House of Assembly: Vol107 - WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL 1961

WEDNESDAY, 19 APRIL 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. DISCHARGE OF ORDERS OF THE DAY The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move as an unopposed motion—

That Orders of the Day Nos. XV XVII, XVIII, XX and XXII to XXIV for to-day, viz.:
Adjourned debate on motion on minimum wages, to be resumed;
Adjourned debate on motion on fertility of arable land, to be resumed;
Adjourned debate on motion on losses by farmers during droughts, to be resumed;
Adjourned debate on motion on Inter-State African Development Association, to be resumed;
Adjourned debate on motion on economic planning in agriculture, to be resumed;
Adjourned debate on motion on Communism in Africa, to be resumed; and
Adjourned debate on motion on South Africa’s economic survival, to be resumed,
be discharged.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

DEFENCE FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a first time.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

First Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 18 April, when Votes Nos. 2 to 4, 10 and 12 to 20 had been agreed to, and Vote No. 11—“South African Information Service”, R1,242,000, was under consideration.]

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The task of an information service such as this is firstly, on the positive side, to disseminate information, and secondly, on the negative side, to counter incorrect reports. I think it is just as well that I state in brief what the policy is of this side of the House in connection with a Governmental information service. Let me say this in reply to what we hear so often: We on this side of the House strongly disapprove of reports which give incorrect facts in connection with South Africa. We regard those as lies which have to be replied to. Secondly, we believe in the principle that there should be a distinction between facts and comment. “ Facts and sacred, comment is free.” We have the right, of course, to reply to comment where necessary. Thirdly, we say that every government should, within the framework of its policy, make it as easy as possible for its information service to carry out its duties to the best of its ability. A Government and its Cabinet Ministers and ordinary members should try not to make statements which can be incorrectly interpreted, as happened so often last year in regard to Sharpeville, etc. Fourthly, I say that a definite distinction should be drawn between criticism on South Africa and criticism of the Government. Those are two different things. We shall reply to and counter criticism on South Africa but I cannot be expected to be a hypocrite and to say that this Government is a good Government in all respects. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we in this House get information about the Information Service. For that reason I am sorry that the latest annual report of the Information Service is not yet available. Last year it was laid on the Table on 11 March, but we are already in April this year and it has not yet been tabled. I trust that the report of the Information Service will be at our disposal next year before the Vote comes up for discussion. If, therefore, there are important matters in connection with which the hon. the Minister can give us information, matters which are raised in the report, we will appreciate it if he will do so. I have in mind more particularly publications such as South African Digest and Panorama, the use of films, the use of television and the cultural aspect.

I should also like to have more information from the Minister in regard to the relationship between the Information Service and the South African Broadcasting Corporation, for example. To what extent was the Information Service responsible for the news supplied to the Press and to the Broadcasting Corporation in connection with the recent Prime Ministers’ Conference? To what extent is the hon. the Minister responsible for the fact that the South African Broadcasting Corporation put those two false reports over the air that we would remain within the Commonwealth and secondly that it was all due to the hon. the Prime Minister?

I notice from the Estimates that there has been a considerable increase in expenditure under this Vote. In 1959 the expenditure amounted to R742,000 and in 1961, the current year, the figure will be R1,242,000. In other words, expenditure has quadrupled during those four years, and this year R300,000 more will be spent than last year. Is the reason that the Minister expects more trouble to arise under the republic and that it will be more difficult to give a satisfactory explanation to the world outside about conditions here? I do not object to increased expenditure provided it is justified. We agree that the staff of the Information Service should receive decent salaries. What I do want to know, however, is whether these very big allowances which they receive at places such as UNO and also New York, are justified. The senior official in New York, for example, gets a personal allowance of R30 per day and R26 per day, on the average, at UNO. Is there justification for that? What is that money generally used for? We should like to have some further information on that.

Under the heading “ Publications ” I should like to say something about Panorama which is issued by the Information Service. This journal was the subject of discussion at the Select Committee on Public Accounts during the past three years, and judging from the evidence given and the report of the Auditor-General, it would appear that there is cause for concern about the manner in which the finances of that journal are controlled, and that they are concerned about the losses on Panorama In 1959-60 the losses on Panorama amounted to £36,000, and in 1958-9 the losses amounted to £39,800. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us what the latests losses are on Panorama. These figures given by the Minister relate to the journal itself but the fact remains that the loss on Panorama is much higher than the approximately £40,000 per year because for the greater part postage is not included in that. That is a very important item of expenditure in the case of every journal. At the Select Committee on Public Accounts I asked the following question—

Can the Committee therefore accept that postage and freight charges for the transport of South African Panorama are not shown under the heading “ Expenditure ” on the statement?

The reply of the Director of Information was “ yes ”. We do not know, therefore, what the actual losses on that publication are. It may be much more than £40,000 per year. Its effective circulation is in the neighbourhood of 40,000. Fifty-two thousand to 53,000 copies are printed but of the 53,000 copies printed every month only 41,000 are effective. The balance is either returned or given away gratis. It amounts to this that that journal is more or less subsidized to the tune of £1 per year per copy. I should like to know whether that is justified and whether it is not possible to spend that money more effectively in this field. This publication does not seem to be very popular in the rest of the world. There are only between 600 and 800 overseas subscribers, according to the Director of Information. There is an annual surplus of 86,000 copies. The question arises whether too many copies are not being printed and whether the surplus is not too big. Is the staff not too big as well? Does a monthly publication like that warrant a staff of one editor, with three assistant editors and a photographer?

The work that the information officials have to do is very important. In view of the fact that the Government has stated that it does not intend appointing diplomatic representatives in the African states, I should like to know whether it should not, as a start on a small scale, send information officers who will not be required to act so formally, to one or two of those African states who are well disposed towards us. I believe we have one in Nairobi, but I have a few other states in mind. Is it not possible to send information officers there, or even to exchange them, so they can slowly create a better feeling in Africa itself? The Africa Institute was established recently of which Mr. Wenny du Plessis is the chief. I am informed that the institute does not fall directly under the Minister’s Department but that it falls mainly under the Department of Education. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us something about that if his Department has anything to do with the Africa Institute.

Then I also would like to know what the duties are of the section called “ Head State Liaison with the South African Information Service ”. This is a division with an interesting name. I should like to know to what extent that division is also at the disposal of Members of Parliament who may perhaps want information about one or other overseas matter. I do not know to what extent the Information Service can be made to fit into the new policy of the hon. the Minister, a policy of quid pro quo or “ tit for tat ”, or “ horse-trading ” as it has been called. I trust that it will not be used. I am somewhat concerned when I see some of the articles that go out in reply to criticism. Here is the usual Press comment, extracts of which are published in the British Press. I hope this does not get published too widely, because here they comment on comments in the British Press, which seems to me to be more “ tit for tat ” than quid pro quo. [Time limit.]

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

We listened this afternoon to representations by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and I think it is high time that the House and the public of South Africa should realize what he is doing to the country, to South Africa. He expressed surprise about certain matters and he attacked the hon. the Minister and he was concerned about the expenditure of the Information Service and of the S.A. Foundation. I want to tell him that the S.A. Foundation is not a political body. It is an organization which has nothing to do with politics and has nothing to do with the Government, but the hon. member wants to drag it into politics. I want to ask the hon. member one thing: He wanted certain information from the hon. the Minister, but during the years when he wrote in the Kruithoring he raised various matters and he was well informed and then he wrote from his heart in favour of the National Party. Why does he now come along with these representations? I want to ask him to be honest towards the country and towards the people and towards himself. He fought against me at Edenvale, Mr. Chairman, and there he also came along with matters in which he himself did not believe. He pretends to be a South African and one who fights for the South African nation. Mr. Chairman, one wants to be honest towards oneself and have a clear conscience. But one does not say such things at one stage and then do a complete somersault and say exactly the opposite about the same things. The hon. member violates either his own mind or his own conscience because in the Kruithoring, for example, he praised the hon. the Minister. We have the record.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

On a point of order. I would like to know what this has to do with the Vote?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I am talking about the Information Service about which the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke, but the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) is of course too stupid to understand it. I want to point out that the hon. member for Orange Grove is continually asking questions and trying to attack the National Party but he was the great propagandist of the National Party who praised the National Party from all sides.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I was wrong in those days.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

If he was so wrong why did he flee and not fight in those days? In any case, the hon. member should know that one cannot satisfy one’s conscience by acting wrongly. One’s conscience will worry one, and the nation knows him. When the United Party was in power he attacked them left and right and made allegations which he cannot defend to-day. He made shocking statements and now he comes along with the same sort of propaganda, only in reverse. One wonders if the nation—the Nationalists, the Progressives and the United Party—can have any confidence in him. Who can have any confidence in him? No one, and I want to predict that he will not be sitting in Parliament after the next election.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I will lay a bet on that.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Very well. But if the hon. member wanted to criticize the Information Service then he should in the first place tell the House why he asked questions about matters of which he said precisely the same as the hon. the Minister said to-day, matters in connection with which he praised the hon. the Minister at that time. What did he mean by it? He of course only wants to sow discord and try and bring the hon. the Minister into discredit in the country, but of course he will not succeed. Instead of making statements he puts questions. Allow me to say that neither the hon. member for Orange Grove nor any hon. member of the Opposition could have done for South Africa what the hon. the Minister has done through the Information Service. With the funds at their disposal and the troubles which South Africa had, and with the difficulties which she had overseas and with the English Press which was continually attacking the Government from all sides they could not have done better than they had done and South Africans ought to raise their hats to such an Information Service. It is hoped that they will achieve even more in the future. The hon. member must be careful. If you dig a hole for someone else you may fall into it yourself. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) may laugh. Only stupid people laugh. The hon. member was a soldier but he knows nothing about these matters. South Africa will continue to build through her Information Service and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister of External Affairs will go further and achieve better results than the hon. member for Orange Grove could ever deliver, because the hon. the Minister has stood solidly since 1924 and followed the right road and has never wavered or hesitated. The hon. member for Orange Grove has already jumped from the embankment three times and each time he sinks deeper into the mud. He should be careful; one days he will not be able to get out of it. The National Party need not be ashamed. The Information Service has experienced hard times but has done good work and I hope and trust that they will do even better work in future.

Mr. COPE:

I think the last passage of the hon. member’s speech was most revealing when he said “ We in the Nationalist Party carry on and do not worry about criticism ”. I should like to know whether he regards the Information Service as an organ of the Nationalist Party, because if he does, then we know where we stand in this House. But I am not treating the service on that basis. I want to offer a few comments on the information service on the basis of a state service. We are being asked to vote R1,250,000 for this service and it is my contention that from a professional and efficiency point of view South Africa is getting a rotten deal out of this. We are getting very poor value indeed for the R1,250,000 which we are asked to vote, and we are getting poor value because the job is being done ignorantly and crudely and what is more, it is being done inefficiently. That is the burden of what I want to say to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the role of an information service is of twofold kind. It is in the first instance public relations and it is also a question of propaganda and publicity. Those are the two main divisions I want to speak about. In regard to public relations, I think that the public relations side of the Information Department shows a complete lack of understanding as to what is really entailed by public relations. I wonder whether there is any training in public relations. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister himself really understands the techniques of public relations in regard to a modern propaganda service. Our public relations here, particularly in respect of the handling of important people, again and again has been shown to be ham-handed in a particularly crude way. I refer for instance to the treatment meted out to Mr. Luth. That was discussed fairly fully from a different angle on a previous Vote. I want to discuss it briefly from the public relations point of view. I think Mr. Luth has shown us how public relations should be conducted when he said …

An HON. MEMBER:

Who is he?

Mr. COPE:

A visiting journalist from Hamburg. The hon. Minister went out of his way to insult a man who is of some prominence in Germany and who has it within his power to do a good deal of harm to us in the public relations field. The Minister’s treatment of Mr. Luth has been extremely crude. Mr. Luth pointed out that it was to your main critics that you should be most courteous and most careful and most dignified. What did we do? I only mention this as a typical example, because it was not only done to him, but we meted out similar treatment to Phillips, the Canadian journalist. Look what flowed from that! Look what we had to deal with in the international sphere in regard to Canada, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Phillips’s articles had a very great deal to do with the conditioning of public opinion in Canada.

The treatment meted out to Phillips was ridiculous in the extreme. It did no good to anybody and did an enormous amount of harm to South Africa. And there was the case of Williams, the treatment meted out to him too. It is ridiculous and it does not do us any good. The way to treat these people, when you have people like that visiting our country, is to treat them with the utmost courtesy, and above all to put before them anything they want in the matter of absolute truth and to assist them and facilitate their work in every way possible. To get hold of a man like that and start arguing with him and start quibbling and complaining, must of course provoke the kind of reaction that we got. You annoy them and upset them and that is public relations in the worst sense. That is not the way in which to handle them. If the hon. the Minister had any technical knowledge of public relations, he would go to our strongest critics wherever they are to be found, critics whose opinion matters. I am not talking about people who write for the sensational Press. If the hon. the Minister knew his job, he would know that their opinion does not carry great weight. But there are people whose opinion carries weight, and to whom people listen. They should be approached and if you want them in South Africa, get them here. Bring them in with no strings, bring them in with the utmost courtesy. Let them see what they like and let them write in any way they like. But don’t try and teach them how to write about South Africa. Don’t try and argue with them about what they write. Don’t annoy them in the way the hon. the Minister does. I say that our Department of Information under the Minister’s guidance just does not know the first thing about public relations in handling people. It annoys them and it brings reactions that we don’t deserve.

On the advertising side there is even less intelligence. May I quote an example which I think is a typical example which shows the whole attitude of this Department in regard to advertising and propaganda. Everybody knows that the finest form of propaganda is the propaganda which has the appearance of being completely objective, of being put across without any particular bias. The way—if I may quote an example—the B.B.C. puts across its news. The B.B.C. news throughout the world has a prestige second to none. It is put across completely objectively, unemotionally, and in a way that creates confidence. Now I will give an example. I have got here a copy of this Overseas Press Bulletin that is given to us. What is this intended for? It is intended as a balanced factual survey of overseas news for the information of the people who receive it, and the people who receive it are mostly people who are in a position to judge for themselves. They do not want comments thrust down their throats. And what crude comments too! I’ll just quote one or two passages from one piece that comes to hand, but I can assure you this type of comment riddles this service from end to end. Here is one which dealt with Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit to South Africa. This is how it is presented to us. Mark you, this is purported to be a completely objective, balanced account of all the comments on Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit for our information. What do we get? We get this sort of thing—

Reporting with voluminous and in familiar idiom …

I don’t want to be told that it is in the “ familiar idiom ”. We want to know what people’s thoughts are—

During the first few days the correspondents were frightfully concerned about the alleged insulation of Mr. Hammarskjoeld by the authorities, without any contact with the demonstrators and the real leaders of the oppressed Africans.

This is supposed to be an objective account of Press comment given to prominent people. Then it says—

Reports covered fairly factually all the comings and goings of the Secretary-General’s tour. Quite often, of course, there were some imaginative embroideries on the facts. Then one correspondent made the point, of which his blinkered colleagues were all conveniently unaware, that the Secretary-General had been instructed to have talks with the Government of the Union.

Mr. Chairman, what appalling stuff to dish up to intelligent people, and this from the State Information Office! I say that that is a revealing instance of the kind of mentality that goes into the Information Service on the propaganda side. Mr. Chairman, there is one golden rule for anybody who knows anything about this subject at all, and that golden rule is that you do not try to sell the unsaleable. It is stupid, Sir, to go out placing advertisements and trying to explain away apartheid. That is stupid! There is a great deal about South Africa, though, that can be put across and can be put across to great advantage if it is handled in the right way. But, Sir, we are not doing that properly. We are wasting money in trying to explain away things that simply can not be explained away overseas. Leave those things alone and sort out things that can be put across in regard to South Africa. There is a tremendous lot that is highly saleable, first-class stuff that can be put across overseas in regard to South Africa. The selection of the State Information I say in this regard has been very poor indeed. [Time limit.]

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

I just rise with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in regard to the South African Panorama and his unfortunate reference to the Select Committee on Public Accounts which considered the matter in relation to certain remarks by the Auditor-General. It created the impression that the Auditor-General had referred to the unwise or irresponsible management in connection with South African Panorama. The points to which attention was directed were two minor matters. The first was that the production of South African Panorama practically included an estimated amount for salaries because the officials of the Information Office also do other work, and their work in connection with South African, Panorama is only part of their work. Consequently it is not possible clearly to distinguish between that part of their salary which ought to fall under South African Panorama and that part of their salary, office hours, etc., which should be debited to other section. This is purely a matter of bookkeeping. The costs are allocated as precisely as possible, and there is no suggestion of a reflection being cast.

The second aspect which enjoyed attention was the fact that a large number of copies, more than 80,000 a year, remain unsold, and here I just want to give the information that the very satisfactory explanation was then given that the Information Office sends all the copies of South African Panorama which remain unsold in South Africa to their overseas offices, where they are distributed to the public gratis. In my opinion, that is one of the best uses that can be made of South African Panorama. Finally, I just want to say that the gratifying communication could be made to us that the production cost of South African Panorama decreased from 1s. lid. per copy in 1957-8 to 1s. 4d. That is an appreciable decrease. The gross loss is increasing because the circulation is increasing.

Whilst I am on my feet, I just want to pass a few other remarks in regard to South African Panorama. The hon. member for Parktown indirectly supported South African Panorama. He said that apart from points of difference, there are many splendid things in regard to South Africa which we can show the world, and I believe that the Information Office, in publishing South African Panorama, is really producing a splendid product which shows the world these nice things about South Africa. I think that if there is anything to criticize in regard to the Information Office, South African Panorama is the last thing which should be criticized. In regard to the circulation in this country, the position is that certain firms buy numbers of copies of South African Panorama and send them to their friends overseas. It often happens that well-disposed people in South Africa buy number of copies and send them to private addresses overseas at their own cost.

But I am not yet certain whether sufficient copies of this magazine reach the right people overseas. Our Information Service with its limited potential should ascertain very accurately which persons we want to reach. And where in each country we may select a group of persons, in one country perhaps the people who control finances, in another country perhaps those who control politics and in another country again people who have influence over the Press, I believe that the Information Office should ascertain which people they want to reach in which country by means of South African Panorama and that the Information Office should systematically decide to which persons overseas South African Panorama should be sent regularly. That is something which hitherto has not yet been done on a large scale, and it will probably increase the so-called bookkeeping losses on South African Panorama, but unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, we believe it is now the function of the Information Office to spend money on building up the good name of South Africa and to convert a loss into a really acceptable picture of South Africa given to the outside world. I trust that this publication will as the result of more systematic distribution have a long and proud future and hitherto we have been proud of it as a journalistic achievement and an example of a splendid South African publication.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, any hope that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) may have had that his observations would be taken seriously, have been shattered by the manner in which he dealt with this subject. One gets the impression that he must have consulted a Thesaurus Dictionary in order to see how many adjectives he could find. In the first few minutes of his statement he made the following observations about the Information Office: “ South Africa is getting a rotten deal; South Africa is getting poor value; the work is being done ignorantly; it is being done crudely; it is being done inefficiently; the public relations shows complete lack of efficiency; it is ham-handed ”. Those are some of the adjectives he used within the first few minutes of his statement. I get the impression that the hon. member has a grudge against the Information Service; one might almost describe it as a personal grudge.

I am always happy to listen to constructive criticism and to suggestions that can be made. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was also critical in certain respects, but at least he did attempt to state the position objectively. He did criticize, but not in the manner in which the hon. member for Park-town did. In the circumstances the hon. member for Parktown must really not take it amiss if I do not take his speech seriously. His whole attitude “was that of a self-appointed expert; he is the only man who knows anything about publicity, about public relations. And so he was laying down the law. But the very fact of his using those expressions and the way in which he approached the subject shows not only a very poor spirit, but a complete lack of understanding. I would go further and say a complete lack of knowledge of what the South African Information Service is actually doing.

Mr. Chairman, I was astonished to hear from the hon. member that he was actually blaming the Information Service, and Mr. Meiring the Director, for what I might term the Luth incident. I do not know whether the hon. member was here yesterday when I made a full statement about what had actually happened. And he now tries to create the impression that this German visitor was treated discourteously.

Mr. COPE:

I said stupidly.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

No, the hon. member said “discourteously”.

Mr. COPE:

Yes, both.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Very well, discourteously and stupidly. Yesterday I told this House exactly what had happened. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and I explained how this man, on very short notice —a telephone call or something of that sort from the German Embassy—had turned up at the Information Office and there represented himself as being interested in architecture. He said he wanted to see something of the country and housing conditions. And he was treated with the utmost courtesy. Arrangements were made to show him these things. He was given somebody to show him around. But the very next morning, before they could do anything to assist him, this statement appeared in the Cape Times. Needless to say the State Information Service was shocked.

Mr. COPE:

Why did you not leave it at that? Why did you have to reply?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

He turned up at the office again …

Mr. COPE:

No.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Oh yes, he certainly did. The hon. member has been relying entirely on the onesided statement which was given by Mr. Luth, quite uncalled for. He had been courteously treated and offered all possible assistance, and then he goes, you might say, straight from Mr. Meiring’s office to the Cape Times—or the Cape Times goes to him—and he gives them this statement. I am not blaming the Cape Times, they thought the man was telling the truth. They thought he was genuine; they thought he was honest. And that is what we got. Mr. Meiring, naturally, expostulated with him, pointed out to him that he had received every possible courteousy, and expressed the surprise that he should make those statements to the Cape Times, amongst other things, that it would have been a grave embarrassment to the German Government if the Prime Minister had been able to make his projected visit to Germany, and several other remarks of that sort.

Mr. Meiring assures me that when Mr. Luth first came to his office he never even discussed the Colour issue. There was no question of any ideological matter or anything of that sort being discussed. He said he was interested in housing and that he would like to see Langa and Nyanga. Arrangements were therefore made for him to see these places, and everything possible was done. Yet, to-day the hon. member for Parktown gives the impression— and that seems to be the burden of his complaint—that visitors coming to South Africa and going to the State Information Office are not treated courteously.

