Police cannot maintain law and order and enforce the law unless they have public support.

Never.

Without it they cannot do their job; neither can any Police Force anywhere in the world if they do not have the support of the community. The South African Police have obviously acted in the highest traditions of that Force and of the country. Despite the law the members of the Force have in fact at times acted to prevent potentially ugly situations by ignoring the law and applying common sense where the law did not provide that commodity in our general life. A perfect example is their handling of the strikes which occurred. Most of the strikes were illegal in terms of the law and the way in which the Force handled those occasions does credit to it. Thank goodness they did so, otherwise one wonders what might have happened in this country. In Durban there was an occasion when the workers at a building site decided that they wanted to strike. The person who related this to me told me that a great big patrol van appeared, loaded up all the workers on the site and took them away. He was a bit concerned about this and he asked his African messenger who had been out whether he had seen this. The messenger replied that he had seen it. He then asked him what happened. He replied: “These chaps wanted to strike; the Police came along and told them to go along in the van which would take them to the employer and they could put their case to him.” I think this is a perfect example of how difficulty situations can be averted by the application of common sense with proper discretion. Because of the importance of the Force, I am not sure that the time has not arrived when for the maintenance of law and order and the maintenance of good relations a PRO should be appointed to the Police Force.

What about yourself?

The Army has such a person who does an extremely good job. We all know Cyrus Smith who does an extremely good job. I think that this is something that ought to be given attention to in relation to recruitment to the Force which as I said earlier is a matter that needs urgent attention, and also in relation to the public image of the Force. I think that the hon. the Minister also has a responsibility here. Obviously the hon. the Minister is perhaps the chief PRO of the Police because he has to answer the questions that are asked and to make statements in regard to the behaviour of members of the Force.

As an example of this I want to mention a matter which I raised by way of questions to the hon. the Minister previously. I do so not out of spite—I hope that my opening speech and my previous speeches indicate this—but as a matter of duty and a matter of the hon. the Minister’s duty. The temptation just to be loyal to one’s department, the temptation to react automatically and regard everything that the department does as being lily white is there. It would be unfortunate if this temptation were in fact yielded to. The matter I want to raise is the one of the police doghandlers who, according to the evidence in the case, were found guilty of an assault upon a Bantu woman. The evidence was and the magistrate found that they had set dogs upon this African woman. She was mauled and afterwards she was put in the boot of the car and taken to the police cells. Public reaction to the case— I want to stress—was quite understandably very unfortunate. It was in fact one of horror. I asked the hon. the Minister a question about this matter. In fact, I had to ask him twice since he is very reticent about answering questions in this House. Eventually he answered me. I asked him whether an inquiry was going to be held into this matter as the Police Act provides that if a policeman commits an offence an inquiry can be held as to whether he is fit to remain in the Force or whether he should be subjected to departmental discipline. The hon. gentleman said that an inquiry had been held but only in respect of the question of why the woman had been placed in the boot of the car. I want to ask the hon. gentleman why an inquiry was not held into the facts relating to the assault of which they were found guilty. I think that, had that inquiry been held, it would have done a lot of good to the Police Force. If the hon. the Minister had himself reacted to this, it would have done the Police Force a lot of good. I want to say that the Force itself will benefit if people know that, when such a matter occurs, the Force itself considers it to be of such importance that it itself wishes to take some sort of disciplinary action against the culprits. If the hon. the Minister’s attitude had been one of “yes, of course, it is a matter of public importance and a matter relating to the image of the Police, and I shall in fact investigate it”, he would have done the Police Force a service instead of doing it a disservice by the attitude he has displayed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in introducing this debate, the hon. member for Durban North referred, inter alia, to the necessity of having more policemen on the beat. In general, I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. member said in this regard. However, one must approach, this matter in a positive and realistic way. This matter must be seen in its right perspective. One must acknowledge the fact that what is desirable and, in fact, essential is not necessarily always possible.