Yesterday I replied to a written question put to me by an hon. member from the other side of the House. In my reply I gave a list of all the journalists who had come to South Africa and who had been assisted by the State Information Office over the past year. There was a total of something like 450 visiting journalists. And these people have written back expressing their appreciation of what was done for them. Everything possible is done to help them. Yet the hon. member comes here this afternoon and makes these absolutely unjustified accusations. He even goes so far as to try and defend this man Williams. I gave these facts yesterday.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

“ Soapy?”

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

No, not “ Soapy ”, the Black Williams. The hon. member even went so far as to suggest that he had not been properly treated. Yesterday I gave the circumstances of his visit to South Africa, how he had grossly deceived —and I used that word advisedly—how he had grossly deceived our High Commissioner in Ottawa, representing himself as somebody who was very keenly interested in the Colour problem here. He said he only got one side of the picture in Canada and he would like to see the other side of the picture. He said “ Of course I am against apartheid but, on the other hand, I am not entirely unsympathetic ”. And on the strength of what he said, we recommended to the Department of the Interior that he should be given the necessary permission. Had that permission been refused, that hon. member would have been the very first one to attack us on that ground!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

What was the gross deceit?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

And from the time he arrived at the airport, where a member of the State Information Office was waiting to meet him, from that time onwards he was aggressive and made trouble. It was quite clear that he had come here with an entirely different motive and for an entirely different reason. Yet the hon. member for Parktown, believe it or not, now attempts to defend a man like that.

On the question of public relations, the hon. member says that our propaganda should be impartial. I have never yet heard of any Information Office of any country in the world that does not present a picture of the country, and try to give information. I think that if the hon. member will take the trouble to go through the information given out by our Information Office…

Mr. COPE:

I have done so.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

… the number of brochures which are issued, he will find that, while they do, naturally, present the Government’s policy, it is not done in an aggressive manner. It is done as impartially as possible. In New York alone the number of inquiries received by our office there totals about 6,000 a week, coming from all parts of the country. The inquirers are supplied with brochures. I visit those offices when I go overseas; I take a personal interest in what is being done by the Information Service, and I am satisfied in my own mind that they are giving excellent service.

The hon. member spoke about public relations. Is he also one of those who objects to what is being done by Mr. Steward, our representative in London? In London there is only one newspaper that is friendly and sympathetic towards the Government, viz. the Daily Express. The other newspapers are all hostile, some of them are extremely hostile, particularly the London Times. Mr. Steward discussed this with me and, when I was there last year, he put forward the scheme of hiring space in the newspapers. That is something which is also being done by other countries. It is a usual form of giving information. He hired space in the Observer, and, more particularly, in the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times has a circulation of round about 1,000,000. It is very widely read, being read by far more people than only the 1,000,000 figures in the circulation. On the editorial page of that paper he sets out an impartial and objective statement of South Africa’s policy. When I was in London this year, he showed me the number of letters he had received from all over Britain within the past week. There were also letters from the Continent, expressing appreciation of the information which was being given and the manner in which it was being given—not ham-handed as the hon. member has suggested. That service is costing round about £11,000 a year, but I suggest it is worth every penny of it.

I think the hon. member also mentioned the radio and the cinema. I do not know whether he has seen the films which we show. Four are made every year. Does the hon. member really feel that that is also “ useless ”, “ ham-handed ” and “ inefficient ”? Those films have done an enormous amount of good. Even the hon. member who is so violently prejudiced cannot say that those films are blatant propaganda. They give information on South Africa, and they give it in an objective manner which has had very great success overseas.

Mr. Chairman, we are showing on the television screen overseas strips—I do not know what they call them—which are included in many of the programmes. They show for about half a minute. I have seen them and they, too, are extremely effective in giving people overseas information about South Africa.

I do not think I need worry about that hon. member for Orange Grove any further. He is so violently prejudiced, so sure of himself, and such an expert, that it is no good talking to that type of person.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), referred to South African Panorama. Reference has been made to this supposed loss on South African Panorama. Let me first of all say from all sides, all over the country, the Information Office is complimented on this very excellent production. In fact, it is the best of its kind in South Africa to-day. There again there is no obvious propaganda. We could sell far more copies were it not for the fact that we have decided to limit the number supplied to the Central News Agency for sale, because primarily that publication is intended for distribution overseas. There is no question of a “ loss ”. You might as well say there is a loss on a report of the Department of Agriculture that is issued every year, or on the Government Gazette. It is not a question of a loss. It is a form of giving information, and that is what we are prepared to pay for it. I suggest we are getting value for our money. The so-called unsold copies are not wasted; they are all sent overseas. I have seen them at our offices there. There they are distributed amongst the types of people who would be interested; to libraries, to schools; to colleges and to others who might be interested in South Africa.

Last year, Sir, I had occasion to go and see a doctor in Harley Street and, while I was in his waiting-room, I saw a South African Panorama lying on his table amongst other publications. So you see there is no question of a “ loss ”. You might just as well say there is a loss on the Government Gazette. I do not think there is any hon. member on the Opposition benches—unless he is as violently prejudiced as the hon. member for Parktown— who will not agree that South African Panorama is a most excellent publication. It is doing a good job. A number of business men in South Africa subscribe to a large number of copies, 20 or 30 or 40. We are furnished with the addresses of their business associates and other friends in America or England to whom these copies are sent. Many people send their copies overseas when they have finished with them. That publication has done more to make South Africa known than anything else we have been able to produce, and I suggest that every penny spent on South African Panorama is well spent. There can be no question of a “ loss ”. The extraordinary thing is the way people react. The average type of person does not like to get anything free. If it is a paper that he buys on the street or at the Central News Agency, then it has more value to him than if he received it gratis. We could sell twice the number if we had not limited local sales, because the paper is intended primarily for distribution overseas.

The hon. member compared our propaganda with the B.B.C. He says our propaganda should be impartial. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that hon. member or any other member on the other side could have seen a picture put over on the television by the B.B.C., three or four years ago, also, strangely enough, called Panorama, they would not say that. A more disgracefully, violently prejudiced production it would be difficult to find. A well-known editor of a well-known South African newspaper happened to be in England attending the Imperial Press Conference which was sitting in London at that time. I saw him the following day when I attended their dinner, and he came up to my rooms and we had a drink after dinner. He said: “ Did you see that terrible Panorama feature last night? ” He is the editor of one of the leading newspapers in South Africa, and he expressed himself as disgusted with what had been put over by the B.B.C. That is the type of information described by the hon. member as being impartial.

The hon. member also said something here about Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit. Mr. Chairman, if there has been any instance in which the Press in South Africa has shown itself in a poor light—most of the newspapers—it was on the occasion of Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s visit to South Africa. A number of the newspapers went out of their way, deliberately, to try and prejudice Mr. Hammarskjoeld even before he arrived here. It was one of the most unpleasant things that had ever happened. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus) need not shake his head …

Mr. WATERSON:

I am not shaking my head, I am yawning.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I am replying to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He does not believe me. Certain sections of the South African Press excelled themselves in trying to prejudice the visit to South Africa of that gentleman before he arrived, and particularly while he was here.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he was talking on behalf of the Opposition in regard to this matter. He said it was the policy of the United Party that they, together with us, deprecate inaccurate reports being published. I would be glad if the Opposition could express its disapproval of inaccurate reports in somewhat stronger language than they did in the past. He says that we should distinguish between facts and comment. I agree. But unfortunately our experience hitherto has been that absolutely inaccurate reports are published which in fact have been taken out of the air. I have seen many of those already. It is the old story of “ it is said in certain circles ”, “ well-informed circles ”, “ I understand ”, and all that sort of thing. On the basis of such inaccurate reports a leading article appears in the newspaper the next day, based on an absolutely inaccurate and false report. There we then have the so-called comment. The two are related. Much of the inaccurate comment is based on that sort of report.

Then the hon. member says we must also distinguish between criticism of South Africa and criticism of the Government. My experience hitherto at UN and also in London and elsewhere has been that in a large number of cases the criticism is aimed at South Africa. Mr. Chairman, what strikes me particularly is the number of cases where criticism is directed at White South Africa. Anyone who goes overseas and reads the reports there, particularly at UN. will see that the criticism and the speeches are directed more at White South Africa than at the Government, although it is also directed against the Government.

The hon. member asked when the report of the Department would be published. I regret that the report is a little late this year. It has been printed and I received a preliminary copy yesterday. I think it will be placed in hon. members’ boxes within a day or two. He also wanted information about the Digest. The Digest is supplied to quite a number of people. An attempt is made, as far as possible, to state both sides of the case and to give factual information. The Digest is sent to all members of the Cabinet, and the members of the House of Assembly and the Senate, the Provincial Councils, the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, to all overseas representatives, to representatives of the South African Information Office and the Department of External Affairs overseas. For the rest, it goes almost exclusively to persons and organizations who specially ask to be placed on the mailing list. That includes most of the Government Departments, various journalists, libraries, associations such as the Rotarians, members of the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries, etc., here and in many countries of the world. At the end of last month the mailing list of people who receive the Digest stood at 23,618. It is still increasing.

I have already given the information in regard to Panorama. I do not want to take up the time of the House by giving all the figures regarding publication and so forth. In regard to the radio, I have stated what we are doing overseas, and what we are also doing through the medium of films.

Then the hon. member asks to what extent the Information Office provides the S.A.B.C. with information. The Information Office supplies information not only to the S.A.B.C. but to newspapers as well. There are, e.g., Government statements, statements by Ministers which go through the Information Office. From there it first goes to the South African Press Association; it also goes to overseas representatives. The Information Office is the channel. It is really in that regard that there is the new expansion to which the hon. member referred. That is the State liaison section. The idea is to ensure, even more than in the past, that all Government information should go through the channel of the Information Office. The same applies to statements which are made, to ensure that these statements will not only be given to the Press agency, but particularly also to our foreign representatives. There will also be officials who have been specially trained in connection with this work. When a Minister or the Head of a Department issues a statement, it is usually too long and too detailed. It is not ready to be published. Then the Press themselves abbreviate it, with the result that sometimes it gives quite a wrong impression. The idea is that this liaison section between the State Information Office and the Departments of the Ministers will assist in drafting these statements. The Minister drafts a long and detailed statement and the Information Office prepares for publication. Unless that is done, it sometimes happens that the most important point in a statement is omitted, and that prominence is given to an unimportant point. That will be part of the functions of this liaison section, to prepare such statements for the Press.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Will the Press no longer have access to Ministers?

*The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

When there are requests for interviews with Ministers they can go through the Information Office. The hon. member surely knows that at the time when he was still a Minister, if he were to have granted an interview to every person who wished to see him, his whole day would have been taken up with interviews. The idea is that the Information Office will also arrange that sort of thing, and where it is desirable that an individual or an organization or a visitor should have an interview with a Minister, it will be arranged through them.

I do not know what the hon. member really means by his “ tit for tat ” argument. I do not know whether he was just following up the story we had from certain hon. members on his side of the House yesterday. I am thinking particularly of what we heard last night from the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), to which I did not have the time to reply. The Opposition evidently sets out from the standpoint that we must just take everything as it comes. Our enemies can simply attack us and say what they like, but we are not supposed to hit back. According to them, we must be ever so friendly towards our enemies. He particularly objected to the fact that last year I exposed the hypocrisy of the Swedish attacks on South Africa.

I do not know precisely what the hon. member for Orange Grove means by the “ tit for tat” policy. When attacks are made on South Africa and the Minister concerned replies to those attacks, he can point out that those people should be the last ones to talk; that this, that or the other thing takes place in their own countries. It is our duty to tell them first to put their own house in order. The Information Office itself will not do so. It does so in the form of an extract from the speech of a Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Opposition also wants this debate to end as soon as possible. I would be quite prepared to give still further information if it is necessary because I am particularly interested in this work. I have been asked about the increase in expenditure, but it is obvious that a service like this is continually expanding, and particularly in recent times what happened in Africa and elsewhere gave rise to a tremendously increased demand. After the events in the Congo, our office in New York was, inundated with inquiries from all over the country in regard to South Africa. Many of them evidently thought that the Congo was close to us, but then they realized the seriousness of the position in Africa, and as the result we were inundated with thousands of inquiries and we had to appoint a special staff to handle these inquiries. It is, therefore, obvious that in that respect our expenditure increased. Then, for example, we issued a series of five little books, “ The Progress of the Bantu People in South Africa ”. To the best of my recollection, 40,000 to 50,000 of these booklets were published, excellent little books without any bias, and the demand for them was so great that the issue had to be increased to 90,000 because the one tells another about it, and that again resulted in increased expenditure. The staff was increased and expenditure increased. To tell the truth, my own feeling is that if our Information Office is really to perform its function it needs twice as much money as we are now spending. We could do much more if we had the necessary funds.

It has been represented to us that we should make arrangements for the appointment of a public relations officer. It has also been suggested by our friends overseas. I went into the matter very carefully, last year and the year before, when I was in New York. I made contact with well-known public relations firms. The position is that the product that these P.R.O. firms sell are tourism, prospects, investments, etc. But South Africa’s problem is a human problem and you cannot possibly entrust the selling of a human problem to a firm that knows nothing whatever about South Africa. Rhodesia tried it and appointed a public relations firm in London. I understand that they soon found themselves in trouble because this firm was giving information about Rhodesia which was inaccurate, and landed them in difficulties. That type of work has to be done by people of your own country who are acquainted with local problems. The advertisements that we are placing in prominent newspapers in London, particularly in the Sunday Times, are doing the sort of work which would be done by a P.R.O. firm.

I have now dealt with most of the points. Again I can give the Committee the assurance that I personally take a very keen interest in the work of the South African Information Office. I can tell the hon. member for Park-town (Mr. Cope) that he is very wide of the mark when he says we are getting very poor value for our money. I do not say they never make mistakes; we all make mistakes at times. But I do know that the men we have overseas, including our officials in South Africa, are devoted to the work and are doing everything possible to put South Africa’s case across. The information we have to give to people overseas is to show that we have a problem here which other countries have not got. We have to put it to the public in a way which will make them understand it, and that is what these men are trying to do to the very best of their ability.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Will you reply to me before you sit down?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Oh, yes. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) yesterday took exception to an article appearing on the front page of the Digest and particularly the second paragraph. The paragraph undoubtedly gave the impression that it was quoting the Prime Minister, because the past tense was used instead of the present tense. It first quoted the Prime Minister in quotation marks and then it went on in the past tense. It said that the Bill provided for certain things. The fact that they used the word “ provided ” certainly gives the impression that that was part of the statement made by the Prime Minister. That is not so. The word should have been “ provides ”. The other point to which the hon. member took exception was the word “ safeguarded ”. The man who wrote the article has explained to me that he makes a distinction between “ safeguarded ” and “ entrenched ”, and it was not intended to convey the impression of any entrenchment. I do not object to the hon. member bringing the matter to my notice. In fact, one of my colleagues not long ago also drew my attention to something affecting his Department which he said was not correct, and I immediately took it up. Mistakes will naturally be made, and if anything of that kind occurs I am perfectly happy to take it up with those responsible.

Mr. EGLIN:

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the Committee unnecessarily; nevertheless there are one or two matters arising out of the hon. the Minister’s comments which cannot go by default. I think the House and the public will be disturbed by the statement in the Minister’s speech that he will extend the process whereby the State Information Office will become virtually the sole channel of communication between the Government and the people of South Africa, and between Cabinet Ministers and the Press. The Minister says it is useful to have this kind of buffer. Naturally it is useful for a Minister to have this kind of buffer, but is it correct that he should have it? We believe that there should be far more direct access to the Cabinet and Heads of Departments than there has been in the past. I think it is a very bad system indeed where his Department—and after all he is the Minister responsible to the State Information Office—is the Department which controls the access which other Ministers have to the Press, and which the Press has to other Ministers. I hope that he over-stated the case and that it is not his intention to extend the system which has crept into our relationship with the Press in the past whereby the Information Office to a greater and greater extent is cushioning the Minister from the questions and explanations the public would like to have directly from him.

With regard to the comments made by the Minister, I would like to make it clear that we do not condemn the Minister for spending money to sell South Africa overseas, provided that is done in the best sense of the word. We appreciate that as the result of events in Africa there is a tremendous surge of interest in the African continent and I think we should derive the maximum benefit from it. To the extent that this is an opportune time for us to inform the public where they were wrongly informed in the past, I think the Minister and his Department should be commended for doing so. In general, I think that while there are complaints about certain of the techniques used by the Department, within the availability of the resources, I believe that the State Information Office is acquitting itself well of a very difficult task. I think it is as well that the Minister realizes what the problems are confronting the Information. It is not primarily a question of money.

What are the difficulties with which the Government has to contend in selling its policies to the rest of the world? The first one is that we are trying to sell South African values as they are developed under the present Government to a world which has a completely different set of values. We are trying to sell things which to us seem common place because we have become used to them over 13 years, but which are completely repugnant to other people. I want to illustrate this by giving an example of what happened last year. Towards the end of the last year there was a tremendous move among Nationalist newspapers and churchmen for a softening of the attitude towards the Coloureds and there was a move afoot that they should be represented directly in Parliament. I was overseas at that time and the result of this change which was taking place among ordinary South Africans was reflected in a mellowing of attitude towards South Africa amongst a large variety of people overseas. But suddenly, when this seemed to be going well, the Prime Minister clamped down and said under no circumstances, neither now nor in the future, could these people who are citizens of South Africa have direct representation in Parliament. It is trying to sell a policy based on this sense of values to other people with a completely different sense of values which is the essential stumbling-block in the way of the Information Office. The Minister must realize that in spite of everything that is said, the Information Office is put into the difficult position of an organization which is trying to represent a Government with a split personality. What is told the people overseas, while it might reflect statements made from time to time by various Ministers, it does not reflect the actions and the attitude of the Nationalist Party as a whole. Any intelligent outside observer has only to compare the statements issued by the Information Office in the Digest and compare it with the speeches recorded in Hansard to realize that this is a Government with a split personality. Nothing does the Information Office more damage than to represent the Government as being benign and tolerant, and then suddenly to see reports published of what was said by hon. members at the hustings. Until and unless the Government and the Nationalist Party as a whole can make up its mind what its personality is and until it can with equanimity exchange propaganda used at the Bethal-Middelburg and other by-elections with the information put out by the Information Office for overseas consumption, for so long will it be quite impossible for the Information Office to sell South Africa overseas.

Naturally there are things which can be done to improve the activities and the position of the Information Office. I think the most obvious one is also the most difficult, and that is that the Government should change its policies. But even within that I think the Minister was correct when he said that our problem is essentially a human problem. I believe that if our affairs with the outside world were conducted on a more human basis and if there was closer contact made between individuals in this country and overseas, much good would be done. I would advocate a greater exchange of persons in the Union with persons overseas. In the past the tendency seems to have been to select Pressmen and if possible Pressmen whom the Minister hoped would be more sympathetic towards South Africa than many of their colleagues. I think one should widen the scope and go beyond the Press. It would be extremely valuable to send legislators and invite legislators from the various Western countries to visit us to see the situation here. Even if they do not approve of the policies of this Government, I think they will be impressed by the warmth and friendliness of the average South African and that will stand us in good stead. Secondly, if this Government wants to sell its belief that it is doing its best for the non-White it will have to realize that it will have to sell it through the mouths of non-Whites. Until this Government can find non-Whites who are prepared to be ambassadors for South Africa—not in the full diplomatic sense but in the sense of being allowed to go overseas and to put the point of view which the Minister contends is correct, that the non-Whites by and large support the Government and that they like apartheid and that under this system they are getting the best of the sun—for so long will it be impossible to sell South Africa. I would urge the Minister, if he really believes that his policy is working and the non-Whites are in favour of it, then for heaven’s sake find some non-Whites who will be prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Government and sell this policy to the outside world. Fortunately or unfortunately, whatever we say is considered to be the biased voice of White people.

Finally, I want to raise a matter which was not only a waste of money but which did a lot of damage to the Information Office and to the Government. That was the use made by the Government of the services of a certain journalist, an ex-socialist member of the House of Commons, Mr. Gary Allighan, in order to sell Government policy overseas. In reply to a question put to the Minister earlier this year, he indicated that the Government had spent £3,000 to buy 3,243 copies of the book “Curtain Up on South Africa”, written by Mr. Allighan. Well, it is bad enough that they bought the book and distributed it, with the compliments of the State Information Office, a book which was not factual or the product of the Information Office, but it was worse still to send this book to British members of Parliament. I think the Minister realizes that this socialist ex-member of the House of Commons left the House of Commons under a cloud. He is non persona grata with his own colleagues. Of all people whom this Government should seek to use a propagandist for South Africa they pick a man who left the House of Commons under a cloud. I do not want to go into this further, but if ever there was a blunder which shows the height of stupidity to which one can go in these matters, it was the use made of the services of this journalist. [Time limit.]

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, I try to conform to the wishes of the Committee and to make the debate as short as possible, but I have to reply and to clear up this misapprehension. It is by no no means intended that the public should not have access to Ministers. Rather the intention is to facilitate the opportunities for people who want to see the Minister, because the Minister cannot see everybody. It was from that point of view that I mentioned it. The other work which I mentioned is the more important part of their duties.

Mr. COPE:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the House, but there is one thing the Minister said which I cannot allow to go on record without refutation. May I say that the Minister’s reply to me was what I expected from him and I think it is a very good example of the Minister’s technique in public relations. The Minister’s method when something is said which he does not like is to attack violently and if possible personally, and then to leave a smear, and that is what he did this afternoon. The smear he has left is that I have some personal grudge against someone in the State Information Office. I just want it to go on record that that is completely untrue. I am on excellent terms, I hope, with the State Information Office, and there is no grudge in relation to that Department, and I give the State Information Office that assurance through the Minister.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

He will not accept it.