*Section 5 of the Police Act, No. 7 of 1958, clearly defines the duties of the Police, namely—

In regard to the duty of the Police to prevent crime, Mr. Justice of Appeal Rumpff said the following in the case of Wolpe and Another v. the Commanding Officer of the South African Police at Johannesburg (1955 (2), S.A. Law Reports, page 93) (translation)—

In regard to the actions of a judicial officer when a case is being tried, Mr. Justice of Appeal Potgieter said the following in the case of Solomon and Another v. De Waal (1972 (1)), S.A. Law Reports, page 580)—

In the same way I believe that the Police should not only perform their duties in preventing crime and maintaining law and order—and I want to lose no time in paying tribute to our Police on this occasion for the way in which they perform their duties in this regard—but it is important that the Police should very clearly be seen by one and all in this country to be preventing crime and maintaining law and order.

This is necessary in order that the law-abiding citizens of our country may be reassured and may go about their daily lawful activities free of fear. If a feeling of fear and insecurity, no matter how unfounded, were to seize our people, this could have a disrupting effect on their normal, lawful activities and way of life. This is also necessary in order that our Police may continue to have the active and moral support of the whole population, without which the efficient functioning of the Police would hardly be possible. Finally, it is also necessary so that the criminal, or the potential criminal, will realize that policemen and those who maintain law and order are ready and waiting wherever danger is threatening and that they will tolerate no offence against law and order and no contravention of the law. In this respect as well, being prepared to act effectively is the best method of ensuring that it will eventually prove not to be necessary to act at all.

But in order that the Police may be seen by the whole population to be preventing crime and maintaining law and order, the Police must be seen patrolling the streets of our towns and cities.

However, the Police have to contend with a relative shortage of manpower. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for the year ended 30 June 1974, 16 802 of the 18 870 authorized posts for Whites were filled. Of the 16 320 authorized posts for non-Whites, 15 713 were filled. If we calculate this in terms of population numbers, we find that it amounts to fewer than 1,5 policemen per thousand members of the total population. Then one understands that it is an enormous task which rests on the shoulders of the Police Force, and then one realizes that what would be desirable, or even essential, is not always possible. Furthermore, the task of safeguarding our frontiers against terrorist infiltration has placed a great additional burden on the shoulders of our Police Force. Then, too, the duties of the Police are exacting and cover a great many fields.

When all this has been said and when these facts have been admitted, which the hon. member for Durban North was not disposed to do, it remains of vital importance to have more policemen on the beat in the streets of our towns and cities. They should not only man fast-moving patrol vehicles, but also, and particularly, go about on foot —where they may clearly be seen by everyone. It is for this reason that, in spite of the facts I have just mentioned, I nevertheless hope and trust that it will in fact be possible to do this.

The Police have detailed statistics concerning the incidence of crime, as regards time, place and circumstances. If, because of the limited manpower, it is not possible to have policemen on the beat 24 hours a day in every street of every town and city, let us at least have policemen on the beat at specific peak hours and at specific key points, which would leave no doubt in the minds of the public as to the fact that the Police have the situation firmly under control, rather than to make excessive demands on the available manpower and to keep policemen on duty at places and times and under circumstances where their presence will make no impression on the population in any case, and where it will not make any real contribution to the prevention of crime or the maintenance of law and order.

This is basically a question of priorities, which have to be determined very realistically in terms of the available manpower. The possibility has been raised of calling on the assistance of reservists, but then we shall have to make their work attractive by means of the duties we entrust to them, so that it will be possible to have more members of the Active Force on the beat.

Mr. Chairman, I think that by any standards the debate on this Vote this afternoon has been of the very highest quality. Not for a long time have I heard speeches of such a high standard from one member after another as were made on the whole by hon. members on both sides of the House in this debate.

Before I come to the questions asked by the hon. member for Durban North, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me just to refer to our roll of honour. I should like to pay tribute from this House to those South African policemen who lost their lives in the performance of their duties. Day and night our people in the Police Force are keeping South Africa safe and making it possible for us to debate several matters of national importance in safety in this Parliament. They enable our people to drive to their offices every day to earn their living. South African policemen makes things easier for us when we have problems with traffic on the roads. There are a hundred and one services which the S.A. Police have to perform. We have been hearing of all the various services here tonight. In addition, they make the highest sacrifice a man can make, to give his life for his country and his people. Christmas time in particular was a very difficult time for me. We had to bury eight of our boys. I stood beside the open graves of those men. I can assure the House that they were only children. They were very young. I do not think that the Prime Minister will take it amiss of me if I say that he received a letter from the father of one of those boys. This must be one of the most beautiful letters ever written to the Police. The father spoke with great pride of the death of his son in the service of the S.A. Police, and he said that he would also offer his other sons to South Africa if it should be necessary. For this reason I find it a great pity, when listening to the attacks made on the South African policemen by the Progressive Party, that they do not want to develop greater appreciation for the S.A. Police.