Mr. COPE:

I see. The Minister thinks that through the methods he adopted this afternoon he can win friends, and that is my objection to his Department. The methods he employs are not calculated to win friends. The Minister sets the tone by his technique, by the way he treats people, and that is followed by his office. In regard to his treatment of journalists, what other country with a State Information Office suffers the experiences that the Minister suffers? What other state in the Commonwealth is having the trouble with visiting journalists and prominent people, the violent altercations, the attacks that come on them from the Minister in Parliament and elsewhere quite recklessly? We are suffering from that. Not a single other country suffers from that state of affairs and it shows that there is something wrong in the handling by the Minister and his Department of these overseas journalists and other important people. He gets into these violent controversies and that is the technique I complain of. What is this Mr. Luth going to do now? He is now a mortal enemy of South Africa. It was utterly unnecessary to get into a public controversy with a man like that. It was utterly unnecessary and stupid to handle Mr. Phillips in the way he was handled. In regard to Mr. Williams, I do not want to defend him because I object to some of the things he said, but what I do object to is his handling, which was stupid. The Minister’s technique and the way he handles these people is foolish. I must say that I am concerned about this new development in regard to the Information Service intervening between the Press and the Minister. Has the Minister consulted newspapermen? Has he had consultations with the Press gallery and the editors of newspapers to see whether this is a good idea or not? I suspect he has not done so, and that is bad public relations. Why does he not do these things? I conclude by saying that we will get much better value for money if the Minister would hand over public relations to professionals who know how to do the job.

Mr. EGLIN:

I wonder whether the Minister will reply to the point I raised about the spending of £3,000 on the book by Mr. Allighan, which book was distributed free of charge to British members of Parliament and American congressmen at the expense of the taxpayers here? Was this done with the Minister’s approval, and was he consulted in regard to the matter, and was he consulted in regard to the writing of the book, “ Dr. Verwoerd, the End ”?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I do not think I was consulted with regard to that particular book, but it is not the first time the Information Office have issued books, in the same way that they issue brochures, so if a book appears which in their opinion represents South Africa in a fair light they make use of it, and that has been done before. In this particular case I was not consulted, and I do not see why I should have been. After all, I have confidence in the Director of the State Information Office. But as the hon. member is so concerned about Mr. Allighan, has he seen a recent article in which Mr. Allighan makes a devastating attack on misrepresentation in the Press?

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Votes Nos. 2I to 23.

On Vote No. 21.—“Justice”, R8,637,000,

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I want to deviate from the practice to make a short statement in regard to a matter which affects all three of my Departments. I have informed the leader of that group, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), that I will do so. The statement I want to make reads as follows. It deals with youth rehabilitation—

A few weeks ago I stated in the Other Place that the Government was considering establishing farms as youth rehabilitation centres where young people who had received prison sentences could receive training and treatment with a view to their uplifting and rehabilitation.

I am now in a position to provide details of the scheme which inter alia is intended to remove these young people from the enclosed cell atmosphere of the prison and to take them to rehabilitation centres where nature is free and the world is open.

Juvenile delinquency is not limited to any particular countries, it is to-day a serious problem throughout the world.

Everywhere it takes characteristic forms such as gangsterism, vandalism, motor theft, robbery with violence, vagrancy, etc., which lead to serious anti-social behaviour.

The corrective methods which different countries apply are themselves very different.

The first practical steps are to-day taken by the Government in connection with the young people in South Africa who are sentenced in the courts to prison sentences.

The well known Leeuwkop prison farm near Johannesburg has recently been turned into a rehabilitation centre for young Europeans with a view to their training and rehabilitation. On I April a beginning was made to concentrate young people there.

A similar rehabilitation centre for young Coloured people will soon be established on a farm at Palmiet River beyond Gordons Bay. For Bantu youths the Stofberg Prison Farm has been turned into a youth rehabilitation centre.

A daily average of 375 of these unfortunate White youths between the ages of 15 and 23 years are incarcerated in prisons throughout our country.

There they often come in contact with hardened professional criminals by whose influence they themselves develop into real criminals. In these prisons there are also no proper facilities for classification, training and rehabilitation. These prisons can thus become for these young people the breeding places of further crime instead of places where they will be rehabilitated.

The living quarters at the Leeuwkop Rehabilitation Centre for the young European offenders are to-day completed, they are of the most modern design not only by South African standards but probably by world standards.

These quarters with bath facilities, kitchen, dining room, study facilities and library, etc., form, because of the atmosphere which is created and the high hygienic standards which are achieved, a unit of which the Department of Prisons can justifiably be proud. The determined purposeful attempts which will be undertaken in a rural atmosphere will serve as a stimulus to self-improvement and healthy character forming.

The rehabilitation centre will be equipped with training facilities in several fields of agriculture such as gardening, animal husbandry and dairying (including principally milk and pig farming), dry land farming and horticulture and landscape gardening.

Intensive theoretical and practical training will also be provided in all branches of the building trade and in other crafts such as cabinet making and joinery, fitting and turning, welding and electrotechnical services.

This training will be given in modern workshops under the direct supervision of the Department’s technicians who have been specially selected to approach and handle young people in the correct manner, while all other staff members who come in contact with the youths will also be specially selected for their duties.

As soon as the youths fulfil the necessary standard of requirements such as knowledge and capability for the particular trade in which they are given training, they will be subjected to trade tests by the Department of Labour. If they achieve a pass mark in the tests they will be issued with diplomas identical to those which are issued in ordinary life—diplomas on which there will be no indication that the apprenticeship was completed in a rehabilitation centre. A youth will thus be able to leave a rehabilitation centre as a qualified artisan.

On the principle that a healthy spirit also tions will serve to facilitate the adaptation and been made for various kinds of sport. This and desirable forms of leisure hour occupations will serve to facilitate the adaption and assimilation of these youths into public life and will ensure that they will have a proper status in the communities to which they return on release.

As a means of encouragement to make the maximum progress in studies and training the Government has decided that a reasonable financial reward in the different categories will be paid. This will serve to encourage thrift among the youths and to emphasize the value of financial independence.

By means of this the youths will also be able to taste the pleasure of being self-supporting as a result of honest hard work and self-respect while it will also cultivate diligence and they will be able to experience a true pleasure in work because all work which they will carry out and which will be a part of their training will be constructive and creative.

With a view to the important role which personal tidiness plays in the training of youths and the necessity for promoting it in their work and communal life as also the special disadvantageous influence which poor and unsuitable clothing exerts on the self-confidence of some persons, suitable work clothing has been designed which does not publicize the fact that the youths are in custody and which does not make them seem or feel to be prisoners.

Each one will also be provided with a suit of clothes and necessary accessories such as a hat and shoes similar to those which would be worn if they were free. These they can wear when their parents, relatives and friends come to visit them and also on release.

With the training which the youths will receive while they are in custody and the assistance which will be extended to them on release in the form of tools, working and other clothing and a sum of money as also the fact that suitable employment and lodgings will be obtained for them outside their treatment will not be regarded as finally rounded off. The cases are timeously reported to the Department of Pensions and Social Welfare before release which is prepared to make the necessary arrangements for further liaison with the youths in their occupations and community lives.

When the Rev. J. R. L_ckhoff, Minister of the N.G. Oos Church, Pretoria, takes up his duty shortly as Director of Spiritual and Social Care in the Department of Prisons the spiritual care of the youths in the rehabilitation centres will also enjoy proper attention so that the Christian reform which it is hoped that they will undergo while they are in custody will be a force which will remain with them when temptations again threaten them.

Mr. TUCKER:

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for letting me have a copy of the statement which he has just made to the House. This party will always support measures of a constructive nature and, in principle, there appears to be much that is good in the statement which the hon. the Minister has laid before us. In this modern world anything that can be done to help those misfits of society who very often, through circumstances beyond their control, have started off badly in life, is something which all of us can but welcome. I do not propose. Sir, to deal in detail with this matter further. There are other members on this side, particularly the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), who has taken a particular interest in these less fortunate people, and who is closely in touch with the position, who will deal with it fully later on. I am sure he will make a very constructive contribution. I would like to say that this is a tremendously important Vote, and it will be necessary to put the searchlight quite fearlessly on some of the happenings during the past year. In fact, I suggest that it is the bounden duty of an Opposition to examine very carefully the Justice Vote, especially in a country such as South Africa, and particularly in a year in which we have had the difficulties that we have had over the past year. I would like to express great satisfaction that the treason trial, which has been before this country over a period of five years—something without any parallel in our history—has at last come to an end. I would like to say in relation to the remarks which I will address to this Committee, that it was not this side of the House which introduced this matter into the political field. Long before any arrests were made, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was making statements in and outside of this House in regard to the trial which was to take place. Sir, I think it is a sorry thing that we should have to examine in this Committee a trial which has had tremendous effects on the persons who have been found not guilty, and has brought about great suffering and has taken so long a period of time. I believe that in the Mother of Parliaments, Great Britain, if a trial had been handled in this way, a trial which lasted an inordinate period and which ended, in spite of the early prognostications· as to what was likely to happen, in the discharge of all the accused, would have brought about the resignation of the Minister concerned, if not of the responsible Government. I would like to say at once that I do not associate myself or the members of this party with the acts of the accused in this case. I believe that most of us in this House will take strong exception to certain of the acts of the accused. We do not approve of them, and I think that probably goes for most of us in this House. I want to make that clear. At the same time we must, as human beings, sympathize with persons who have had a shadow hanging over them for so long, persons who, in effect, had a period of very nearly five long years taken out of their lives by this trial. At last that burden has been lifted. Sir, I would like to refer to certain persons who made it possible—and I think it is a good thing for this country that they did—for these accused to have an adequate defence in the charge levelled against them. Amongst those who made efforts in this regard is one from whom I have not hesitated to dissociate myself as far as his views are concerned, and one whom I have not hesitated to criticize as far as some of his statements are concerned. I refer to Bishop Reeves, but I believe that all South Africans will believe that he and others who ensured that a proper defence was available to the accused in this case, rendered a very real service to South Africa. Sir, I think all of us, including the Minister, must realize just how deep a debt of gratitude we owe to those persons. Then, Sir, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not pay a tribute to the defence team, who, I believe, put up a magnificent performance, something of which we, in South Africa who are proud of our judicial system, can be very proud indeed. I personally very deeply regret that the leader of that team, Advocate Maisels·, will be lost to us in South Africa, as he is emigrating to the North. That is a very real loss to South Africa. I think it is important that we should remember over what period of time this trial extended. I have mentioned that before the first day on which any official action was taken it was widely known from ministerial statements that some action was to come, although the nature of the allegations, was not known. The beginning was back in December 1956, and that is a very long time in the history and in the life of people. In dawn swoops on that day 156 people were arrested in various parts of the country. A preparatory examination was started the following month, and, after a year, 91 of those persons were committed for trial, the charges against the remainder having been withdrawn. On I August 1958 the trial opened in Pretoria in a special court, and, after preliminary objections, one of the judges very properly recused himself. After some three months of argument on the indictment which, after all, is the base of the case, and which the Crown had had ample time to prepare, the indictment was withdrawn by the late Mr. Oswald Pirow, who was then leading the prosecution team. Thirty-nine of the accused appeared in court on a shorter indictment in 1959. That indictment was challenged. The special court, on 20 April, quashed the indictment against 61 of the accused. It was some months· later, on 4 August, that the remaining 30 pleaded, and then there followed the unfortunate death of a great South African, Mr. Oswald Pirow. In March 1960 the Crown case ended and the defence case opened, and eventually on 23 March, some five years after the matter had first been raised, and four and a half years after the original arrests had been made, all the persons charged were discharged by the court. Sir, I ask this House to realize, irrespective of the wrong that may have been done by these persons·, the human suffering that must of necessity have resulted from the fact that the accused had this matter hanging over their heads for that long period of time. Sir, I hope we will never again have an example of this sort. It does South Africa no good. Of course, in the end the rule of law prevailed. The accused have been discharged and our system of justice has been vindicated. All of us can be proud of the fact that that is so. We know that this is perhaps not the end of the sorry picture. The long delays and the suffering must be something which is a matter of deep regret to all South Africans. I want to leave it there for the moment.

I would now like to turn to another very important matter affecting the Department of the Minister that happened last year. I refer to the events at Sharpeville and Langa. Sir, it is obviously the duty of the State to Preserve order. It is obvious that nobody in this House is prepared to stand for mob rule in this country. Let me say that quite frankly. We have had an investigation into the unhappy events that took place at Sharpeville and Langa by two honourable judges. I belive that the hon. the Minister acted quite rightly in responding right at the outset to the request made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a judicial inquiry. There are others on this side who will deal in greater detail with the commissions reports, but what I wish to come to immediately is the fact that we as South Africans, when we think of matters of this kind, must ask ourselves whether we are doing everything that we can possibly do to eliminate the unhappy state of affairs which exists in South Africa to-day. Sharpeville and Langa and, if I may say so, the treason trial are symptoms of the fact that things are not right in the body politic in South Africa. Sir, I know that action has been taken to prevent this sort of thing in the future, as far as possible, but when one looks at the report of the Department of Justice and other reports and sees the enormous number of arrests which take place for petty offences—and of course a very big proportion of those refer to the Black people of South Africa—then we must be very deeply concerned.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. TUCKER:

The hon. member says that it was always like that.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I did not say that.

Mr. TUCKER:

Sir, the hon. member will always interject, and he must forgive me if sometimes I do not catch all his interjections. I understood him to interject that it had always been like that. The hon. member denies that he said it and I must accept his word. Sir, what I wish to say is that we South Africans must give very deep thought to these matters. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) a few days ago quoted a figure of over 800,000 arrests.

An HON. MEMBER:

835,000.

Mr. TUCKER:

Sir, that is something that must cause us South Africans deep concern, and I hope the Minister realizes, as we on these benches do, that the continuation of that situation can only serve to worsen race relations in South Africa. It is the duty of all of us, not only of the Government but this side of the House as well, to do whatever we can to bring about a better state of affairs in South Africa. If we can do that, then we will be able to avoid a recurrence of these unhappy events to which I have referred. I have a very strong feeling that we have not done everything that we can in years gone by in regard to these matters.

Sir, I would like to refer here to an appointment which I welcome, the appointment of the new Commissioner of Police. I believe that in the short period that he has been in office, he has shown that he has a very clear realization of the very great responsibility that rests upon him in that office, and I have great hopes and indeed I believe that he will make a very real contribution. I would like to say on behalf of this side of the House that we wish him well in respect of the very onerous burden which rests upon his shoulders. For my part, I want to say that I like what I have heard about the way in which he has carried out his very onerous duties up to the present time, and I look to him to make a very great contribution.

Finally I would like to come back to another aspect of the matter on which I started—the treason trial. I want to say that we must realize just what an expensive undertaking this has been. Sir, the hon. the Minister, in reply, to a question of mine, told me that the cost to the State of the trial was no less than R297,169 in direct expenditure, R116,906 in indirect expenditure, a total expenditure of R414,075 and then, of course, there was an enormous expenditure also on the part of the defence. This is a very serious matter and I only want to say this to the hon. the Minister that I hope that never again in South African legal history will there be a trial in which there is so much unnecessary expenditure as was the case in this trial.

Then I would like to come to one final aspect of the matter. I am aware of the fact that there is an indemnity Bill in respect of Langa and Sharpeville which is to come before this House, and when that Bill comes before us we will be able to examine it in detail. I am aware that the provisions of that Bill follow certain precedents and that there is an inquiry proceeding in respect of certain cases and it has been stated that the State might consider making certain ex gratia grants. I would express the hope that the Minister will make a full statement in regard to this matter. It must be appreciated that in respect of a number of those who suffered loss, they were certainly acting foolishly but on the other hand I believe there is clear evidence that some of those persons were acting under compulsion. I believe that a responsibility rests on this State to be on the liberal side in regard to claims which may be submitted, instead of seeking to avoid claims in every possible case. While probably it is necessary to have a Bill of indemnity—and it may be necessary to suggest certain amendments to it—I do hope that the hon. the Minister will tell this House quite frankly, so that we can debate the matter under this Vote, what his policy is in this regard. I would express the hope that the Minister will be prepared to tell this House that he will be prepared to act on the generous side in respect of these persons who have been found not guilty by the court, more particularly to ensure that innocent persons who were dependent upon them will not suffer as a result. Sir, I put these considerations before the Committee. I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence, and assure this Committee that we will not find a recurrence of anything of this sort in future. While the rule of law must obviously apply, we are entitled to expect that persons are not kept in doubt over long periods of time. I commend these matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Many of them will be dealt with in greater detail by other members on this side.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Do you want to make that a precedent for all cases?

Mr. TUCKER:

No. I suggest that that is a matter for the State to consider in the circumstances of the particular case, but I do say that in a case where there has been the amount of muddling that there has been in this case and such inordinate delay, there are special circumstances which require the consideration of this House.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

I would like to make certain representations to the hon. the Minister in regard to an urgent letter I received a few days ago from a farmers’ association on the borders of Basutoland. As you know, Mr. Chairman, my constituency runs from Zastron right up to Cedarville and Swartberg. For all these years I have had much to do with the incidents along the border of Basutoland. It seems as if matters have now got out of hand to some extent. I have now received this urgent letter from this farmers’ association. It is written in English. The Chairman and the Secretary are English-speaking. The letter comes from Ongeluksnek, near Matatiele. I just want to read this one sentence—

Members of our association are becoming more and more concerned with the stock losses through theft by inhabitants of Basutoland.

They regard is as being so urgent that he continues to say—

I have been instructed to ask you to do your utmost to arrange an interview for a deputation from our Association to meet the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the British High Commissioner in order that we may explain our difficulties and make some suggestions.

In the past certain arrangements were arrived at in terms of which, if stock theft takes place on the border, the animals are pursued to the border, and then the police on this side must contact the officer of the police station on the other side. They then come to an agreement and see whether they can trace the stolen animals. In the past they found a few hundred sheep even in Maseru. In those days the animals were handed back in a very friendly way, but the position has now changed completely, and the people along the border are very concerned. They say that many of the animals are being stolen every day. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot negotiate with the High Commissioner so that the old arrangement can be put into operation again. It is very difficult to pursue the thieves in this mountainous area. The police stations are high up in the mountains. At Barkly East the whole border consists of mountains. It is almost impossible to get there. The thieves cut the fences and cross the border and when once they are over the border they hide the stolen animals. I know of certain cases where the headmen on the other side ask the members of his tribe to collect all the animals, and if strange animals are found they are handed back. But of course if no such animals are found, nothing happens. But these people know the area well; they know practically every stone and they will not allow the stolen animals to mix with their own animals. I considered this matter of so much importance that I am glad to have the opportunity to raise it under this Vote. I have already written a letter to the Minister. These people are anxious to send a deputation here, but I hope that peaceful negotiations will be able to take place with a view to handing over animals on both sides of the border. There must be something wrong. It seems to me that the old arrangement no longer works as smoothly as it did formerly. That is all I wanted to say.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) in regard to the treason trial. That was a trial, Sir, that has brought upon South Africa odious criticism of the whole wide world, a trial that has lasted over four years and has cost the state and the defence immense sums of money. In the latter case money was subscribed by contributors both in South Africa and overseas. The only bright spot in that case was the scrupulous fairness of the Judges who presided over the court. For the rest the proceedings throughout were a judicial farce that illustrates as nothing else the incompetence of the Minister’s legal advisers and the police officers who were in charge of the investigation. Sir, anyone who is acquainted with the handling of cases of this kind should have known from the outset that the prosecution had little hope of bringing home the charge, which I say should never have been proceeded with. I say further that the methods employed by the police in bringing the accused to trial have cast a most unfortunate impression upon the public in South Africa and on public opinion overseas. Here you have a case in which 156 persons were summarily arrested, most of them in the early dawn over four years ago and dragged off to Johannesburg on a capital charge of high treason. After a preparatory examination 91 of them were committed for trial, and the law was amended three times in order to render evidence admissible that was otherwise not permitted by the ordinary law.

When the case came for trial before the special court, the indictments against the 91 were quashed and after innumerable delays and adjournments, the case proceeded on a new indictment against 28 men and women, and last month, as has been stated by the hon. member for Springs, it resulted in an acquittal before the defence had completed their address. Sir, it was the longest trial in the judicial history of South Africa and has brought untold misery and financial losses upon the accused and their families, for which the Government has refused to provide any compensation whatsoever. Sir, if this trial had taken place in England, the court would have granted an order for the defence costs to be paid by the Crown, but under our law there is no such provision and the accused have no remedy. I say it is high time that our law should be amended so as to compel the state to reimburse the accused in a case in which there has been so much incompetence and abuse of authority.

Then, Sir, I wish to refer to a report in the Eastern Province Herald, dated 14 February 1961.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

On a point of order, may the hon. member advocate a change in the law now?

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Sir, I wish to refer to …

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, is your ruling that one can plead for an amendment of the law?

*The ACTING-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. E. Potgieter):

May I point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for East London (City) has merely referred to the matter, and that is quite permissible in Committee.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Sir, as I said, I want to refer to a case reported in the Eastern Province Herald of 14 February of this year. It refers to a clash between the police and the Pondos at Ngqusa Hill on 6 June 1960 during which II Pondos were killed by police action. The report reads as follows—

Lusikisiki, Monday.—Shots fired by two policemen at a police-Pondo clash in which 11 Pondos were killed at Ngqusa Hill on 6 June, last year, were unjustified, said a magistrate, Mr. W. H. Olivier, when giving his verdict in the magistrate’s court here to-day at the inquest on the Pondos shot dead in the clash.
Mr. Olivier found that four Pondos were probably killed by sten gun bullets fired by Sergeant J. J. Fourie, of Kings’ Rest Police Station, Durban. Sergeant Fourie’s firing was “ unjustified and excessive, and even reckless ”
In his judgment, Mr. Olivier said: “ The death of all the deceased were caused by bullet wounds sustained as a result of shots fired by the police on 6 June 1960 at Ngqusa Hill. There is not sufficient evidence to establish which policeman fired the bullets which killed seven Bantu and whether such shooting was justified.
“ It must be recorded, however, that the court found that the shooting in self-defence by Constable F. A. Morrow, Constable V. van Staden, and Sergeant B. D. Dryer into the bush from where Bantu were firing at them from concealed positions, was not excessive or unreasonable and would appear to have been justified under the circumstances.
“ In the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, I find that Sergeant Fourie’s firing, despite alleged provocation, was unjustified and excessive, even reckless, having regard to the fact that he was aware of the deviation of sten gun bullets beyond a range of 25 yards, and the resultant killing of Bantu was unlawful and prima facie amounts to culpable homicide.”