They are like mules. They do not have a future.

There was the remark made by the hon. member for Houghton this evening, for example, to which the hon. member for Durban North referred.

[Inaudible.]

There she is beginning to defend herself again. I am quite satisfied that she runs down the South African policemen. The day I come into this House and hear the policemen being praised by that side of the House, I shall be worried and I shall wonder whether something has not gone wrong with us somewhere.

I should like to pay tribute to all our policemen who have received medals and to thank them sincerely for their services. The hon. member for Waterkloof mentioned one of them, namely lieutenant Slabber. He is the only living policeman who has ever received the South African Police Cross. This medal is usually presented to a person’s parents after his death. However, this person deserved it and lived to receive it. There were acts performed by the South African Police for which we are all very grateful and for which we pay tribute to them.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban North, and I want to begin by dealing with the Empangeni case he mentioned. The hon. member will remember, from the replies I gave him, that the facts of the matter were that a Bantu woman accused two constables of having set two dogs on her while she was waiting in front of a house. The Attorney-General decided to prosecute the two men and they were found guilty of common assault. They were sentenced to a fine of R150 or 75 days imprisonment, of which R100 and 50 days were suspended for two years. In both cases the fine was paid. The complainant alleged that she had been standing in front of 95 Old Main Road in Empangeni when the two members of the Police Force drove past her in a car. According to her, the vehicle turned round and one of the members shone on her with a torch. She moved back and the two police dogs were set on her by the policemen and she was bitten by the dogs. According to the medical evidence, she sustained 15 superficial injuries to her body. The members, on the other hand, alleged that they were doing patrol duty because many serious crimes are committed in Empangeni. I want to say in passing that the Bantu woman had been charged with immorality the year before, but I do not think hon. members were aware of this.

What has that to do with it?

I am not making a point of it. I say it just in passing to show the hon. member that it is quite possible that she was standing there for a purpose and that these policemen were entitled to be suspicious. If the hon. member wants to cross swords with me about this, I shall say why I said it. To get back to the point: The policemen were on patrol and they saw a person running away on a plot in Empangeni. Constable Maree alleged that he let the dog loose in order to catch the person. The complainant was caught beneath a bedroom window of the house and the dog was then ordered to let her go. She had been bitten and refused to receive medical treatment. The fact that only one dog had been let loose was not accepted by the court. I accept that the court was right in saying that the Bantu woman had been attacked by two dogs. The presiding magistrate said the following (translation)—

No further steps have been taken against the two members of the Force, and the hon. member wants to know from me why not. The hon. member is an advocate by profession and in this case the two people appeared in court. They were found guilty and sentenced. Can the hon. member tell me why I should pass one sentence after another on them? The hon. member knows as well as I do that when I order an inquiry against policemen, it may result in a number of things. It may result in dismissal from the Force, but that requires a special inquiry to determine whether the persons concerned deserve to remain in the Police Force. However, if I had ordered an inquiry in respect of the facts, it must have resulted in a fine. I did not do this for a very good reason. The reason is obvious. The accused have already appeared in court and have been found guilty and sentenced. Why should the police authorities sentence them again? Is one sentence not enough for a person’s crime? Does the hon. member accept this, or does he think I should have ordered another inquiry? We could go further with this matter.

They put the Bantu woman in the boot of the car.

Very well, they did, and I concede that. I have apologized for that in public, here in Parliament. They put the Bantu woman in the boot. The Divisional Commissioner and the District Commissioner investigated that aspect of the matter and asked why they had done so. Their reply was that the back seat had been removed and that the dogs had been put there. Consequently they did not know where to put the Bantu woman. The police station was 2 km from where they found the woman. Just look at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sitting there with a smile on his face.