Sir, on 3 March 1961 I put a question to the hon. the Minister in which I asked him whether the inquest proceedings had been considered by the Attorney-General and whether any further action was contemplated. The answer was that the Attorney-General had declined to prosecute. In answer to a further question which I put on 10 March, in which I asked him to state the reasons for the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute the police sergeant concerned, the Minister said that it was not usual to request the Attorney-General to furnish reasons for their decisions. There the matter rests. I have endeavoured to obtain further information from members of the Press and other sources. I had this reply from one source—

It is impossible for us to get any information. We tried the chief magistrate, the police and people who live in the village of Lusikisiki, and after all inquiries have nothing we can publish.

That is typical of what is happening behind the iron curtain in the Transkei.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

You are talking nonsense!

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I think the Minister’s attitude in refusing to give us that information is most irregular and reflects very badly on him and his Department. In terms of Section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955, the final control of prosecutions is vested in the Minister, and I say that the public is entitled to know why the findings of an experienced magistrate has not been carried out. The nonchalant attitude of the Minister leaves a nasty impression upon the minds of the public, particularly in a case in which a number of Natives have been killed. I wonder what the Natives in that area are going to say and what they are going to think of it and what respect they can have for their magistrate in such circumstances. I think the matter is one in which we and the public generally are entitled to a full statement from the hon. Minister as to the reasons why he has taken no further action in the matter, and what his reasons are for refusing to tell us why nothing further was done.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

I want to say at the outset that I too wish to congratulate the hon. Minister most heartily on the statement which he made in the House this afternoon in connection with the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. It was a brilliant statement and I think the Minister is thinking along the right lines and that he is tackling the problem from the right angle. I think that the task which the hon. the Minister has set himself will yield fruit and that where we are living in unsettled times, and where we often think that in some cases our youth do not perhaps act with the sense of responsibility that we should like to see, the function which the Minister has undertaken to fulfil, and the task which he has set himself and his Department will have a very beneficial effect in that the youth who do transgress—unfortunately you have black sheep everywhere, amongst the young people as well as amongst the older people—will now be guided in the right direction to become useful citizens of the country. If we do not employ methods such as these, it is inevitably from the nature of things, that those youngsters who commit crimes to-day for which they are sent to these institutions come into contact with hardened criminals and because they are young that leaves a mark on them for all time. This attempt on the part of the Minister and his Department eliminates that danger and I expect their efforts to have good results. I for my part wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) opened this debate. He made certain statements with which I do not agree. I do wish to say, however, that he opened this debate on a high level, something which I greatly appreciate. Although I do not agree with everything that the hon. member has said, I wish, nevertheless, to express my appreciation for that. If that is the spirit in which we argue with one another across the floor of the House, I think we will achieve something.

The hon. member for Springs has complained about the fact that this treason trial has lasted such a long time. I too am sorry that it has lasted such a long time. I want to say, however, that it is not really fair to blame the Government for that. In the first case, it was a very big case in which there were many accused, a case in which very many witnesses had to be called, and a case which from the nature of things, had to last a long time. Over and above that I think the accused and their representatives were very largely to blame for the fact that it lasted such a long time, for the very simple reason that they were continually raising various objections on every conceivable technical point. That had a great deal to do with the duration of the case. Furthermore, the Government cannot be blamed for the fact that this case was started, because in a difficult period such as the one which we are now experiencing, it is the duty of any government to keep an eye on the whole country, and on what is happening in the country so that it can take action timeously.

As I have already said we are living in very difficult times, there is one riot after the other throughout the whole world and there is unrest throughout the whole world. For that reason no State can be over-cautious. The Government must therefore be prepared to intervene and to take action when and wherever there are signs of disturbances. It is inevitable that when action is taken and people are arrested, people are arrested who are subsequently found innocent. That is the ordinary course of events. But when the Crown has to prosecute it is the duty of the police to trace people and to try to obtain evidence for the Crown, and when action is taken against anybody it is, in the long run, the Attorney-General who has to decide whether, on the evidence before him, action should be instituted. The Attorney-General was the person who on the evidence placed before him decided that there should be a prosecution. That is why I do not think the Government can be blamed for the fact that this case was ever instituted or for the fact that it took such a long time.

The hon. member for Springs said that we should do everything in our power to establish racial peace in South Africa. He said that in the case of many of the arrests, that do take place, it is a case where non-Whites are arrested for having contravened the Liquor Act, for example, or the Pass Laws—in other words, not serious offences. I wholeheartily agree with the hon. member for Springs that we should do everything in our power to combat crime but the position is, however, that in spite of the fact that we are doing everything in our power to do so and to eliminate racial friction, we cannot eliminate crime or racial friction completely. In dealing with a case like this, Sir, two courses are open to us: In the first place, eliminate the racial friction that arises from arrests that are made because of the contravention of certain laws, by repealing those laws, for example. In this specific instance I am not prepared to agree that the Act concerned should be repealed, for the very simple reason that I believe that it is a very necessary Act. There is a second course open to us, namely that where there are specific points in any legislation that cause friction, we should study those points and attend to them. I want to say that the hon. the Minister has already given attention that I have in mind, for example, the new Liquor Laws which the hon. the Minister envisages. As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, therefore, he is already adopting the second course which I have indicated and attending to the legislation.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and I am sorry to say that the hon. member did not reveal the spirit which the hon. member for Springs did. The spirit in which he took part in the debate is definitely not a spirit which is conducive to the peaceful solution of our problems. In any case, after the hon. member for East London (City) had said all sorts of unsavoury things in connection with the procedure followed and the duration of the treason trial, he said that 156 people were arrested in the early hours of dawn, dragged before the court and that the case was conducted in a manner which had not only brought the Government but the whole of South Africa into disfavour in the eyes of the world. I want to say to the hon. member that world conditions being as they are, I do not think we should be so sensitive when it comes to issues which must of necessity arise. We had a treason trial in South Africa in which the rule of law was strictly applied in difficult circumstances. Things are happening every day in other parts of the world which are much more distasteful than this case, but nowhere is there an outcry against them; nobody worries about them. When we have a case in South Africa as a result of circumstances, a case which has to be instituted otherwise it could be said that the Government is not wide awake in times of difficulty—whether the verdict is “ guilty ” or not is another matter—we should not make such a hullabaloo about it. It is true that 156 persons were arrested, but they were all given the opportunity of stating their case. They were all given the opportunity of appearing before court, the law took its usual course and those people were found not guilty and discharged. These 156 people who were charged with high treason were much better off than many people that I know of who were arrested before this Government came into power, people who were arrested and thrown into gaols and camps under the pretence that there was a war on. There was a war on at the time, but issues are involved to-day which are as important as a war, and in spite of the fact that this is the position, those 156 persons who were arrested enjoyed all the rights which our administration of justice offers, but those people to whom I refer were not accorded those rights.

Mr. MILLER:

Why do you refer to that?

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

The hon. member wants to know why I do not stand by what I said at the outset? But I specifically said that if we conducted this debate in the spirit in which the hon. member for Springs opened it, we would be able to meet each other across the floor of the House. The hon. member stated his case as strongly as anybody could have stated it, but he did so in a decent and calm and just manner, and that was why I could argue with the hon. member for Springs the way I did. My objection is that if we adopt the attitude which the hon. member for East London (City) has adopted, we cannot discuss this matter calmly. [Time limit.]

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member has said. I repeat that I think that the treason trial was an illustration of the incompetence of the Minister’s Department.

I now want to touch upon another matter. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article by Colonel I. P. Terblanche, who recently retired from the Police as Deputy Commissioner for the Western Cape, an article published in the Huisgenoot of 14 April 1961, under the heading “Die Wonderwerk van 30/3/’61 ”, in which Colonel Terblanche gives an account of the march of the 20,000 Bantu who marched on Cape Town on 30 March 1960. He refers particularly to what happened on that occasion between himself and the Natives, and his dealings with Phillip Kgosana, the young university student who led that demonstration. Terblanche was very anxious over the position that had developed at Caledon Square where an immense concourse of Bantu had collected together, and eventually he sent head-constable Sauerman to induce Kgosana to come and see him. Kgosana agreed and came to see Colonel Terblanche, and on being asked what was the cause of the demonstration, he said they had come to see the Minister of Justice about certain of their leaders who had been put in gaol. Terblanche told him that that was not the way to come and see the Minister, not with 20,000 people, and he gave Kgosana the loudspeaker and asked him to tell the people to return home and to send a deputation of not more than three to Caledon Square to interview him, and he would convey their request to the Minister of Justice. Kgosana agreed and he conveyed Terblanche’s message to the people and persuaded the crowd to disperse and to return to their homes. Terblanche himself describes the incident as a “ wonderwerk Later on Kgosana and the three delegates kept their appointment at Caledon Square, but by that time Terblanche says he had received instructions from higher authority to arrest them, which he thereupon did. I say, Sir, that the action of the police in inviting Kgosana and these three delegates to an interview to lay their case in person before the Minister and then arresting them was a grave breach of faith and brings the name of our Police Force and of the White man generally into further disrepute among the Natives. How can we expect these people to believe in us? It has created a very bad impression upon the minds of the public in South Africa. I feel quite sure that if the newly appointed Commissioner of Police had been there, he would never have approved of such action.

Now I ask the hon. the Minister whether he himself was consulted in regard to the matter and whether he was the higher authority who gave the instruction. If not, who was responsible? This man Kgosana has now escaped overseas and he will recount this incident among other things throughout the world. I don’t wish to associate myself with the actions of Kgosana. I am merely dealing with this question of the arrest by the police of men who came to see him by appointment.

The next thing I want to deal with is the question of the arrests that have been referred to by the hon. member for Springs. Some time ago instructions were issued by the then Commissioner of Police to lighten the application of the pass laws and the liquor laws, and it was hoped that something would be done to remedy what has constituted among the Natives the worse grievance, particularly among the urban Natives. But if hon. members will refer to the annual Police Report for 1959, they will see that no less than 835,709 Natives were prosecuted for petty offences during that year, many of whom should never have been brought before the courts. I have taken the figures which I am going to quote now from the Police reports: The figures for 1957 in respect of similar offences were 686,943; for 1958 they were 690,819, and for 1959 the figures were 835,709. I also give the following details for 1959:

Curfew regulations 57,368;
registration and production of documents 76,760;
Native Urban Areas Act, 52,632.

I am sorry, Sir, that was for 1957. For 1959 the figures were 57,368; 142,959 (registration and production of documents), and under the Native Urban Areas Act 66,700; location and reserve regulations 112,853; Native tax 148,526. Other offences, 44,191. Goodness knows what in addition to being brought before the courts, these people suffered in fines and loss of wages, and what it has cost the country in the loss of their labour. Just look at those figures! The alarming fact is that the number of these prosecutions is steadily increasing, in spite of the instructions that were given. So it goes on. I say that these irritating laws and the constant interference by the police and other administrative officers, often quite unnecessary, are largely responsible for the dissatisfaction and frustration among our urban Natives, particularly our urban Natives. These irritations provide an open field for the subversive organizations that have organized the demonstrations at places like Sharpeville and Langa. I ask the Minister what steps he contemplates taking with regard to police action in order to reduce the number of these prosecutions and arrests. We all know, Sir, that the police are not responsible. The Minister is not responsible for the passing of these laws, except as a a member of the Cabinet, but much can be done by discreet administration. That is where the remedy really lies. The second point that I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is that these laws should be completely overhauled. But that is not a matter which I can discuss with the hon. the Minister of Justice. However, I do want the hon. the Minister to go into this question of the enormous number of prosecutions where these unfortunate people are hauled up for petty offences from day to day [Time limit.]

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have already made a statement about that in the Other Place, but I will repeat it.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) started the discussion on this Vote this afternoon. I appreciate it, because in the difficult situation in which South Africa is we should look at matters like adults. If one were to carry on about a Vote like this it would do far more harm than good. There was one sentence I did not quite understand, however. After the verdict of the treason trial he said: “ Justice has been vindicated.” Assuming that the Judges found that the people were, in fact, guilty, what would the hon. member have said then?

*Mr. TUCKER:

Exactly the same.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

I am very glad to hear that because another interpretation could also be given to the hon. member’s words. The truth is that anyone who followed the case objectively and who studied the evidence had to come to the conclusion that the Attorney-General was fully justified in his advice to the hon. the Minister, namely, that those people should be prosecuted. That is so. The hon. the Minister did not act on his own. The function of the Attorney-General is, after all, to advise the hon. the Minister in cases of this nature. His finding and his advice was that there was in fact a case. What would the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have been if the State did not take action in this case? The hon. Opposition should be careful when making allegations of this nature. It was not the fault of the hon. the Minister that the case was delayed for so long and that such enormous costs were incurred. When, ex gratia allowances for some of those people are asked for, then I want to point out that numerous Whites have in the past appeared before the courts, and did any of them receive an ex gratia allowance? How many university students were there not whose university careers were completely ruined? How many others were there not whose careers were ruined—all Whites? Did any hon. member opposite rise and plead for an ex gratia allowance for them? No, Mr. Chairman, they did not do it.

While I am on my feet there are a few other matters which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I walk through the Supreme Court building every day. I think the hon. the Minister has walked through there quite often, and I want to ask him whether he has noticed the type of Afrikaans which appears above the doors there. I do not want to quote any examples, but I think it is time that it should be put right, not only in the Supreme Court building in Cape Town, but in all the Supreme Courts in South Africa. The Dutch one reads there is pathetic—not to mention the Afrikaans. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do justice to the language there.

Then I want to raise another matter which is of the utmost importance to me, and I am sure that any right-minded person will give it serious consideration. That is the matter of home defence. Last week there was a fairly big meeting of non-Whites in Cape Town. Last year there were serious troubles in Cape Town and one found thousands of non-Whites in the streets. It would be an absolute impossibility if the police were to take action there. The Whites were mixed with the Natives and the Coloureds. Should it become necessary for the police to use firearms then they would of necessity also have to shoot down hundreds of Whites. Now the question arises: What can the police do about it, or what can the hon. the Minister do about it? I want to say immediately that the time has come for the public in this country to be educated so that when the police have to perform their duty the White and non-White spectators will not be there to obstruct them in their task. Have you ever observed the position when an ordinary road accident takes, place? So often a second accident occurs there because of the actions of the public. They stand around—loiter about—and they get in everybody’s way until someone is knocked down and killed or another accident occurs. That is exactly what the public does when the police have to take action. I want to plead for steps to be taken, by the Department or the police, to educate spectators, or the general public, to give way and to leave the way open for the police to take action.

Then there is a final matter. Last year I pleaded in this House for the White women of South Africa to be taught to handle firearms. To my surprise, I saw my own wife’s picture in a newspaper the next day, standing with a firearm. She can handle a firearm very well. She is an old Bisley shot. In the meantime I have spoken to several women in this country, people who shuddered when they touched a revolver or some other firearm. There are so many who do not even possess a firearm. It will not help the country when it faces great internal difficulties to say: “ If only I had a revolver, if only I did this or that.” Allow me to tell both sides of the House that there were times in the history of a country like America and also in the history of South Africa, in the Eastern Cape—1830 and later—when the White woman in South Africa could handle a firearm just as well as her husband. It was the same in America. The time may come when it will be deeply regretted that the women cannot handle firearms. If it cannot be done through the defence force, then let the police act as instructors for the women in the different towns. I am glad to say that there has been a response in many small towns. One need not necessarily think of unrest and disturbances, but how often are women not attacked in their homes when their husbands are away? If the woman has a firearm and can handle it, then such a thing will not happen. I want to plead again to the hon. the Minister that it should be part of the duties of the police to perform this essential service in South Africa of instructing the White women in the handling of firearms, to get them acquainted with it, so that they will not shudder and get scared and run away when they see a firearm, or hurt themselves with it. There will be hon. members who will say that such firearms will only be stolen. It will be stolen for one reason only, and that is because the owner does not know what to do with it. When the owner is not trained then it gets stolen. My firearms and those of my wife do not get stolen; we are accustomed to them. The same applies to hon. members opposite and on this side. I see hon. members opposite are amused; they grin at me. This matter is far more important than some of them know or will admit. My plea to the hon. the Minister is, therefore, that he should consider this matter very seriously, together with his police chiefs, and help South Africa in this respect.

Dr. DE BEER:

I am not without understanding and sympathy for the case that the hon. gentleman from Pretoria-District (Mr. Schoonbee) has just raised. But it is a pretty macabre sort of thought, is it not, that an hon. member should stand up in this House and, as I say, not without reason, and put it to us as a serious proposition that there should be a campaign for training all the White women in South Africa in the use of firearms. It is part, I think, of the sombre atmosphere in which this debate must necessarily be conducted; a feeling almost of foreboding that every hon. member in this House has; and a feeling, I think, also of sympathy —whatever we think of what he does—the feeling that all of us must have for the task with which the hon. the Minister of Justice in South Africa in 1961 finds himself confronted.

A good deal has been said by previous speakers of the necessity for us to debate this particular vote in calmness and with the least possible recriminations. I think this, too, is perfectly true. And it is in this spirit that I will commence by giving what seemed to me to be three reasons why this hon. Minister here to-day has a far more difficult task, a far more delicate task than his opposite numbers in most other countries in the world. The first of these reasons—and I am not at this stage saying whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I am stating it as a fact—the first reason is that we have a number of laws, and they include the laws which give rise to the greatest number of offences and arrests, and prosecutions in South Africa—a number of laws which discriminate between some of our citizens and other citizens. They are applied differently to one group of citizens to another. I repeat. I do not now wish to discuss the merits of that but I wish to point out that this in itself must create a situation where the administration of justice becomes the more difficult for that reason. Because to the citizens concerned it is not clear, as I think it should be and as I think it is in many other more fortunate countries, that the law bears equally on every citizen.

In the second place it is the duty of the hon. the Minister’s Department to administer and to enforce a number of laws which, for particular citizens in South Africa, do not automatically involve their moral sense; laws which must be obeyed by them because they are laws, but laws which they cannot feel instinctively it is their duty to obey. And, of course, these two categories of laws are very closely linked if they are not identical.

Thirdly, because of the state of political affairs in this country, and because of the disturbances there have been and threats of disturbances which exist to-day, it has been thought necessary—and again this is not the time for me to say whether this was right or wrong—to enact a number of statutes to control excessive political protest, or what is held to be excessive political protest. The fact of the matter is that in many cases the line between what is political protest and what is breaking the law is extremely hard to determine.

This brings me on to the subject of the recent treason trial which was raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and which has been referred to by other speakers during this debate. The hon. member for Springs and others have put the facts of the matter, and many of the considerations which we should have in mind, very clearly before us. I was interested to hear a question put by way of interjection by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who, when the hon. member for Springs was discussing the possible advisability of the payment of some sort of compensation to the accused in that trial, asked “ Why then not recompense all accused who are discharged from any kind of trial at all?” He asked, in other words, what is the difference in principle between this treason trial and the trial of a man for theft or for any other offence. I think we all know what the difference is. Whether or not it is right to pay compensation, the difference is that here is a trial, again, with a political flavour. Here is a trial where the essence of the charge is that a political protest has been carried so far as to have constituted, nearly, the offence of high treason. It has been shown that this has not been the case. That was the finding of the trial. But it serves to emphasize the point I am making, the difficulty and the delicacy of the hon. the Minister’s task, and the need for him to go so very carefully indeed in the discharge of his duties to the State. And that flows in no small measure from the fact that none of us could have a very clear impression in our minds as to whether what those accused had said and done was, in fact, a high treason—a grossly serious crime—or, m fact, fell within the bounds of ordinary political protest. And I believe that there are few countries in the world where the distinction would be so hard to see, because there are few if any countries in the world that have the kind of statutory set-up that we have in South Africa at the moment.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) commented, as I have done, on the difficulties of the times and on the need for us to be extremely careful. His interpretation of the word “ careful ” is perhaps not exactly the one which I want to give now. I think the hon. gentleman meant thereby that it was necessary to go out of your way to nip events in the bud, to nip anything in the nature of internal disturbances in the bud. That is naturally true and that would be done in any country. But there is another sense in which one has to be extremely careful, and that is that: one has to be particularly careful in the circumstances which I have sketched not to give-the impression that political motives rather than the motive of the defence of law and order lie behind any action.

This brings me to a case about which I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would be prepared to give this House more comment and more information than has already been made public. There was a recent banning in terms, I believe, of the Suppression of Communism Act, and I refer to the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, not so much to comment on this individual case, because I think he will be reluctant to say anything much about individual cases in this debate but, arising from this case, to give us some indication of his general line of policy in cases of this sort.

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman concerned, Mr. Patrick Duncan, quite well. I have often crossed swords with him politically. I have been violently attacked by him in the newspaper of which he is the editor. Further than that I know him and I am on friendly terms with him. This I do know about Mr. Patrick Duncan, that whatever the error of his political ways may be, he is passionately anti-communist. Now I am not concerned to say, and indeed it would not be proper for me to say whether the Minister’s action in banning him is correct or incorrect. But I do want to draw attention to this, that he is banned under a Statute called the Suppression of Communism Act. Yet Mr. Patrick Duncan is one of the most violently anti-communistic people with whom I have ever had a political discussion. This is quite true, Sir. The Minister, I think, has held that nonetheless Mr. Patrick Duncan has, by some action or by some words, furthered one or other of the aims of Communism as defined in this Act. That again draws attention to the extremely wide wording of some of these Acts and to the need for extreme care by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister does not act only in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act in these banning cases; he can act in terms of the Unlawful Organizations Act and, I think I am right in saying that he has power in terms of several other Acts that can be used. In the light of this very difficult background, in the light of the dangerous situation which, as admitted by members of the Government, exist in South Africa; in the light of the fact that the hon. gentleman finds it necessary to suggest that every woman in South Africa be trained to use a gun; in a situation of this sort it seems to me that one of the actions which could conceivably trigger off the kind of trouble we are all trying to avoid is an injudicious and unwise banning of some political person or other. In other countries not very far from here actions of that type have been the trigger factor in serious disturbances. And where the hon. the Minister’s powers are as wide as they are it is not possible to know simply from a study of the Statutes, precisely what is likely to lead to actions of this nature. I think it would be in the public interest, in the interest of the Government and in the interest of the maintenance of law and order, rand very much in South Africa’s interest as regards opinion in the outside world, if the hon. the Minister could find it possible—and I concede it to be a difficult task—to try to give this Committee in this debate some idea of where he draws the line; some idea of what sort of conduct leads him to apply a ban or do go further and arrest in terms of one of these Acts.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

These persons are entitled to get the reasons if they ask for them.