Could they not have put the dogs in the boot?

I want to tell the hon. member that that smile of his is significant.

I think it is terrible.

We know what he is smiling about, because nothing which this Government or the S.A. Police does is right in his eyes. The hon. member is moving in another direction and he will reach his destination. We shall see him again in a year’s time. There was an inquiry and the two constables were asked why they had put the woman in the boot. It was a stupid thing to do; I agree with that. That is why I apologized.

Why are you attacking me then?

If the two men had reasoned that the one constable should vacate the front seat in order to make room for the woman, there was still the possibility that if that Bantu woman were to get into any part of the car, the dogs would still bite her. They never thought of leaving the one constable with the Bantu woman until they could send for help. They just did not think of that. The Divisional Commissioner later found that the men had committed an error of judgment. They argued that they might as well put her in the boot and drive the 2 km to the police station. That was quite wrong, but can one blame two young constables for reasoning like this? What further steps does the hon. member expect me to take against them? The people of Empangeni have told me that these two constables keep the area quite clean and that they maintain law and order. I keep hearing from Sea Point that we should do this and that, and: Where are the police? Why do we not do this and why do we not do that? Then one gets a place like Empangeni with two good constables, and what do I hear? I am now to appear in court with the two constables so that the question of why the constables acted in this way can be investigated in detail. Hon. members must remember that when constables are in the field, they have to take snap decisions, and that is not easy, particularly in view of the fact that the two constables are still young. Here in the House of Assembly we can argue the matter from all sides, but one cannot always do this in the field. I repeat that I am not going to have any further inquiry and that I quite agree with the Divisional Commissioner that no further inquiry is necessary. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been settled and I am quite satisfied with those two constables. They can go on with their work. They made a mistake, but they are doing good work and they must go on doing it.

The hon. member asked me to appoint a public relations officer for the S.A. Police. The full-time public relations officer for the S.A. Police is one Brig. Snyman. So the position already exists. The hon. member asked whether he could not help with recruiting. Almost every division has its own full-time recruiting officer who recruits for the S.A. Police. What more does the hon. member want? I come now to the other point which the hon. member made in saying that there were not enough bobbies on the beat. He took over the speech of his hon. friend with whom I sympathize because he is ill. He gave colour to the debate and I am sorry that he was not able to make his “bobbies on the beat” speech again tonight. Sir, it has been mentioned here repeatedly that there are not enough policemen. We work from patrol vans and we do our level best. From a central point we rush to the scene of the crime as soon as possible. Sir, I have received a letter from a lady who wrote to me (translation)—

She was lucky, for as she was making her call, the patrol van arrived at the police station. Then you get other people who write to you as follows (translation)—

Sir, they were unfortunate for the simple reason that no patrol van was immediately available. The men have to drive around and do patrol duty. It is very difficult to do everything at the same time, but we are doing all we can with our small manpower. I quite agree with the hon. member. I too believe that we should have policemen on beat if we can get the necessary manpower. We intend to have policemen on the beat in certain parts of the city at certain times, wherever we can. We are giving attention to this. This is a good point which the hon. member made. Sir, I may just say this to the Committee. There is a great deal of talk in the Press at the moment about Constantia and about Sea Point. If hon. members have been watching the Press, they will have seen that two raids were undertaken throughout Sea Point during the past week. We shall undertake big raids throughout Constantia as well. We use more or less 150 to 200 policemen for these raids. I only shudder to think that when we have finished with Sea Point, we are going to have an outcry again because the Police have arrested all the servants of the inhabitants of Sea Point. This is the way things are. If the Police are not there, then the Progs say that they should be there, and if they are there, the Progs ask: “What are the policemen doing here?” We simply cannot win.

Sir, reference has been made here to the Coloured townships. I just want to express a few thoughts about this. I want to make it quite clear that we are as anxious as anyone to have properly staffed police stations in the Coloured townships. But I believe that every community should produce its own policemen. You know what is happening in South Africa today as far as our English-speaking friends are concerned. I am not angry about this, but I want to mention it as a fact that it is the Afrikaner who has to staff the services. It is the Afrikaner who staffs the prison service. It is the Afrikaner who staffs the Police service; it is the Afrikaner who staffs the Public Service, and this enables his English-speaking countrymen, such as the laughing member for Johannesburg North on that side, to make a fantastic amount of money within a few months of their arrival in this country from Britain. Sir, I am not angry about this, but I believe that every population group should produce its own servicemen. We shall clean up the Coloured townships and keep them clean to the best of our ability, but it remains the primary responsibility of the Coloured people to give me Coloured policemen. If they do not give me Coloured policemen, they must not complain. We shall still perform this service, but then they must not complain. They must give us Coloured people whom we can train. We are quite prepared to allow Coloured boys to return to their own townships after they have been trained to serve as policemen there. Sir, I recently met a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce. They came to tell me that we had to do something about the Coloured situation. They said that their workers were beaten up over the weekends, with the result that they could not come to work on the following Monday. I asked them what we could do. Their reply was that we should make use of the services of vigilantes, i.e. of the services of people who form a vigilante group and then look after their own residential area. I told them that we have nothing against this, that it is not illegal, and that we appreciate it very much, but what else am I to do?

They are doing good work.

They suggested that the State should finance them and give them Police powers. My reply to that was that I could not do this: that I could not appoint people who did not fall under the control of the S.A.P. I cannot appoint people who do not fall under my department, because if they commit a murder or assault someone while wearing a badge of the S.A. Police, then the S.A. Police will be held responsible for it. If this service is to be responsible for it, then they have to put on a uniform and to subject themselves to our discipline and our officers. But I repeat that I have nothing against citizens joining forces to look after one another’s houses. But when it comes to remuneration, when it comes to Police powers, I am afraid that they will have to fall under the Police. I have made them an offer and told them that they can join the Police reservists; they need not be fulltime policemen. And now I want to say— and this has come a long way—that the Police are unpopular among these people, firstly because they do their work, but they are also unpopular, strangely enough, among the law-abiding citizens. There can be only one reason for this, and that is that they have been incited against the Police. And, Sir, this kind of speech which was made here this evening by the hon. member for Houghton, who told me, “Your Police are executing people”, is making the S.A. Police unpopular among the law-abiding Coloured people, and I say that this is disgraceful behaviour, for when something goes wrong in the Coloured area, that hon. member expects White young men to go in there and to risk their lives; then she is the first to get up in her bench and to say that all her spiritual associates are at university, so this job should be given to the young Afrikaners.

Where did I say that?

Yes, I say that you will be the first to say so. That is why I say that you are doing South Africa a disservice by continually running down the S.A. Police. I want to say tonight that with the exception of one or two speeches, positive things were said about the S.A. Police by the United Party speakers and by the National Party speakers in this debate, but not a word was said by the Progressive Party. They do not want to talk about it. They are scared stiff of being identified with the Police; that is why they are silent. But all the United Party members and all the National Party members had a word of praise for the Police.

Oh, well.

And do you know why this is so? I shall tell the hon. member why this is so. It is because the S.A. Police have deserved it with hard work, because the conduct of the S.A. Police has made them a source of pride to South Africa. That is why all the hon. members made positive speeches about them, and that is why those hon. members who do not like them did not have a word to say, because they are too scared to talk. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that the S.A. Police should be divorced from the Public Service Commission. This is a matter which I am not qualified to discuss. It is a public service organization and as such it automatically falls under the Public Service Commission. But I want to tell the hon. member that the salaries of the S.A. Police do not compare unfavourably with those of other services. I concede to the hon. member who mentioned this that we are not on the same level as the S.A. Railways, and I am sorry about that, but unfortunately we fall under the Public Service Commission and we do not make our own money as the Railways do. But for a salary for a public service organization within the Public Service Commission, our boys do not earn a bad salary We have the best medical service of all the services, at any rate, a better medical service than any other service. We have 100% loans for housing. On top of this we get R1 million every year for renting houses for the S.A. Police. If a policeman with two or three children qualifies for a house, he can rent a pleasant flat or a pleasant house for R12 to R20 a month. Sir, these are good conditions of service. The man has a fine career. This is a young man who need not go to university for three years and pay for his university training. He can enter the service at once and he is paid for his training. He is paid while he is at college. After leaving the college, he can become one of the most respected men in the country. He can get a uniform with the rank of officer and then he becomes one of the most respected citizens of South Africa. This is a good service and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is highly esteemed. The hon. member asked me to give revolvers to Black people. He wants me to arm them. Is that correct?