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that these persons are entitled to get the reasons. According to the Press—and I do not know this from any other source—Mr. Duncan, I believe, did apply for reasons and he was given the reason in a single sentence. I do not want to risk trying to quote it, I have not it in front of me, but the hon. the Minister will agree that it was not very informative in the sense in which I am talking now.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

He did not ask for the information.

Dr. DE BEER:

If the hon. the Minister would have been willing to give more information to Mr. Duncan, I am glad of it …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, the Act says you can ask for two things, reasons and information. He only asked for the reason.

Dr. DE BEER:

I am aware that the Act says that, and I am grateful to the Minister for what he says Mr. Duncan did. But the point I am making is very much wider than the individual case of Mr. Duncan or any other individual. [Time limit.]

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

In the first place I cannot neglect to congratulate the hon. the Minister also on this forward step in connection with the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. We are glad to see that these young men will now be taken out of the prisons and that they will receive their training in better institutions. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not got something in mind that can be done about the youths who walk about the streets, who get into mischief and are a danger to the neighbourhood? On the Rand there are a number of suburbs where it is absolutely dangerous at night, so much so that the people are scared—and this is not an exaggeration—to go to certain places, like cinemas and cafes. On the slightest provocation they are prepared to attack any person. I have thought of a measure, and it is also the idea of many others—-whether something similar to what the hon. the Minister is already doing cannot be done to stop those youths, who roam the streets without work, from being a danger to the environment. Most of these youths are unemployed. Their parents do not know what to do with them. In many cases they are afraid to argue with their children and to try to give them guidance. I wonder whether it is not perhaps a good idea, if it is feasible and practicable, if such a boy who gets into mischief or roams the street and is a nuisance to others cannot be taken to his father or mother and they are asked why the boy does not work and why he roams the streets from early in the morning until practically the following morning. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the parents will appreciate it. It will assist them in cases where they virtually do not know what to do with the child. I hope something can be done in that direction. Many hon. members sitting here may perhaps not know what the actual position is on the Rand and in certain small towns. Something must be done. I was there three weeks ago and in a certain café I saw what happened to three women who came to the counter to make purchases. Five of the boys stormed the women and the proprietor of the café was compelled to take a knife and try to help the women. Such things should not be allowed to happen and I think the time has come for something to be done about it. I now leave the matter to the hon. the Minister. This is not the first time that I plead for this. I consider it to be of the utmost importance.

Then I want to put another matter to the hon. the Minister. Three years ago the former hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Swart, gave me the assurance in this House that a start would be made soon with the building of a new police station in that vicinity where ground has already been set aside for the purpose.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must discuss that under Vote No. 23, “ Police ”.

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

Very well, then I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. It will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would consider these few points which I have raised in connection with the ducktails and if something could be done about it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think I speak on behalf of every member in this House and also on behalf of the country when I say that we, at least we on this side of the House, have nothing but the higher regard for and deepest gratitude to the Police Force for what they have done during the past year. They had to perform their duties in very difficult circumstances.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the Police Force. He should do so under the Police Vote.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I am only mentioning it in passing. Sir. I am coming back immediately, and I wish to say that where the police are doing their best and in spite of the fact that they are subject to severe criticism, it is usually …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member has said that he will not discuss the police and yet he continues to do so. He must deal with another point.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I want to deal with another point, Sir, but you do not allow me to couple the two together. I wanted to turn from the police to the case of Phillip Kgosana. When we had the riots last year I heard the Minister say in this House that it was the Secretary of Justice and not he who would interview Kgosana. Since then we have had the evidence of Colonel Terblanche to the effect that if he had not come to that agreement with Kgosana that afternoon, when he said the following to him: “ Tell your people to go home and I will undertake to try to arrange an interview for you with the Minister and you and three others must come and see me not later than five o’clock this afternoon ” there may have been serious trouble that day. At five o’clock that afternoon Kgosana and three others went to Colonel Terblanche as arranged.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

He promised to try to arrange an interview.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

No, they had to come to him at five o’clock and he promised to try to make arrangements for them to meet the Minister. He did not promise that he would make the arrangements. He said he had promised to try to make arrangements.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

He said he would try.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I can understand that; that is fair enough. But that evening, while the debate was on, the Minister told us that there had been a slight misunderstanding and that the Secretary of Justice would have the interview with Kgosana. I am informed that the interview did take place. I also understand why the Minister was not available.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Did it take place?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I understand it did, according to the Minister, and I take his word for it. I know Ministers are busy people, the Minister was particularly busy at that time. I do not blame him for not having interviewed Kgosana, but what hurts me as a White man and as a Christian is the fact that Kgosana was brought under the impression that he and his three friends merely had to come to learn where and when they could meet the Minister of Justice. And what happened? When he arrived there he was immediately arrested. We have the evidence of the police official who said that it was not on his instructions that Kgosana was arrested but that the order had come from higher authority. Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether members appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I do not know and I am not concerned with whether or not Kgosana was guilty of an offence. What I am concerned about, however is this: A senior police official had given his word. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not make that type of interjection. The only other case in the history of South Africa where people were inveigled into a position and then arrested, was in the case of Dingaan, and White South Africa does not consist of a nation of Dingaans. I trust the Minister will tell us exactly what happened. I can only hope that at five o’clock that afternoon the Minister did not know about that agreement between Colonel Terblanche and Kgosana. I want to add this that if he had not known the country would have respected him much more than they did when, on being informed what the-agreement was and that Kgosana had been arrested, he said: “ No, we do not do that sort of thing. The fact that Kgosana has been arrested does not worry me, but do not arrest him under fal.se pretences.” I was told—I do not know whether it is correct—that Kgosana was arrested that afternoon not because of anything connected with the demonstration, and I accept that, but why was he not brought before the court if he had committed ordinary criminal offence? But if the position is as Colonel Terblanche has stated, I think I am fair in saying that the Minister owes the country an explanation.

There is a second matter which I want to discuss with the Minister. After the Sharpeville and Langa incidents an article appeared in Die Burger which created an impression as though the Minister of Justice had said that town guards would be organized in the Native areas. I should like to know from the Minister whether such town guards or such special constables have been organized and how the system works. I personally would welcome the idea and I think that should go a long way towards solving our problems.

I want to discuss something else. Although I do not wish to discuss the Immorality Act as such, I trust you will allow me, Sir, to say that very difficult cases arise to-day under that Act. I know of a case which I have discussed with the Minister where a person was alleged to have died in an accident not far from Cape Town, according to newspaper reports, but who had in actual fact shot himself. I realize the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself— all of us as a matter of fact—but I wonder if the Minister would not use his influence so that legislation is not passed under which such very severe penalties are imposed; that will assist all of us. I am not referring to the penalty imposed by the courts, but that imposed by society. That would also make the position of the Department of Justice easier.

Mr. MILLER:

Mr. Chairman, the fact that I follow the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) is indicative of the complete lack of interest on the Government side in this whole debate. Because of the fact that an important matter such as the treason trial was raised to-day and certain comment was made on other important events which shook this country almost to its foundations last year, we find that members on the Government side are running away and are leaving only the Minister of Justice to handle the matter. I think it is a very poor reflection indeed on the seriousness with which members opposite take the affairs of the country, particularly under this most important Department.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I do not think it is fair to say that.

Mr. MILLER:

The Minister can reply to it later. I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), who suggested that the accused had extended the length of the case because the defence had taken every technical point possible. It has already been pointed out, and I would like to repeat it, that this country should be grateful for the brilliant work of the defence team, who not only played an important part in elucidating the whole of the issues involved which the Crown tried to place before the court, but at the same time were able to throw full light on the indictment and the problems and difficulties which faced the court during the trial, not only in the interests of the accused but particularly in the interests of justice. It is a fact that of the 156 people arrested and sent for trial, 65 were released before the trial commenced because the Attorney-General did not find himself able to indict them. Thereafter, when the 91 had been put on trial the indictment was quashed and a further 62 were then released and were not at that stage re-indicted. Then, finally, only 29 proceeded to trial until the final stage of the case. How can the hon. member for Smithfield talk about this case being a normal case, where a person is arrested and brought to trial and is either convicted or discharged? This case lasted four years and created international interest, and it was not this side of the House which drew attention to the matter internationally. International jurists were sent from all parts of the world to witness what went on and to satisfy themselves as to what course the proceedings were taking. This case was not only of concern to the legal world, but also politically. There was no question at all that in this extraordinary case which obviously was inspired by the then Minister of Justice, possibly for political reasons, because he had given evil forebodings to the country of serious things which would take place and against which he was going to take certain steps, the then Minister of Justice did not only have certain political motives but he himself was not entirely aware of what charges he wanted to charge these people with, because the whole of the proceedings were conducted under most chaotic conditions.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

We have denied that time and again in this House.

Mr. MILLER:

Then the Minister must continue to deny it, because there are very few people who can accept it in view of the actual facts which were brought to light in the course of the preparatory examination and the various incidents that took place during the case. The law was amended on more than one occasion to enable the prosecution to contain themselves within some type of indictment so that the prosecution could continue and to charge these people with the most serious crime they could commit, viz. high treason. The most extraordinary thing was that in the final judgment it was found that all the evidence which had been led did not in any way support the indictment and that neither the accused nor the organization which they were alleged to represent were guilty of communist activity in the country. It was found that they were not communist organizations, which after all was the very basis of the case which the then Minister of Justice and the prosecution endeavoured to prove. It was the most extraordinary finish to any case which this country has ever witnessed. The hon. member for Smithfield wants to dismiss it as just an ordinary, normal case which should not even be stressed in order to avoid its receiving any international significance. Sir, we know that the whole world was watching the case and was concerned, and that is why the hon. member for Springs paid such a tribute to the maintenance of a high standard of justice in our country.

I want to come to another aspect concerning this matter and to deal with the question of compensation to the accused. For a period of four years these people were not only most of the time in gaol, but they were unable to pursue their normal occupations and earn their livelihood, and were it not for contributions by the public of this country and abroad, which organized themselves into an organization registered tønder the Welfare Organizations Act, many of the families of these accused would have starved. They would have had no means of support, and as it is many of them suffered great privation. Now I know none of the accused. I do not think that possibly, with the exception of one or two Europeans, I have even heard their names, but I do know one thing, that as a South African I am very jealous of the prestige of my country not only in our own eyes but also in the eyes of the world. I am also very jealous of the fact that we have a country with a high tradition of fairness and justice, and it is in the interests of justice and fairness that I think the Minister should do something and institute some form of inquiry which would enable him to consider the cases of these people in order to give them some ex gratia payment—those are words suggested by the hon. member for Springs— which will to some extent repair the serious ravages made into their personal and domestic affairs. I do not think that is asking a great deal of the Department of Justice or of the Government, which after all is not concerned with the pigment of a person’s skin, nor is it concerned with its own personal views of the content of the charge, but only with the fact that those persons were found not guilty after a protracted case where the presiding Judge himself from time to time was compelled to intervene and to ask the Crown to bring some evidence on which the court could try to make up its mind as to what was the purpose of the indictment and what the court was expected to accept in order to support the indictment placed before it. [Time limit.]

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

I want to begin by saying that I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) completely misunderstood me. I did not say that the high treason case was an ordinary case. What I wanted to say was that this case followed the ordinary rules of procedure which have to be followed in every case. In other words, if the hon. member differs from me, he misunderstood me.

*Mr. MILLER:

I accept that.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

Very good. Then I just want to say that I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an insinuation here against a Minister of the State which I do not think he ought to have made, by intimating that this case was one which was inspired by the previous Minister of Justice. This Minister and the previous Minister have already repeatedly denied it and I do not think the hon. member should have said it.

What is more, I again want to revert to this question which was again raised by the hon. member in regard to the payment of compensation to these people. I think it is very dangerous to establish such a precedent. It is very dangerous to establish a precedent of paying compensation to people who were charged in a criminal case and who were acquitted. It will infinitely complicate the position of the State if every time it thinks that it is in the interest of good order to initiate a prosecution it exposes itself to the danger of having to pay compensation. I think it is a very dangerous precedent to establish by introducing the principle that compensation should be paid to people who are acquitted in criminal proceedings.

Mr. BUTCHER:

On 7 March I had a question on the Order Paper, in which I asked the Minister of Justice for certain information regarding the number of police stations covering the Durban area, the number of police and the number of police patrols supposed to patrol the residential areas.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should discuss that under Vote 23.

Mr. BUTCHER:

I want to deal with it under the Minister’s policy.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member can do that also under Vote 23.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

When the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) tries to alleviate the sufferings of people, it is not right to oppose it. I understand the hon. member’s humaneness very well and we appreciate it. But apart from the important point raised by the hon. member for Smithfield in regard to establishing precedents, I want to ask the hon. member for Springs and the Committee to consider that before one dares ask the Minister to consider paying compensation to the people who were tried, it is the duty of those who advocate it first to tell this Committee how much money was collected on behalf of those people. It is said that other nations were interested in the case. When the hon. member for Springs makes this plea, he ought to know how much money was collected. Is this not an attempt by the defence to do something extraordinary? I want to know how much money they got from Europe, and then one must still ask the taxpayer of South Africa to pay more. That is how I view the matter.

There is another thing too. We must remember in what state of mind the people of the country were before we can consider such a suggestion. I sympathize with the Minister because he is saddled with this matter. In my primitive way, I would have thought that no high treason case should ever come before the Supreme Court because it is dragged out for years. In my opinion there should be no such thing as all kinds of legal points being raised in a high treason case, so that eventually years afterwards one has forgotten what one started with. I think it would be much better if all high treason cases were heard by a military court. If that had been done, this case would long since have been forgotten. Then the case would have been finished long ago. I think· we should relieve the Department of Justice of this burden and have all high treason cases tried by a military court, because then they would be dealt with summarily and would not be protracted and there would be no chance of having this tremendous agitation throughout the world such as we have had in this case, which in my opinion is very wrong, to incite the feelings of people in other countries without their knowing what the case is about. If it had been tried by a military court the matter would have been disposed of speedily and there would have been peace now.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I hope the hon. the Minister will repudiate the suggestion of the last speaker. Already these proceedings at this trial were a travesty of criminal procedure, but at any rate the rule of law prevailed. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) now suggests something which is completely terrifying and I hope the Minister will repudiate him entirely. Notwithstanding the principle of Cabinet responsibility, I accept that in regard to this treason trial the Minister acquired from his predecessor a hereditas damnosa, and it is the result of that that there stands in Pretoria an unfortunate monument in the form of an empty building which was converted for the use of the court. I think the Minister should tell the Committee how that building will be used in future, because apart from the figures given by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), this building was converted into a court at considerable cost.

But I want to deal with a different matter, with sub-head E of Vote 21, which provides for a legal aid bureau the sum of R11,000. Sir, it appears that the Minister has decided upon a change in the basis of legal aid to persons who cannot afford to employ attorneys or counsel to plead their cases in litigation in which they sometimes may become involved unwittingly. It transpires from the reply the Minister gave last month that legal aid officials are now going to be appointed who will be permanent officials of his Department and that they will now select cases in which the individual will be given guidance and may in certain cases have the assistance of counsel to appear for them in court. I am aware that this change in the scheme …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said it was an experiment.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am aware that this experiment was discussed with the Bar Council and the association of Law Societies, but the point I want to make is this. The Minister calls it an experiment, an I would be interested to see how the experiment works out. As a matter of fact, we are only back now where we were in the early 1930s where a legal aid scheme was introduced in the Magistrates’ Court in Johannesburg. But I particularly want to ask the Minister why the change should be considered necessary at this stage and how it will be financed, because provision is being made on the Estimates in the item I referred to and apparently that will no longer be used. So I hope the Minister will tell us how this scheme will be financed for the coming year. But I am particularly concerned as to why it should be introduced at this stage because it is no secret, of course, that throughout the public service there is a great dearth of staff, particularly experienced staff. I am concerned to know, therefore, how the Minister will staff this new organization which obviously must grow. I understand that it will start in one court in the beginning, but it will obviously have to grow as time goes on. It so happens that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission gave evidence before the Public Accounts Committee on 16 March this year and he confirms this very difficult position. In fact, I can only describe his evidence as being frightening in regard to the difficulties in the Public Service. I want to read some extracts from his evidence. At page 128 of the report he said this—

The shortage of clerks with more than three years’ experience can be described as nothing but acute. The position with regard to clerks with more than seven years’ experience is even worse.

He then goes on to indicate that the percentage of vacant posts in the Public Service increased from 22 per cent in September 1956, to 29 per cent in September 1960. He indicates that firstly the increase in the Public Service establishment is an important factor in frustrating the attempts to fill the vacant posts by recruitment. In other words, the Public Service as a whole is already overworked, with a shortage not only of staff but particularly of efficient and experienced staff. Yet in spite of this difficulty, the Minister now decides to make a change into this form of relief to people who cannot afford to provide the fees for their defence.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Some of these offices closed as the result of the lack of public interest.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I hope the Minister will give us more detail about that, because my information is that they closed because last year the Department indicated that there was going to be no further support for this form of relief and there was a foreshadowing of what has happened now. Obviously these offices cannot run without some form of financial assistance such as is provided here. That is what the subsidy is being paid for. I think that is the basis for what the Minister has mentioned now, but I hope he will give us more specific information as to which places have been closed down. I want to continue with my quotations. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission goes on to say—

The position in regard to male clerks is at present so bad that the total number of clerical assistants, Grade I, at present in the Service is insufficient to fill the number of vacancies that will arise in the administrative ranks during the next five years…. Owing to the shortage of clerical assistants, Grade TI, who already have a few years’ experience, the position in regard to the filling of administrative posts will deteriorate even more rapidly after the five years have elapsed…. This staff situation applies to the entire Public Service. It there applies also to the individual departments. There is thus no possibility of drawing experienced units from one Department of the Service to another Department. In any case not in such numbers as will make any real difference.

Sir, when I started to quote this evidence I called it frightening; I think it is even worse than frightening; I think it is alarming and I think the Minister therefore should indicate to us why it was necessary at this precise time, with all these administrative difficulties which are prevailing, to make a change of this nature in regard to a Service which was running very well indeed.

There is one other matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. We are quite aware, of course, that an Indemnity Bill will come before the House shortly, but Press reports indicate that there are already in existence a large number of claims which have been made against the Government. The information available to me at present is that claims amounting to something like £400,000 have already been lodged by the hon. the Minister of Justice by some 216 claimants in connection with the Sharpeville shootings. [Time limit.]

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I am not a lawyer.

An HON. MEMBER:

We can all see that.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

I am pleased that hon. members on the other side can see it; I have made my money honestly. I am sorry that I cannot associate myself with previous speakers who have congratulated the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). Perhaps they were congratulating him on the way on which he raised this matter here; that I could also do. But I ask myself of what use this debate, which has been conducted here this afternoon with regard to the treason trial, can be to any person or any group of persons in South Africa. Why have they raised the matter here this afternoon? In my humble opinion this matter is being raised here at a time when we should rather be imbued with the spirit that was reflected in the speech of the hon. the Minister when he announced what he proposes to do for people who unfortunately cannot or will not observe the laws of this country. But this matter has been raised here to create the impression once again that the Government acted unjustly. What was the position a year or two ago when there were disturbances here in the streets? The names have been mentioned here of persons who played a leading rôle in the disturbances which took place here in South Africa. There was such a great feeling of fear at the time that even members of this House ran about in the Lobby saying, “ Where are the police? What is going to become of my wife?” If hon. members want me to mention their names I could do so. But, Mr. Chairman, why were these people who were charged with treason discharged? I ask myself why these people were arrested by the police. Why did the Attorney-General see fit to charge them with treason if they had absolutely nothing at all to do with the disorder that we had at that time? Why were they arrested?

An HON. MEMBER:

Not just for show.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

They were arrested because the Attorney-General, rightly or wrongly, believed that they had made themselves guilty of treason, and if a person acts in such a way that an attorney-general believes that he can be charged with treason, then no member of this House should try to create the impression that the Government acted unreasonably in taking the necessary steps. Hon. members on that side talk about the high standard of our administration of justice in South Africa. I wonder whether they would still have had such a high opinion of our administration of justice if the court had found these persons guilty.

*Mr. MILLER:

Certainly.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

The hon. member over there should rather remain silent. Mr. Chairman, what has happened now in this debate? After this threat to law and order, we find that a member like the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) stands up here and defends a person who himself felt so guilty in connection with the rôle played by him in this matter that he fled from this country.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It was not the hon. member for Pinelands.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Well, it would not surprise me if the hon. member for Pinelands did the same thing. I was referring to the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer). I think in these circumstances we should rather thank the Government and Providence that law and order were restored after these disorders. Today there is a possibility again of trouble in this country. There are rumours that in the near future there are going to be demonstrations again in South Africa, and I think that the matter raised here by the hon. member for Springs, namely the question of compensation to the accused in the treason trial, is one which should not have been raised in this House today. We should rather promise the Minister of Justice and those who assist him that we will co-operate in maintaining law and order in this country. Hon. members on the other side talk about the impression that the outside world will gain. When members get up here and plead that accused persons who were discharged should be compensated, what sort of impression does that leave in the minds of people who are perhaps less educated than we are and who are inclined to jump to conclusions more quickly? Is this the first time in our history that accused persons have been declared innocent by our courts? Sir, there are people who have appeared before our courts on a charge of murder and who have been found not guilty and who have received no compensation. During that short period those people suffered more than these persons who were charged with treason. Let hon. members also mention the other side of the story; who were the persons in that court who constantly came forward with objections which necessitated a postponement of the case? It was not the Attorney-General; it was the advocates for the defence. That is how one makes money; the longer the case lasts, the more money one makes.

Then there is one last matter that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. One continually reads in the newspapers about people who disappear from their homes, and then the police have to try to trace them. Their photographs are published in the newspapers, and they are virtually represented as heroes. When they return home their photographs are published in the newspapers, and many of these people simply leave on joy rides. [Time limit.]

Mr. PLEWMAN:

The hon. member who has just sat down started by telling us that he was not a lawyer. I think it is quite obvious that he is not, but it is also obvious that he has a very poor concept of judicial proceedings in any case, because when this side of the House says that it is very pleased that the rule of law has prevailed and that justice has been vindicated, we are dealing with the matter in reality. Adherence to the rule of law and to justice means that the guilty should be punished and that the innocent must be set free. We would be satisfied so long as that rule applies. It so happens in this case that the innocent have been set free, but that does not affect the position. I hope the hon. member will therefore be a little more careful in future when he deals with matters of this nature.

Mr. GAY:

You are an optimist.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Sir, I was putting a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to claims which have arisen as a result of the Sharpeville incident. I was saying that my information was that claims amounting to about £400,000 have already been lodged with the Minister by some 216 claimants in connection with that shooting. I had also indicated that there is before the House an Indemnity Bill which deals with this very incident. I am aware that the hon. the Minister has provided for some form of inquiry by the State Attorney, I think.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, an inter-departmental committee.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I accept that some form of inquiry by an inter-departmental committee is taking place, and I think therefore that the Minister should inform the House what has transpired. I think this is a suitable occasion on which to do so, because we will not be able to get that information otherwise before the Bill comes before the House. I hope the Minister will give us details as to how many claims have been made against the Department, for what amounts, and how far this inquiry has proceeded and what is likely to result from it as far as this very important and difficult problem is concerned.

*Mr. P. W. DU PLESSIS:

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), when he started speaking a little while ago, referred in a somewhat sarcastic way to this side of the House and said that we were so little interested in this Vote that very few of us were taking part in the debate. I just want to tell him that it is not a question of lack of interest, but the Justice group in particular does not believe in raising a great hullabaloo. It is not always those who have most to say whose speeches contain the greatest substance. The reason why so many of us have not spoken is because we are very surprised that certain hon. members on the other side are availing themselves of this opportunity to-day to try to make political capital out of this treason trial. Mr. Chairman, recently there were a few journalists here from abroad, amongst others the representative of one of America’s biggest newspapers, and then the English-language newspapers came out in Cape Town with the report, under banner headlines, that all the accused persons had been discharged, this individual said that this was one of the finest bits of news about South Africa to send to the outside world …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) must not pass between the Chair and the member who is speaking when he goes to his seat.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

May I say with respect that it is the custom and the rule that a member may not pass between the Chair and the speaker, and may I draw your attention to the fact that I did not do so.

*The CHAIRMAN:

It is precisely because that is the rule that the hon. member must come this way to go to his seat, because the rule means that a member may not cross the line between the speaker, the centre of the floor and the Chair.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Is that a new rule?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must walk this way.

*Mr. P. W. DU PLESSIS:

I was referring to this American journalist who told me and a few other members in connection with this newspaper report that this was one of the best bits of news about South Africa. I notice that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also agrees that the standard of the administration of justice in this country is very high. But he finds fault with the fact that this treason case, according to him, was protracted so long. There are also members on that side who even seem to find fault with the fact that those persons were charged at all. Well, since hon. members opposite did not want to attack our courts, I want to ask them to show a little respect for our Security Branch. I do not believe that our Security Branch would have detained those people unnecessarily or allowed them to be charged unnecessarily. I do not believe that they did so because it afforded them pleasure. These are people with a high sense of responsibility, and I am sure that hon. members on that side will agree with me that our Security Branch, in the times in which we are living to-day, has a particularly difficult task. There is not one member in this House who is not sorry that this case lasted so long, but I contend that that is further evidence of our democratic administration of justice in South Africa. Every possible attempt is made to collect every scrap of evidence. Nobody can dispute that. What I find very disturbing is that hon. members on that side stand up here and refer to the damage that these people suffered and that they go so far as to drag in the Treason Fund. I ask them which other country in the world, in the times in which we are living, would allow money to be collected all over the world to defend people here who are charged with treason? They have made martyrs of the accused and practically brought the South African Government into discredit in the eyes of the rest of the world. I do not suggest that there are hon. members on that side to whom this is known, but if there are members over there who are familiar with the Treason Fund and who know what has been collected in this country and overseas, I want to put this fair question to them: Is that Treason Fund still going to be kept alive; is money still being contributed to it? If the impression that I and others have gained from the Press is correct, namely that that Treason Fund is going to be kept alive for future cases, then I want to put this fair question to any hon. member who still dares to attack this Government because of the action it took in connection with this treason case. Do you as South Africans approve of the fact that that Treason Fund is being kept alive and that money is being collected from overseas countries for an indefinite period, so as to use that money for the defence of accused persons in cases which the Security Branch may see fit to institute?

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

In reply to the hon. member who has just sat down, I would say that we on this side of the House have made no attempt whatever to defend people who were guilty of high treason. What we have done is to blame the Government for incompetence in the handling of this case.

Now I want to deal with another matter. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the large amount of serious crime that prevails in our Native urban townships. The situation there, in spite of the fact that the police have done their best, is alarming and it has been so for a very long time. People are murdered and assaulted and robbed from day to day. In a statement to the Handels-instituut last September, the Minister of Finance announced measures to protect the law-abiding Natives in their own residential areas, and he said that the intention of the Government was to establish auxiliary police services among them—a sort of home or civic guard—and I want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to tell us what steps have been taken or are contemplated in this direction, and what part his police administration will play in connection with these proposals. Sir, in 1951 a joint advisory board in Johannesburg asked that Bantu civilians should be enrolled as an auxiliary civic guard, but the then Commissioner of Police rejected the request and I raised the matter after that in the House, but the Minister’s predecessor refused to consider such proposals on the ground that it might lead to abuse. We appreciate very fully the fact that special Native guards, having no experience, are apt to take the law into their own hands and to treat their own people, with unnecessary violence. On one occasion the African mayor of Orlando organized am unauthorized civic guard and treated Native gangsters with the rough and ready justice that they deserve. But the police hauled them before the court for their pains and the magistrate had the wisdom to discharge them with a reprimand. But I submit that something should be done on the lines suggested. Law-abiding Natives in most of our townships are being terrorized and robbed, often in broad daylight, and I submit that under suitable police supervision these civic guards could serve a useful purpose in maintaining law and order among their own people and so help to release the regular police for other duties.

Mr. MILLER:

I want to deal with another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I want to draw his attention, if it has not already been so drawn, to a very interesting book which recently appeared in this country called “ South Africa and the Rule of Law ”, prepared by the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva. I understand that in Another Place the hon. the Minister has stated that he has seen the book and that it has been in the hands of his Department for some time, so that they can consider all its implications.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It has been sent to me gratis.

Mr. MILLER:

I had to buy it. Sir, the thing that concerns me is that a serious indictment is made in the various chapters of this book, that the laws of our country in effect are a negation of the rule of law, and it is in that sense that I think the matter was raised with the Minister, and it is in that sense that I understand the Minister has asked his Department to give it consideration. I assume that the hon. the Minister is as aware as any of us who have read this book, how important it is that something should be said about it because this book contains an indictment more serious than any of us with all our eloquence will ever make, because this is a very careful and very thorough analysis of the legislation of this Government over the last 13 years. I think this Committee would be very interested to know whether the Minister has as yet received any advice from his Department on the subject; what his intentions are and how he intends to approach the whole subject in his defence of South Africa’s legislative observance of the rule of law, not only as it was originally taken over from the Roman Dutch law and as it has taken over some of the best conceptions of English law, but as he sees it now in the light of legislation passed over the past 13 years.

The other factor to which I would like to draw attention is the fact that one of the great changes which have taken place in our law over the last 13 years, has been the gradual shifting by the Minister’s predecessors and by himself of the onus of proof on to the shoulders of the accused. It has been a fundamental principle in our system of law that every man is adjudged innocent until he has been tried and found guilty. But in the laws which have been placed on the Statute Book, over the last 13 years particularly, we have gradually seen a shifting of this onus of proof on to the shoulders of the accused, and the laws contain a presumption of guilt with the onus resting squarely on the shoulders of the accused to discharge that presumption and to prove that he is in fact not guilty.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Could you quote one or two examples?

Mr. MILLER:

I could give the Minister dozens of them. There is a presumption of guilt contained in a Bill which is being introduced this Session by the hon. the Minister.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Is that anything new in South Africa?

Mr. MILLER:

I will deal with that particular aspect, but what I am trying to impress upon the Minister is that all the legislation in the last 13 years that has had anything to do particularly with the policy of apartheid, has built up a certain pattern, and that is that the presumption of guilt has rested at all times on anyone who has infringed any one of these numerous laws and has imposed on the accused this peculiar responsibility which basically is foreign to our criminal law.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Perhaps you can oblige me by quoting one example.

Mr. MILLER:

As soon as the House resumes this evening, I will give the Minister more than one example of laws where the guilt of the accused is presumed and where the onus of proof rests on him.

Sir, when one deals with the rule of law, one must realize that there is no question of any blame attaching to the courts of our country, who can only apply and interpret the law as they find it. The rule of law is something which one could define as a law which is designed to protect an individual from arbitrary government and also to ensure that no individual shall be deprived of his freedom or any of his rights except through a properly constituted court, independent of executive government.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I think that it will be as well if I reply at this stage to a number of questions which have been raised this afternoon. In the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to both sides of the House, and particularly to the leaders of the two groups, namely, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), for the tone which they have given to the debate this afternoon, for the leadership they have given both sides of the House. I think both hon. members have introduced the debate at a very high level and hon. members on both sides of the House, with very few exceptions, have kept the debate at a high level throughout. I should like to associate myself with what hon. members on this side have said, namely, that if we can debate these matters at the level at which we have done this afternoon, then I think there is hope that the people of South Africa will not only look to this House with respect, but also I think with pride at the way in which these matters are being discussed.

Before dealing with the specific matters which have been raised, I want to say a few words about the difficulties with which all countries are faced to-day and with which South Africa is also faced. To me it seems as though the mood of the people of South Africa has changed a great deal since last year. I think that last year, the people, both Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, still believed at the time of the disturbances that the main issues were the £ per day, the reference book system and the pass (as they call it). Since then the people of South Africa have changed their views, namely, that what those people want, what they wanted last year and what they want to-day, is not the £ per day and it is not the abolition of the reference book system, but what they want is our country. I therefore say that when we discuss these matters we must do so in the light of the fact that the people of South Africa, judging by the letters, telegrams and telephone calls which we are probably all receiving from both sections of the population, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people, have changed their opinions this year. Consequently, if people want to cause difficulties they will be faced on this occasion with a united public opinion which is quite different to the position which prevailed last year. I therefore think that when I speak to-night, I am speaking on behalf not only of the Government party in this House, but on behalf of many people in South Africa who are also represented by hon. members opposite because, as I have said, the mood of the people of South Africa has changed during these difficult times. We are experiencing difficult times, but in what country of the world are difficult conditions not encountered to-day? There are the African countries particularly, but also countries outside Africa which are experiencing great difficulties. South Africa is still one of the fortunate countries in that we can still overcome the difficulties with which we are faced. We are a country which still to a large extent enjoys peace and order. What the people now expect of us is I think what the Government will do. I therefore just want to say to-night, and this must also be regarded as a word of warning, that if there are people who think that they can in any way disrupt the establishment of the republic on 31 May by lawless behaviour, they must realize that the Government is aware of the position, is drawing up its plans and will take drastic action without respect for persons. Those are introductory words which I want to say here because the spirit of the debate this afternoon was such that I accept that we all hope we shall be able to avoid bloodshed in South Africa, and that we do not want any more Sharpevilles. By the measures it is taking the Government will do everything in its power to ensure law and order in South Africa without bloodshed or without any difficulties of that nature and even without resorting to emergency regulations. But if that is of no avail, the Government will do its duty.

Under the leadership of the hon. member for Springs, the debate developed into a discussion of the treason trial and criticism of that trial. Indeed, that was also to be expected. I therefore want to deal with the matter as a whole because a number of hon. members opposite, and later a number of members on this side of the House, have discussed the treason trial. I do not resent the fair criticism of the hon. member for Springs. It was fair criticism. But then I also want to tell him that what we are discussing to-day, namely the hearing of the treason trial, was fair—no one will say that this was not a fair trial. I think that everyone admits as regards the treason trial that the trial was conducted fairly in accordance with the best democratic principles of justice and that it was a fair trial.

The question has now been raised as to why this trial was started. My reply is that it started like all trials of a criminal nature in South Africa. The police submit the facts and the country’s Attorney Generals consider those facts. If they are convinced that there is at least a prima facie case, they take it to the; courts. That is the procedure in South African. Now it has been said to-day: Yes, but the Minister of Justice exercises control over prosecutions. Theoretically that is correct, but as far as this Government is concerned, no. Minister of Justice has interfered with prosecutions since 1948. It is our policy and I hope that as long as I hold this portfolio I shall adhere to that policy as rigidly as I have done since taking over this portfolio for the simple reason that if one does not do so, it gives rise to trouble. The House will remember the occasion when Mr. Tielman Roos as Minister of Justice interfered, as he was accused of doing, in a prosecution for the first time in history. And we never heard the end of it. I now want to say to hon. members opposite in all reasonableness that when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) said that the decisions as to whether a prosecution should be instituted eventually rested with the Minister of Justice, I think the hon. member did not mean what he said. Perhaps he expressed himself badly. But do hon. members know what he was asking us to do this afternoon? He was asking that in effect the Minister of Justice should interfere with prosecutions. When the Attorney General has to decide on a case and the trial goes on for too long a period, then—so he argues—the Minister of Justice should intervene. I say that I refuse to do so and I think that my predecessors would have said: We refuse once and for all to interfere with prosecutions in South Africa. It is the democratic principle in South Africa of which we are proud that the people of South Africa are not at the mercy of the Government. It therefore surprised me somewhat to hear the suggestion from hon. members opposite this afternoon that the Minister should have intervened and that the trial should have been brought to an end at an earlier stage. No, it was a fair trial and no one has ever complained that it was not a fair trial. We all regret the fact that the trial continued for so long. But in the nature of things it is not only the prosecution which can be held responsible when a trial goes on for too· long. It is also often the defence which must accept the responsibility when the trial continues for too long. Do not let us hurl reproaches at one another. Let us tell the world in the name of South Africa that this was a fair trial and a fair judgment, and let us leave it at that. What I have been asked to do would create a dangerous precedent. I should not like to be a member of a government which interferes with prosecutions, and that is what I have been asked to do this afternoon. I am thankful that we have not done so. Of course when one listens to the speeches made here this afternoon, one would have thought that there was only one side by which anything could be said, that there was nothing to be said for the other side. It will take about a month before the court gives its full judgment. Hon. members will appreciate that it will be a lengthy judgment and only when the full judgment have been given, does the Government intend appointing an inter-departmental committee to consider all the implications and consequences of the judgment. Only when the Government has all the implications and consequences of this judgment before it, can it consider what action should be taken. I have said that all the arguments are not just on the one side. I have here a short extract comprising just two paragraphs of the judgment. I do not want to read the whole judgment, but only the brief finding—

The defence conceded in argument that some of these lectures referred to, contained traces of communist influences. The contention of the defence that the State advocated by the Transvaal Executive is not a dictatorship of the proletariat is rejected.

This is the court—

We are of the opinion that the type of state as seen by the Transvaal Executive of the African National Congress is a dictatorship of the proletariat and accordingly is a communist State, known in Marxism and Leninism as “ A people’s democracy ”.

I am merely reading this extract because more damning words have seldom been expressed in a court. While hon. members have therefore, perhaps without bearing the judgment itself fully in mind, tried to create the impression this afternoon that there was only one side for which anything could be said, it appears from these extracts that that is not so. But only when the full judgment is available can the Attorney Generals decide whether or not an appeal should be lodged against the judgment.

Then the hon. member for Springs has raised the other point of compensation. In this respect he would also be creating a very dangerous precedent in asking us that we should make an exception of this case and pay compensation to people who have been tried and found not guilty. I assume that the hon. member did not consider all the implications when he made this suggestion because he is a lawyer and I want to tell him to-night that what he has advocated this afternoon surprised me somewhat. I was somewhat astonished to hear him make this request. What would become of the State, what would become of South Africa or of any other democratic country if the principle were accepted that one should compensate people if one tries them and they are found not guilty? Britain has been mentioned this afternoon, for example. She is the mother of democracy. What is the position in Britain? If one is found guilty on a criminal charge in Britain, one even has to pay the trial costs of both sides. South Africa is therefore, still far removed from that position. The other point which must be kept in mind is that only certain countries uphold the principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. In France and in certain other European countries, that is not the position. The onus is on the accused to prove that he is innocent. I am not expressing any opinion on the Napoleonic Code, but I am merely mentioning it here. When hon. members ask that people should be compensated when they are found not guilty, then that request is in such conflict with the position in most democratic countries of the world that I cannot believe that the hon. member for Springs will continue to insist on this point if he reconsiders the matter.

Then the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members have also raised the important point that there are far too many arrests in South Africa for minor and trivial offences. I am glad the hon. member has raised this matter because this is a matter about which I feel very strongly. A few weeks ago I discussed this matter in the Other Place and I then said what the Government was going to do. I said in the Other Place that 1,000,000 prosecutions were instituted annually against persons for what can be called minor and even trivial offences. These cases take up a vast amount of the time of the police and the courts and cause continuous overcrowding of our gaols. During 1959 the South African Police issued 113,000 reprimands and warnings to minor offenders, instead of instituting prosecutions. They should be congratulated on that. During 1960 122,000 such reprimands and warnings were issued, that is to say, an increase of 8 per cent. This is a very fine achievement on the part of the police. In my opinion, there are still not nearly enough warnings and reprimands being issued instead of prosecutions being instituted. I am therefore glad to be able to announce that we are at present considering a scheme under which the police will make extensive use of warnings and reprimands in the case of persons who have committed petty or trivial offences. That is my reply to the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members who have asked that the Government should consider this matter. It is really important that we should have less prosecutions for petty offences in South Africa so that the police force can devote its attention to more important matters.

In this regard I was also very glad that hon. members opposite had a word of praise this afternoon for the Commissioner of Police. A Commissioner of Police, particularly in a country like South Africa, must have very broad shoulders and the present Commissioner of Police is carrying this burden with great distinction. I am therefore thankful that hon. members have made the kind remarks about our Commissioner of Police to-day. I shall have an opportunity later to express my thanks to the other departmental chiefs and the members of the three Departments who in recent times have done such trojan work in bringing about our reorganization.

The hon. member has asked me about ex gratia payments to persons who should be considered for such payment as a result of the incidents last year. While I have said that the Government is not prepared to consider ex gratia payments to the persons concerned in the treason trial, the Government is prepared to consider making ex gratia, payments to people who have suffered as a result of the disturbances last year at Sharpeville and elsewhere. The Government has appointed an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the State Attorney, a fairly large committee which will go into the whole question of ex gratia payments. Hon. members have asked me how many applications we have received. We have received many applications, but it would not be correct for me to give a figure. It is a large number but the applications dried up when I announced that the Government had its doubts and had appointed a committee to consider ex gratia payments. The committee will consider these cases carefully and will of course recommend ex gratia payments to the Government where such payments are called for. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the findings of this committee.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) informed me that he would be absent to-night, but he has raised an important matter, namely the question of stock theft and other crimes which are being committed along the borders of Basutoland. He has urged, for example, that improved extradition arrangements should be made because the South African Police follow people who are involved in stock thefts or who are suspected of being involved in stock thefts as far as the border, but they can go no further. I just want to tell the hon. member that he can tell the people living along the borders that the Government is giving serious consideration and attention to the whole question of smuggling across the border and also the question of firearms and particularly the question of stock theft. At the moment the Government is considering to what extent police posts should be established close to one another all along the entire border.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) unfortunately criticized my respected predecessor somewhat this afternoon, and I am sorry that he has done so. The hon. member has also done so in the past and the then Minister replied to him at the time. At that time the hon. member also referred to the “ incompetence ” of the police. My predecessor then challenged him and said that he should just quote one example where the police had acted in that way. The hon. member has failed to give this one example. I see from Hansard that the hon. member was later again asked to give just one example of incompetence, of where the police had acted incompetently. That was in 1959. It seems to me that the hon. member is persisting in his allegation that my predecessor supposedly allowed the police to do certain things of that nature. But he has gone further and said that my predecessor was responsible for the treason trial. The previous Minister went out of his way time and time again to deny that allegation. This afternoon the accusation was even made in this House that my predecessor was persuaded by political considerations to continue with this trial. But the Minister made a statement to the effect that that was not correct and that the prosecution did not rest on his hands but in the hands of the Attorney-General.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

On a point of personal explanation, I did not accuse the hon. the Minister’s predecessor of being influenced by political reasons or anything of that nature. That allegation was made by someone else and I think the hon. the Minister is doing me an injustice by saying so.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Oh, then I am incorrect; then I must move back two benches. It was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) who made the accusation. My predecessor made a statement in this House, which I think hon. members accepted at the time, to the effect that he had had nothing to do with the prosecution and that he was acting correctly and that it was the Attorney-General who had decided whether or not to prosecute. We also know that that was the position. The Department has just provided me with the relevant extract from the statement which my respected predecessor made in this House (Hansard, Col. 5674) on 12 May 1959. I do not want to read the whole state-bent, but inter alia he said—

I only discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and when I was given this advice I said: “ Very well, decide for yourselves, and if this is what you decide, then you must proceed.” This is the “ ordinary course of justice ”. That course will be followed in this instance, and I say here emphatically that this is not a political prosecution inspired by the Government, but that it was decided to institute and to proceed with this prosecution only after objective consideration of the evidence by the Attorney-General and all those concerned.

I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now returned. He has probably heard that while he was away his senior colleague did not wish to be associated with the allegation which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made against my predecessor this afternoon.