Yes.

It is already being done; the Black constable carries his revolver.

Does this apply in the case of Black reservists as well?

No, they do not carry revolvers yet.

The hon. member for Waterkloof made a very positive speech. The hon. members will forgive me for not responding fully to everyone’s speech. Unfortunately, I am subject to a time restriction. The hon. Leader of the House keeps looking round at me and I am beginning to feel ashamed. The hon. members’ speeches were positive and there was almost nothing they asked for. However, I took cognizance of all the speeches and I found them very interesting.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus made a particularly fine speech on the South African Criminal Bureau and the scientific work which is done by them. His speech was informative.

Is the hon. member for Sandton here? [Interjections.] Yes, there he is sitting. The hon. member said that the recruiting was very poor. I can tell the hon. member that we have a full-time recruiting officer in every division of the S.A. Police.

In addition, we have quite a number of films, and we have a travelling team of policemen who go to schools to impress young men with the physical quality of the policemen, and so forth. However, I shall give attention to what the hon. member said, for I am quite prepared to accept good suggestions. We shall look into this again.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who defended the system of police traps this time. He also mentioned the fact that the number of English-speaking young men in the Police Force represents only 4,3%, I believe, of the total number of members of the Force.

I have already replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke of a new police station in his constituency. I should like to tell him that I shall try to give that station greater priority on the service list so that it can be provided as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Pretoria East spoke of the dogs unit and told us how good the dogs are. He made a very fine speech and I want to tell him that Bismark is back.

The hon. member for East London City referred to overtime. I gave him a reply from my bench which was not quite correct and I should like to furnish him with a full reply.

†The personnel of the S.A. Criminal Bureau and the Police garages in Pretoria and the larger centres are being paid a bonus. It is not a salary, but a bonus in accordance with a percentage of work performed over and above their normal quota. They are not paid overtime. They are allotted a certain quota of work and if they can complete it during or outside their working time and they overreach the quota, they get a bonus.

Does that include the mechanics?

Yes, the mechanics also qualify for bonuses. They too have a certain job to do and if they can do more than that, they get a bonus.

*The hon. member also referred to the prosecutors. The reason why there are fewer prosecutors this year than there were last year is that the Department of Justice is appointing more prosecutors from its own ranks. The result is that fewer policeman are being used as prosecutors. I have replied to the hon. member on the question of the 500 national servicemen.

The hon. member for Eshowe gave a very interesting analysis in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton. It concerned the policemen who are alleged to be so trigger-happy. The hon. member indicated quite clearly to her that the people who are really shot are the policemen. The figure which is always quoted in the House of Assembly refers to the people who are shot by the Police, but the hon. member for Houghton never mentions the number of policemen who are injured. I have told the hon. member for Houghton before—I do not want to get angry about this now, but I want to say it to her as pleasantly as possible and to repeat it this year, because it is just as applicable this year as it was last year—that I refuse to take a policeman’s pistol away from him.

I did not ask you to do that.

I know, but you asked me to do that last year.

I never did that.

My experience has been that there is a special drill which a policeman with a gun or a pistol has to go through. He may only use it in certain circumstances, and if he oversteps the mark, an inquiry is held at once and he has to bear the consequences. All policemen know this. I can assure the hon. member that we conduct quite a number of inquiries of this kind, and I can only say that the police are quite in order as far as this is concerned. They do not overstep the mark.

The hon. member for Overvaal asked me a question in connection with Sebokeng. We shall take cognizance of what he requested in his speech and we shall build the police stations as soon as possible because we think they are necessary.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Houghton and I have also replied to the question about the vigilantes. I have also replied to the hon. member for Durban North. I want to express my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who took part in the debate for the very high standard that was maintained during this debate.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.