The hon. member for East London (City) has also referred to the incidents in Pondoland, but what has struck me most this afternoon is that he is very concerned about the four Pondos who were killed, and that he refuses to accept that the Attorney-General later decided that no prosecution should be instituted against the police officer concerned. He refuses to accept that a prosecution could not be justified. I do not know what more we can do. The Attorney-General went into the matter and decided himself that he would not prosecute any further. But what has surprised me this afternoon is that the hon. member is so concerned about the four Pondos but not about the other persons who have been injured or killed.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I confined myself to the finding of the magistrate and the refusal of the Attorney-General to take action.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I wonder whether the hon. member expected me to intervene in the matter. Does he want me to refer the magistrate’s finding back to the Attorney-General and instruct him to prosecute the police officer? Does he want me to do that? If I were to do so, he would be the first to criticize me.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I only ask that you should do your duty.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

But what I regard as my duty and what the hon. member regards as my duty are two quite different things. Other people were also injured in Pondoland. He did not mention them. Then the hon. member has asked two further questions. In the first place he has quite justifiably asked about the increase in crime. Of course, as the population grows, so the crime rate rises. But the Government is considering this question of the increase in crime. The Government is giving serious attention to the matter, and we are not only considering steps but we are actually taking certain steps to release additional police from office work so that they can give their attention to this aspect. In the first place the hon. member has seen that we have announced that the Government is considering the establishment of a police reserve. This reserve will consist mostly of former policemen whom we can re-employ to do certain office and other work so that we can use the younger policemen outside in order to combat serious crime.

That is one method. The other method is to make additional police available, that is to say, we have adopted the scheme of employing women typists and clerks in police offices so that additional police can be released in order to make more policemen available for protecting the public. Another aspect which the Government is now considering is to what extent we can once again make use of dogs for street patrols, as is done in Europe, so that it will not be necessary to send two policemen out on patrol, but one policeman with a dog. There are countries in Europe which have found that this system works extremely well. The experience in South Africa is that certain sections of the population particularly are very afraid of a dog. The Government is sending two police officers to Europe to ascertain to what extent this scheme which is used in Holland and elsewhere, can be applied in South Africa. I therefore do not want to anticipate their findings, but I only want to say that this is another method which the Government is considering in order to make more policemen available.

Then, as far as the ladies are concerned, I just want to say that I think we shall soon have succeeded—-in the few months which have passed—in recruiting 500 women to replace policemen in offices, so that those policemen can be released for outside duty. I am glad that the hon. member has asked this question, and I think that this represents a great step forward.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

What about the civic guards in the Native towns?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have made a note of that point. Another hon. member has also asked this question, and I shall be glad if the hon. member for East London (City) will repeat the question on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because he has further details in this regard. But the position is that we have established civic guards for the Bantu to give the Bantu the protection to which they are entitled, and particularly to give Bantu chiefs the protection to which they are entitled. We have established these civic guards. At the moment they are being trained by Bantu sergeants of my Police Department. But, as soon as they have reached the stage where they can become sergeants themselves, the police will withdraw their sergeants and the Natives will do the work themselves. They are being trained by Native sergeants. We expect great things of this step in the future. I am glad that hon. members have applauded this step to-day and have said that this is a good thing which the Government has done.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) for his kind words, particularly in connection with the rehabilitation scheme which I have explained to the House to-day. I am glad that he has discussed the arguments which were used in respect of the treason trial in the way he has.

I have already replied to the question of prosecutions for trivial offences. I have been questioned by the hon. member for East London (City) and also by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) about the Kgosana case, about the young Native (jong kaffertjie) who is now in England. I have been asked: What happened after they had marched in procession to Cape Town and after Col. Terblanche …

Mr. HUGHES:

Do you want that description recorded in Hansard?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I do not think anyone will take it very seriously. I have been asked what happened when these Bantu said that a committee representing them would like to see the Minister. When the request reached me, I said that I was too busy. I was told that Col. Terblanche had informed them that he would try to see whether he could arrange an interview for them. When the message reached me, I said that I was too busy, and I asked the Secretary for Justice to go and see them, that is to say, Kgosana and three or four others. The Secretary for Justice then went to meet them. He said: “ You say that you want to see the Minister; what do you want to see him about? ” They then said that they wanted to see the Minister for one reason only, namely, to ask him to release the Native leaders who had been arrested. The secretary then said: “ Yes, but then we must have a sworn statement that that is what you are asking for.” He then asked whether that was all they wanted, or whether that was all they wanted to ask the Minister, namely, that he should release the Natives who had been arrested. They then replied in the affirmative again, and a sworn statement was then taken from them; the statement was properly signed and is in our possession. Those are the facts of the case. After all, all they wanted to see me for was to ask me to release the Native leaders, perhaps knowing full well that I would not give the slightest consideration to such a request.

I think the hon. member for Sea Point has said that Kgosana was actually led into a trap. He was asked to come and he was then arrested. The fact of the matter isi that the police had already been searching for Kgosana ever since that morning.

*Mr. HUGHES:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. KEYTER:

He only believes “ Janne-warie ” and not a White man.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) must not make such senseless remarks.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I was under the impression that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) would accept my word when I put the facts as I have been given them. I am putting the facts as I have been given them.

Mr. HUGHES:

Why did they not arrest him when he came on the first occasion?

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member knows how to put a question.

Mr. HUGHES:

But the hon. the Minister has put a question to me, and not I to him.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I just want to clear up this matter and give the hon. member the assurance that, to the best of my ability, I am trying to put the facts correctly as they have been given to me. I understand that when it became apparent that he was the leader of the people who had taken part in the procession, the colonel concerned spoke to him and did not arrest him because he (the colonel) was not concerned with the question of his arrest. Whether he knew about it or not I do not know. I have been told that he was dealing with people who were asking for an interview with the Minister. Then the police, who were concerned with the arrest, came and said that they had already been looking for that person since the morning. To be accurate, they had been looking for him at the university. They could not find him. Then eventually they found him there. He was not led into a trap Because he was an outstanding figure at the demonstration. He was not someone who hid away or anything of that nature. There was, therefore, no difficulty about arresting him if they wished to do so. The arrest had nothing to do with the fact that they were asked to come at 5 o’clock, or whatever time it was, to hear the Minister’s reply. The Minister then sent a message that he could not see them, but that the Secretary for Justice would see them.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Who instructed Terblanche to arrest Kgosana?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I did not do so. I shall have to go into the matter to find out who exactly it was. I am sorry, but I do not have that information; all I can say is that I did not do so. Hon. members will appreciate that, in the case of such arrests, there is always a higher authority which does not rest with the Minister.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) has also discussed the treason trial and he then asked me about home defence. He has complained particularly that the Whites are in the way at these meetings and that we should take steps to get them out of the way. It will be very difficult. At the meeting which was held on the Parade on Saturday there were 100 Whites, but they keep together in the middle. It is difficult for the police to go to those Whites and to say: What are you doing here? It was quite clear what they were doing there. It will be very difficult to carry out the request of the hon. member, namely that the police should see whether they can get the Whites out of the way. I agree with him that it is true that because of their curiosity the Whites are more in the way and are more of a nuisance. I am not saying this to criticize them, but I am submitting it as a fact. As has been said here to-day, we know what happens when there is a motor accident. Everyone wants to see because they are curious. This also happens in the case of processions, etc. I do not think we can do much about it.

Then the hon. member has asked another question, namely whether we shall teach our women to handle firearms. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) was very upset that such a question could even be put. I do not know why he is upset. It is traditional in South Africa, amongst both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples, that our ladies can shoot rather well. There were times in the history of the Eastern border when it was essential that the women should know how to shoot. I am not so sure that the time has not again come when it will be a good thing for our women to learn to shoot. We are continuously reading in the newspapers about women being assaulted in their homes by armed and unarmed Natives. I think that if we would just teach our women again to shoot, there would be less attacks on them. For that reason we have also drawn up a scheme whereby we use our police stations for this purpose. There are approximately 1,000 police stations in the country, and there is usually a sergeant and other policemen who can help us in establishing these ladies’ clubs in each area and teaching them to handle firearms. I hope it will not create an incorrect impression abroad because if it does create such an undesirable impression, then the fact that such attacks are being made on women, particularly in the big cities of South Africa, must also create an undesirable impression. After all we must seek a remedy. I should therefore like to put the matter in this way. It will not create an undesirable impression abroad if South Africa should teach its women to use firearms. The husbands cannot always be at home. [Interjections.] No, no I think it would be a sensible thing for South Africa to teach its women to shoot. This is my reply to a point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (District).

The hon. member for Maitland has also discussed the treason trial. Then he made the distasteful remark with reference to my predecessor “that it was a trial with a political flavour”. I do not think that he had considered that remark very carefully, and I think that if he will actually sit down and reconsider the matter, he would like to withdraw such a remark, namely that this was a trial with a political flavour. As regards the banning of persons, so that they can only remain in certain areas or so that they may not address meetings for a period of two or five years, he has asked what our policy is. My reply is that our policy is to carry out the law. Our policy is to do our duty in order to safeguard and to protect law and order in South Africa and if there is any indication that the Suppression of Communism Act is being contravened, we shall take action. I cannot take the matter any further. It would be a very weak government which, if there are laws on the Statute Book, did not implement those laws.

With reference to my announcement this afternoon regarding the Government’s intentions as regards juveniles who are sentenced to imprisonment, the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has asked what we are going to do about those who have not yet been punished. Approximately 475 of them are being sentenced daily and I said this afternoon that the Government would establish rehabilitation centres for them. The hon. member says that that is a good thing as regards those who have already been sentenced, that is to say, the 475 per day between the ages of 15 and 24. But, he asks, what about the loafers who cause trouble on the streets, the disturbers of the peace and the loafers—what about those young people? I am glad that the hon. member has asked this question. The Government has appointed a Cabinet committee which is considering this matter and which we hope will submit proposals. The announcement I have made to-day represents an attempt on our part to deal with those who have already been sentenced and who are in jail. Those whom I am now discussing are the people who stand around on the streets, and who have not committed a legal offence so that they can be arrested. As I have said, a Cabinet committee is considering that aspect.

The hon. member for Sea Point has also asked me about Kgosana and I have already replied in that regard. I have also already replied to the questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has put one or two interesting questions to which I should like to reply. He has asked about the legal aid bureaux. He has asked why we are now undertaking an experiment in Johannesburg, instead of the legal bureaux appointing an official to do the work. My reply is that the previous system was not a success. What is the task of the legal aid bureaux? They should help people who have legal problems, people who would like to go to court but do not know how to set about it. Often if such a person could be given legal advice they would not go to court at all. That is the general work of the legal aid bureaux. Legal aid bureaux only existed in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban. They were organized by a private body. They had one or two officials in their offices and the Government paid a subsidy of £5,500 per annum in respect of these three offices to enable them to continue with their work. The legal aid bureau in Cape Town was closed in November 1958. As the hon. member has said, certain of these bureaux could not function properly at all and were eventually closed. The legal aid bureau in Pretoria was replaced at approximately the same time, namely in November 1958, by the magistrate’s office taking over the work itself. In the case of the three remaining offices, there were three Whites and two Bantu in the Johannesburg office. But they have told us that there was not really enough work to keep them occupied for more than one or two hours per day. In Port Elizabeth there is one White and one Bantu and in Durban one White. The hon. member now asks why the R11,000 still appears on the Estimates. That figure appears on this year’s Estimates because the legal aid bureaux have incurred certain costs hitherto What remains of the R11,000 will be utilized in respect of the offices which the Government is to establish. I hope that on the next Estimates another amount will appear which will be utilized to meet these costs. The hon. member has referred, quite correctly perhaps, to the shortage of public servants and has asked why under those circumstances we are now going to entrust a public servant with this work. It seems to me that the legal aid bureaux have very little work, and if it appears that it only involves one or two hours per day, we can revert to the system which is already operating in Pretoria, namely that the magistrate’s office does the work itself. In any case, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I take a personal interest in this type of work and that I shall do my best to ensure that the function which the legal aid bureaux have fulfilled in the past will not be detracted from. I only hope that if the State takes this service over—it seems as though the public is not able to support it, even with the subsidy of £5,500 per annum—if the State gradually takes over these duties, then I think that we shall achieve satisfaction in view of the fact that we will not need to appoint much additional staff, but that the office concerned will actually be able to do the work itself. At the moment there is an official in Johannesburg with the status of a magistrate who is doing this work. But it may appear later that he does not have much work and it will then be transferred to the magistrate’s office.

Mr. HUGHES:

Have you considered the British system? When we discussed the matter last year, you said that you would consider the British system.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes, we have considered that system. The interest of the public would also have to be aroused. That is the difficulty at the moment. The public are probably not aware of all the work that the legal aid bureaux do and consequently take practically no interest in them. The bureaux can therefore not find the necessary funds. That is why the State will have to take over this work.

Then the hon. member has asked me what will happen to the court building which was fitted out for the treason trial. My reply is that the Judge-President of the Transvaal has asked that the building should be left unaltered so that he can use it as a court, He does not have the necessary court accommodation. A new supreme court is to be erected in Pretoria but this will still take a few years. During this time this court building will be used to serve the Transvaal. Eventually we shall probably take a final decision in the light of the suggestions we receive.

Then the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has raised the question of people who disappear and then the police have to search for them. That is the position. People do disappear. When the hon. member’s time expired he was just going to say that these are people who go on “ joyrides ”. All I can tell the hon. member is that I cannot express an opinion in this regard. I can only say that the police have their duty and they must carry out that duty.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) has discussed the treason trial, but I have already dealt with the points which he raised. I have already replied to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the same matter. He made a strange statement this afternoon to the effect that during the 13 years which the National Party Government have been in power, we have enacted a large number of Acts which embody the presumption that a person is guilty until he has proved his innocence. I then asked the hon. member to give just one example. He says he could give dozens, but he did not mention one. During the adjournment I had inquiries made and I can easily mention a dozen Acts which were adopted prior to 1948 which place the onus on the accused. That was done by the previous Government.

Mr. MILLER:

But do you agree that it should not be done?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I shall wait for the hon. member to give me a few examples of where this Government has done so. I have taken the trouble to examine the other examples and there are at least 12 such Acts which I can mention and which were passed under the régime of the previous Government.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for detaining the Committee for so long, but I think that I have now answered more or less all the points which have been raised. If I have not replied to all the points, then I am only too willing to do so if hon. members will raise those matters once again.

Mr. TUCKER:

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has answered as fully as he did and in the spirit in which he has replied. I would like to say it was a very pleasant change and one does wonder whether it would not be better if this hon. Minister were to represent us in other countries of the world in place of his hon. colleague who represents South Africa at the moment.

From what the hon. the Minister has said it is possible that there will be an appeal. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that as I read the Press report of the findings of the judges, the material sentence in regard to the question of a possible appeal says this—

On all the evidence presented to this Court and on our findings of fact, it is impossible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the African National Congress, … etc.

It would therefore appear that the findings is a question of fact in which case, of course, it seems inconceivable that there can be an appeal. However I do not want to press that as the Minister says that it is possible that there may be an appeal.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I did not say on the facts.

Mr. TUCKER:

No. I may misread it, but it does seem to me that it is only a question of fact that that would be possible, in view of these findings.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I did not bind myself.

Mr. TUCKER:

Of course I may be wrong. It would be very inadvisable, if a possible appeal is being contemplated, to debate this matter any further. I therefore do not propose to take it any further.

I was rather sorry that the hon. the Minister did not disassociate himself from one of the hon. members on the Government side who appeared to call into question, as I understood what he said, the bona fides of persons who were acting as trustees of the fund which had been formed for the defence of the accused. I would like to say that I have seen the names of the persons concerned and I want to state immediately that I believe that they are persons of such high standing that everybody can be well satisfied that they would not misuse any of the funds that come into their possession. However, it is not for me to defend them …

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Who are they?

Mr. FRONEMAN:

They made a political issue of it.

Mr. TUCKER:

I am not dealing with the question of the issue. The imputation in the remark of one hon. member was that the Government should look into the question of the use of those funds.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Mr. Chairman, may I explain this position. It was not I who made that statement, it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). He said that before there was any talk of re imbursing these people for what they had lost as a result of appearing before the Court, it should first be established exactly what the amount was, otherwise money may be made out of it. That was his meaning.

Mr. TUCKER:

I can only say to the hon. member that if he reads Hansard it was not in the terms which he has just given to this House. However, I am not going to pursue the matter any further except say this, that the persons who have been the trustees of that fund—as I said I have seen certain of the names in the Press—are recognized as persons of the highest standing and I would not like it to be left on record, that I heard correctly, that there is any possible imputation against their personal characters. That is all I wish to say. I do not feel it would be right if any such imputation has been made, or if it can be deduced from anything which the hon. member said. I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is right and that I am wrong in my understanding of what has been said during this debate.

I must say this to the hon. the Minister: I am very glad to have his assurance that he as Minister of Justice, has never made use of the powers which he has under our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in regard to prosecutions. In other words, he has left decisions on prosecution in the hands of the Attorneys-General. I accept his word unhesitatingly, and also that that had been the practice previously. I think it is a very sound practice and I wonder whether it would not be a very good thing if we were to reverse the position and go back to the law as it stood prior to amendment. The final decision was then left in the hands of the Attorney-General. The hon. the Minister has said that only in one single case did a Minister of Justice interfere, and he had reason to regret it. The amendment was made in the year 1926. I would say that this amendment has been on the Statute Book for 35 years too long, and perhaps this hon. Minister will consider bringing the position into accord with what he tells us has been the practice all these years. It would be a good thing for this country and I commend it to the hon. the Minister.

I would like to say one further thing in regard to this trial, that I hope there will never again be a case in this country where a Minister of Justice will make statements about pending prosecutions either in this House or elsewhere, prior to the public knowing anything of a proposed prosecution. I believe it was most unfortunate that that happened. It has been responsible for a good deal of criticism against this country in connection with this case in the years that it has been before the Courts.

Certain hon. members became very heated in regard to a suggestion which I threw out earlier on in this debate. I dealt first with the question of compensation for innocent persons injured at Sharpville. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the assurance which he has given that there is an interdepartmental committee looking into certain cases. In all the circumstances of the Treason case the Minister might look into the question of possible compensation. Let me make it clear that I think that the general principle applied in this country is a sound one, but I would say that there are very special circumstances here and I would draw attention to the fact that in relation to some of the accused they were first arrested on 5 December 1956 and the only charge brought against them was quashed by this special court on 20 April 1960. In the case of persons who had been committed for trial and stood trial and were acquitted, there can be no question of compensation, but in respect of these persons where there has been this tremendously long delay. I know the case was complicated and I am not suggesting that all the delay could have been avoided. I accept what the Minister said that certain of the delays were quite unavoidable and due to the defence because there were intermediate proceedings which took time. Where there was no justification on the facts for an indictment I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the Minister should look into the question of compensation of innocent persons. I make no apology for suggesting this. I agree that it is contrary to the normal rules, but I do not think that any harm could result if, on going into the matter, the Minister felt that special compensation should be paid.

I would like to come back to the point made by the Minister in regard to petty prosecutions. He referred to the fact that there has been an increasing number of cases where prosecutions did not take place and I welcome that very much indeed. I know that previous statements have been made. I can only say to the Minister that anything he might be able to do to cut down the number of prosecutions in petty cases further will have the full support of this side of the House. I would say to the Minister also that there are also cases of unnecessary arrest. I know that the Minister said his policy was to avoid this, and I believe there has been an improvement, but I do not think we have reached the end of that road. The Minister might continue to keep that matter very clearly before him. It can only redound to the credit of the country if we can reduce the number of these cases. [Time limit.]

*Mr. HAAK:

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) referred to the high treason case and particularly to the one paragraph which constituted the main part of the report on the day judgment was given, viz. that the court found that the A.N.C. was not a communist organization. When we look at the judgment as reported in the Press, it creates the impression that the A.N.C. was charged with being a communist organization and that it was found not to be one.

Mr. TUCKER:

I wonder whether the hon. member will allow me to read the whole of the paragraph, because that might remove any misapprehension—

Of all the evidence presented to this Court and of our findings of fact it is impossible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the African National Congress had acquired or adopted a policy to overthrow the State by violence, that is in the sense that the masses had to be prepared or conditioned to commit direct acts of violence against the State.

I just quoted the first paragraph and I can quite understand that the hon. member thought that it referred to another paragraph.

*Mr. HAAK:

I am grateful to the hon. member. I also read that report, but I want to read a little more from the original judgment than appeared in the Press. Before doing so I want to round off my proposition, viz. that the Press reports created the impression that the A.N.C. was found not guilty. The impression was further created that there never should have been such a case and that the A.N.C. was not a subversive organization at all. The fact is that a charge was laid against four organizations, of which the A.N.C. was one. The charge was that these organizations worked together with the common object of overthrowing the State by violence. It therefore had to be proved that each of those organizations first individually and thereafter jointly, plotted to overthrow the State. The judgment said that the Court found that “ it has not been proved that the A.N.C. was a communist organization That created the impression that there was nothing wrong with the A.N.C. and that there was no reason for the State to institute this action against the accused. But when we look at the preliminary judgment we see, inter alia, that also this matter was proved, and of the matters the court found to have been proved very little or nothing appeared in the Press. Inter alia, the Judges came to the following conclusion. The Minister quoted the first part, which I do not want to repeat, viz. that “ the State seen by the A.N.C. is a dictatorship of a proletariat and accordingly is a state known in Marxist Leninism as a people’s democracy ”. But there are further findings—

The evidence proves the following,· that it was the policy of the A.N.C. that communist and anti-communist could clearly become members of the A.N.C., provided they subscribed to the policy of the A.N.C., and that some responsible executive leaders of the A.N.C. were members of the Communist Party before it was banned in 1950. There is no evidence to support the allegation of the prosecution that there was in-filtration by members of the former communists into the ranks of the A.N.C. after 1950.

They also found the following—

The evidence proved that the A.N.C. took up the attitude that communists were free to spread their ideologies amongst the members of the A.N.C., provided they honoured the policy of the A.N.C.

And then this—

The Court finds that it has been proved that in the indictment period a strong left-wing tendency manifested itself in the A.N.C.

We therefore see that certain allegations made by the State were Droved, and in the concluding paragraph the Judge, who drew up this resume said the following—

Whilst therefore the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the programme of action contemplated the use of illegal methods and that its application in fact resulted in illegal action during the defiance campaign, and that the A.N.C., as a matter of policy, decided to employ such means for the achievement of a fundamentally different state from the present, it has failed to show that the A.N.C. as a matter of policy intended to achieve this new state by violent means.

The result is that they did not succeed in proving violence, but they found that certain things had been done. Whereas the impression was created here that this was quite an innocuous organization with harmless intentions and that people were accused who never should have been accused, it is clear from the preliminary judgment that there was incitement to the commission of illegal acts and that the whole matter was not as innocent as one might have gathered from the Press. I refer to this portion which says that it was not proved that the A.N.C. was a communist organization, but it is not correct to say that it was completely blameless and had been charged wrongly. The Minister’s predecessor clearly said in this House that he left it to the Attorney-General to investigate the case, and that independent legal advice had been obtained before the charge was framed, particularly to ensure that there would be no injustice committed. In the light of this, we believe that the previous Minister of Justice was fully justified in not interfering when his officials had decided to prosecute. But from the judgment it is clear that there was a prima facie case which they were fully entitled to investigate, and that no injustice was done to any accused person who was charged in the case.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the general remarks made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) in regard to non-interference in criminal prosecutions. There is no doubt that the attitude placed before the House by the Minister is the correct one, but in a case of such public importance l feel that the Minister has really evaded the issue and has not carried out his function as Minister of Justice. I think that the House should be informed what the reasons were for not taking action. Here we have a case in which a number of Natives are killed by police action. I am not judging whether the police were correct or not, but we have a finding by an experienced magistrate that in the case of four of the deceased the shooting was not justified and he suggested that a certain officer was guilty of culpable homicide. The Minister’s function is clearly defined in Section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955. The Minister mentioned the fact that it was Mr. Tielman Roos who introduced this principle years ago, but the fact is that in 1955 this law was amended and consolidated by the present Government. That section reads—

Every Attorney-General shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law, subject to the control and direction of the Minister who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such functions.

I do not say that the Attorney-General’s decision was wrong. I have not got the facts. I submit that the Minister of Justice did not do his duty in omitting to call for the record to satisfy himself in a matter of such public importance that the Attorney-General was acting correctly. The Minister himself is the final arbiter in this matter. I would like to repeat the point raised by the hon. member for Springs, namely that if the Minister considers that this section is superfluous and that he is not prepared to act on it, then I ask whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to repeal this provision and to revert to the position as it was before the law was changed in 1926. Sir, the matter is a very serious one. The public and this House are entitled to know what the reasons were.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) is a strange phenomenon in this House because he is the person who so strenuously criticised the previous Minister of Justice. He blamed the previous Minister for the fact that the high treason case had been commenced and the prosecution instituted on his initiative and not on that of the Attorney-General. That influenced the previous Minister to make the statement which the present Minister read out to-night, in which he denied that he had done so and said that it had rested exclusively in the hands of the Attorney-General. But now he comes along with the case of Pondoland, where a few Pondos were shot, and he blames this Minister for not doing the very thing which he wanted the previous Minister to do. Here he says the Minister should have intervened, but in the other case he blames the Minister for having intervened. I fail to follow his argument. We all know what the law provides, but it has always been the policy of all Ministers of Justice not to intervene and to leave the matter in the hands of the Attorney-General.

I am very sorry that hon. members of the Opposition did not devote any attention today to the statement made by the Minister in regard to youth rehabilitation. It is a very important statement and it is a pity that they did not say a word about it. Brilliant work is being done here and it is something which will be a better advertisement for South Africa overseas than the speech of the hon. member for East London (City). I want to express my particular appreciation for the fact that one of these youth camps will be in my constituency.

In regard to the fund established in connection with the high treason trial, the hon. member for Springs made a few remarks. He said that we had said that the trustees were not bona fide. What I say is that the money was collected under false pretences. This money was collected not so much just to defend these people, but under the pretext that the Government was oppressive and depriving people of their human rights and putting them into prison unjustly. This money was collected on that pretext, and I say it was a false pretext. What would we think if money were to be collected for every man who contravened the law and if the blame was then put on the Government? That is what I have against the fund and I hope that fund will now come to an end, seeing that the case has been concluded.

In regard to this suggestion that compensation should be paid to people, I want to remind the hon. member for Springs that they were not the only people to have been charged with political crimes in South Africa, and, moreover, did his predecessors plead that the rebels should be compensated or that the people charged during the strike should be compensated? But at that time White people were concerned. But this time a number of Natives were charged and now compensation has to be paid just because they want to make political capital out of the matter. Let us view the matter in the right perspective. They think that if the Government agrees to compensate these people it will be an admission that it has done them an injustice by prosecuting them. For my part, none of them need be compensated.

I want to touch on a matter which has not received any attention yet, viz. that home defence falls under this Minister. In the past home defence was regarded from the point of view of modern warfare, missiles, etc. and that we should build air-raid shelters, etc. But if modern warfare comes to our country it will come in the same way that it came to Angola, by local riots by terrorists to terrify the people. I therefore ask that we should organize home defence on a voluntary basis in every town in South Africa. Not only should there be home defence in the Bantu areas, but also for the Whites and it must be on a voluntary basis. The magistrate should call together all people interested in it in every district and there should be a nucleus of people who will be able to defend every town if necessary. I want to mention the example of Sasolburg, where a number of women get together voluntarily every week to receive instruction in home defence and the handling of firearms. I ask that magistrates throughout the country should get the people together to serve as home-guards in those towns, and there will be enough people who are willing to do so. The position in Angola shows the technique which is applied and how riots will take place in this country. It will not come through Russia firing missiles at us or through artillery being aimed at us, but by uprisings of terrorists in all the towns with the object of murdering the inhabitants. I therefore feel that every town should protect itself and that the large cities should also be organized, block by block, to defend themselves. I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying these few words.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) dealt with the treason trial again. I do not intend to pursue the matter, except to say that one should always take into consideration the severe hardships that were experienced by the families of these persons during a period of four years. When the breadwinner is removed from the family it causes severe hardship on his dependants.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What did your party do during the war?

Mr. HUGHES:

What did yours do?

Mr. OLDFIELD:

I do not intend dealing with the war record of the hon. member. As far as I know, the war record of hon. members opposite will not stand scrutiny.

I wish to discuss an important matter in regard to the statement made in the House this afternoon in regard to the establishment of youth rehabilitation centres. At the outset I would like to say that the details revealed will be welcomed by all those organizations, societies and persons who are interested in rehabilitation, particularly in regard to youth matters. It is an important step towards the rehabilitation of the juvenile offender. In this regard I want to make certain observations about the details put before the Committee. Before doing so, I would like to refer to the whole question of juvenile crime which has shown a marked increase over the past five years. One might argue that the increase in population to a certain extent has the effect of increasing crime proportionately. But in regard to juvenile crime, I feel that that does not altogether apply, because in 1955 there were 157,814 convictions of persons under 21 years of age and the latest available figures I have for the year 1958 show that this figure has now increased to 188,000 odd. The figures for the first part of the year 1959 was 97,848. Therefore I think we can safely say that the total number of convictions of persons under 21 is now approximately 200,000. This is an alarming figure, which requires attention, and I hope to be able to put forward certain suggestions to the Minister in this regard. However, to deal with the statement and the training proposed to be given at the rehabilitation centres, there are certain items on which Í would like to pass comment.

Firstly, the training envisaged here is very similar to the training at present being given in the reformatories, training which we believe to be successful, but we have not been able to ascertain what degree of success has been reached. Some of the items in the proposed training scheme, with which I wholly agree—there is the question of re-education of these people which is of vital importance. It has become accepted, particularly in dealing with the rehabilitation of young persons, that complete rehabilitation is only possible through re-education and not purely through penal punishment. In this proposed scheme the Minister mentioned certain features in regard to agricultural training and training in various trades. I would like to suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to general education and higher education, whereby facilities will be provided—I know it is perhaps not possible due to financial difficulties to have a staff to give higher education —but financial assistance should be given to these people to take correspondence courses. This should apply to persons who are more studious and who do not wish to go in for agriculture or a career in the various trades. While dealing with the various trades, the Minister said that persons committed will be able to obtain full artisan status and diplomas. I would like to ask the Minister whether the persons who will be responsible for the training of these young people will be qualified artisans, and whether this scheme has the approval of the trade unions, because that is rather important.

There are other suggestions which we hope will bring about a greater degree of rehabilitation. It has been the experience of many people to find that young persons who have served imprisonment have often become associated with the hardened type of criminal and it has done them far more harm than good. Therefore the whole question of the classification of prisoners, particularly in regard to age groups, is a most important one, and also aptitude tests to see that these persons are applied to the careers which will be most beneficial to them in later life. These principles should prove to be a success. However, there are other items in regard to which information would be appreciated. When dealing with this matter one must realize that this type of training can only be applicable to long-term prisoners. What the Minister has in mind for the short-term prisoners is not too clear at present. The system has been one whereby long-term prisoners have been afforded facilities to qualify for various trades and careers. The other important factor is the question of the number of persons to be accommodated at this rehabilitation centre. The Minister said that there was a daily average of 375 White youths between the ages of 15 and 23 at present held in prison. Whether the policy is to transfer these persons immediately to this institution is one matter, but my point is that in regard to establishing institutions of this type it has been found that establishing a too large institution is not conducive to obtaining the highest possible degree of success in regard to rehabilitation and that to work with a smaller unit is far more successful. I hope that if the scheme is satisfactory and the Minister intends establishing further rehabilitation centres later, he will consider establishing smaller centres.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That will require more staff.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

I appreciate the difficulties, but I feel that the additional staff and expenditure involved will in the long run be beneficial.

Then there is the question of after-care. That is dealt with in the concluding portion of the statement and it is a very important matter. It has been found in various institutions such as reformatories and industrial schools that when these young persons are released, unless a careful check is kept on their career they very quickly go back into their old ways and therefore the problem exists of giving after-care. I realize that the Minister will have close liaison with the Department of Social Welfare and I hope that an effort will be made and that the Minister will use his influence … [Time limit.]

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

In the first place, I want to throw the searchlight on the statement made by the hon. member for Springs on behalf of the United Party in regard to the attitude adopted by the United Party towards the so-called Treason Trial Defence Fund. In his half-hour speech the hon. member said that “ South Africa owes a debt of gratitude ” to Bishop Reeves and others for having established the Defence Fund and for having collected the money, and in his reply, after the Minister had replied to him, he again referred with approval and praise to the trustees of this fund. Now, what was this fund established for? It was not established for the defence of ordinary criminals, but to defend political offenders, and what was the charge against them? It was that, in the name of Communism or as communists they wanted to achieve certain communist objects by violence or, alternatively, by that they committed high treason because they sought to overthrow the South African State by means of violence. I have never before heard the United Party associating themselves with this deplorable fund for the support of subversive activities in South Africa. But now that judgment has been given to the effect that there were strong communist influences in the A.N.C., but that it was not proved that it was communist action in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, now that the judgment says that it was an attempt to overthrow the White Government but that it did not amount to high treason—that enough violent objectives were not proved—the United Party comes along and says: We approve of the establishment of this fund: we approve of the fact that money and world opinion were mobilized to defend these political offenders in South Africa and to support them. I say that is a terrible statement to make. It would have been better if this matter had been left alone. But the United Party associates itself, through what was said by the hon. member for Springs, with the collection of money for the defence of these political assassins of the South African State. As far as I am concerned, only one point of interest emerged from this discussion of the high treason case, viz. that the hon. the Minister said that a departmental committee would be appointed to study the voluminous judgment which is expected to be delivered. I want to ask whether this Committee can give special consideration to the question of whether the definition of high treason in South Africa should not be a statutory matter. If that were done, it would be an adaptation to the actual circumstances in South Africa and to the probable circumstances in which high treason will be committed. A definition of high treason should be put on the Statute book. I trust that the hon. the Minister will consider giving specific instructions to the Committee to investigate and to ascertain whether it is not necessary to define high treason statutorily, and if so, what the definition should be.

Then, Sir, I would like to deal with a few other points. The United Party referred, through the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), with a certain amount of approval to one Kgosana who was described by him “ as a young university student ”. I want to pose the question whether he did not enrol at the university to escape the regulations which would otherwise have prevented his illegal entry into Cape Town. I also want to refer to Kgosana, but in another sense. Kgosana, who, according to the hon. member for East London (City), was evidently done an injustice by the Minister of Justice, forfeited £25 bail, escaped to Basutoland, crawled through Africa and now declares in London that this White state will be brought to a fall in 1963. I read to-night that another Native, one Espin Xintolo, who was arrested on Monday for illegal membership of the P.A.C., also disappeared to-day, also forfeiting £25 bail. It shocked many people in South Africa that Kgosana should have been granted £25 bail. There was of course a presumption of honesty which the hon. member for East London (City) ascribed to him, and that is why he was released on bail. This series of escapes and forfeiture of bail started with Kgosana and is still continuing. I want to· put it to the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived when magistrates should no longer have discretion to grant bail to accused persons who are charged with certain offences against the state, directly or indirectly I think that discretion should be abolished. What sense is there, Sir, when a person like Kgosana who is charged with a crime affecting the safety of the state is released on £25 bail in the discretion of a magistrate, and if that small amount of bail can be forfeited and he can act as an agitator against South Africa on a platform overseas. To sum it up, Sir, we: in South Africa have arrived at the stage where a person like Kgosana can tell our enemies that they will take over in 1963. If they declare war on us, let us show that we will handle those people who are so inimical towards us with a firm hand. I would like the: hon. the Minister to give this his serious and prompt consideration.

Then I want to raise an unrelated point with reference to the announcement of the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of our ordinary magistrates’ courts and regional courts. I notice in the Press that to the publication of this Bill there is coupled the suggestion that this might be the introduction of a system whereby magistrates of those courts with increased jurisdiction can be taken into account for appointment to the Bench of the Supreme Court. I shall be glad if the Minister can take us into his confidence and tell us whether it is the policy of the Government to continue appointing judges from the Bar as in the: past, which I hope is the case—nr whether this policy will be deviated from as is alleged in the Press, which is generally unreliable.

Then I want to raise a small point in regard to the safety of firearms. Our police are faced with many difficulties in regard to the theft of firearms from private individuals, but the owners of firearms also find it very difficult to safeguard those weapons. The position in South Africa is simply that few people,, except those who are interested in shooting, possess firearms, and therefore those who do own firearms usually have quite a few of them. If a man is interested in shooting he usually does not possess one gun only. There are numbers of South Africans who quite justifiably and for good reasons, in my opinion, have three, four or five firearms, and it is quite a responsibility to keep these weapons safe in one’s house. I would like the Minister to consider whether he cannot arrange for the police stations to be equipped with lockers which can be rented at a small fee where these firearms can be kept in safety. [Time limit.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I do not quite know how the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) was going to develop his last argument, but I would like to associate myself with the danger inherent in the widespread carrying of firearms from the other angle. I am the last person to say that people should not defend themselves. A society in which you are going to have a widespread possession of firearms by private citizens without adequate training in the responsibility that goes with the handling of those firearms, is looking for trouble. South Africa has a long tradition in which firearms played an important rôle, but in spite of that there are many cases of shocking handling of them—leaving them loaded and so forth. I am not speaking of the danger of having them stolen at the moment, but that angle must also be watched. There is grave danger that these weapons can get into hands where we would not wish them to be either by robbery or by people who may perhaps have fallen on evil ways and trying to make money out of their weapons by selling them. This is also something that should be guarded. Generally speaking I would say that a society is happiest where firearms are carried by the minimum of people, by those people specially ordained and specially trained to carry them. Therefore if it is to become general practice in our country, I think we should exercise great care and control over those who do possess them.

I rose at this juncture, Mr. Chairman, because I wish to give my view—although I had not intended to take part in this debate. Things have been said in this debate about the treason trial fund and I think it is only fair that a citizen of South Africa who tries to view that fund objectively should give his views. The argument that people subscribed to or encouraged that fund indirectly, as members have suggested, as a stick to beat the Government with is a very exaggerated view on the one side, if I may say so. [Interjections.] The court has given its judgment and as we expect from a South African court, it was an impartial judgment.

An HON. MEMBER:

Of course.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Had no such fund been available it is very doubtful whether that defence could have been conducted at a time when the eyes of the whole world were focused on South Africa because of the importance of this case. Had we not had that fund it would have been said in the outside world that South Africa did not give those people a fair trial, and how much more propaganda would there not have been against us irrespective of the gravity of the charge. High treason in which a large number of people are involved is not a common charge, and this case attracted the attention and the sympathy of those people who looked at the position of the accused, should they be innocent, in which there means of livelihood have been suspected. I think most of the people who subscribed to that fund were people who were thinking along those lines. They wished justice to be done but they wished the defence to have a fair chance in that trial. I just give that as my own attitude to the fund and in that respect I support the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) that the existence of that fund did not harm the good name of South Africa outside this country.

I only have a few minutes at my disposal but there is one point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. Before I do so, however. I wish to associate myself with those who have responded to those portions of his address where very constructive proposals have been made. I refer to the statement he made to-day in regard to the one method of prison reform. I think no one in this House would not wish to see corrective rather than punitive measures used in the case of criminals or potential criminals wherever it is possible and I hope this can be extended. In that regard I cannot help but to express my regret, although I do not agree with all his ideas, that such a man as the Rev. Junod has gone from the field of prison reform in South Africa. Although you may not agree with his ideas on politics in all respects, he was a man who dedicated a great deal of his life to this field, and it is not a field in which the layman can tread easily unless he is a dedicated man. I think our own senior prison officials are men who are trying to prevent the prisons from becoming a sort of return place, that flings its product out only to receive it again within a few years. In that regard I think the gentleman I mentioned did excellent service.

The other point that has been raised here a good deal has been the question of such organizations as the A.N.C., and the P.A.C. and the banning thereof. Last year we had the bill dealing with the banning of people and organizations and the Minister did say that although he did not agree that this matter should come up yearly before Parliament, nonetheless he would take the responsibility and give Parliament an opportunity for review. This is a most difficult question and I agree with all those who say that we are living in very dangerous times. However, to listen to some of the hon. members on that side of the House, like the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) you would think that we were living in such dangerous times that you could not move without a machine gun in your pocket. But leaving that aside, the question I want to ask is this—and it is a very difficult one for any Government to face up to at the present time. We all know that throughout the Continent of Africa there are African nationalist movements some dedicated to violent means and some dedicated to nonviolence. We all know that it is the practice of communists throughout the world to infiltrate wherever possible, into every organization that is dissatisfied with the existing social order and who wishes to promote unrest. What I want to ask the Government is this: Do they consider banning as the only solution for any indefinite time? I ask that for this reason: In my opinion we have the judgment of the court which says in effect that although the bodies concerned were not directly communist, a certain amount of infiltration had in their opinion taken place without actually leading those bodies to declare themselves in favour of the class war and the whole of the communist ideology. It is my firm conviction that whenever you ban and you drive underground you strengthen the degree of communist infiltration that will exist in such an organization, because the communists are trained masters of the underground. We have seen organizations such as the A.N.C. grow from a dominantly nonviolent organization, which wishes to change the order of society—I am not contesting that—(there are many political parties which are quite legitimate who wish to change the order of society), into something else. We have seen the battle between the non-violent advocates within that party and the violent advocates. We have seen that struggle for power simply within a nationalist movement, and there comes the other struggle for power between the violent nationalists within that party and the communist-violent members in that party. One of the difficulties to the north of us is the battle to rule not so much between the violent and the non-violent sections, as between the extreme of the violent nationalist element and the communists. I suggest that the more you adopt a direct technique of banning, without taking any positive action on any other side, the more likely you are in the movement that is now invisible to increase the power of the direct action man, of the communist. [Time limit.]

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Before completing what I was saying, I just want to come back to this High Treason Defence Fund. To-night we see very clearly that blood is thicker than water. It is interesting that the United Party and the Progressive Party should show their blood relationship by their common love for the Treason Trial Defence Fund. It is like a serious disease which one can often diagnose from a small reddish eruption; that is how we can diagnose the disease of the United Party and the Progressive Party. Both of them, Sir, act in defence of this fund, and on what logical basis do they do so? They say that it is a good thing that this fund was established so as to be able to carry on the defence in order to demonstrate that there is justice in South Africa. They had such confidence in our courts in regard to the trial of these accused persons that they considered that hundreds of thousands of pounds was required to ensure the impartiality of our courts. Out courts give an accused person an opportunity whether he is defended or not; our courts need not be persuaded to be just by means of expensive advocates. They are now praising our courts; therefore they also know that justice would be done in our courts. No, Sir, the love of the United Party and the Progressive Party for this Treason Trial Fund is just because it was one of those things which strengthen the subversive anti-South African elements in their actions against the South African State as personified by our Government.

Mr. MITCHELL:

If the hon. member carries that argument of his to its logical conclusion, does he not consider that it will be a good thing to abolish the legal profession completely?

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

If the hon. member had had an attorney to advise him he would not have asked such a stupid question. If I had wanted to serve the interests of the legal profession, I would surely have pleaded for the establishment of a defence fund in every case.

The point I was busy making when my time elapsed was the question whether the Minister could not try to provide lockers at our police stations for the use of the private owners of firearms, a locker for a pistol or racks for guns. That would in the first place reduce the theft of firearms. In the second place, it centralizes the firearms. If and when a state of emergency might arise, one will know where the firearms and ammunition can be obtained, and it relieves the private owner of a responsibility which weighs heavily on him. I shall be glad if the Minister will consider that.

I want to raise one final point. Unfortunately it is also a point in reply to the United Party, viz. the persistent demand by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) that the Minister should interfere in the case of Sgt. Fourie of Pondoland and either reverse the decision of the Attorney-General, or otherwise give reasons to this House as to why he does not want to institute a prosecution. It is surprising that an experienced and generally intelligent member like that should state such a proposition in the House. In the first place, we should remember that the person concerned was a member of the South African Police, who committed certain actions in the exercise of his duty. The magistrate who conducted the inquest found that this member of the Police Force was in his opinion guilty of culpable homicide. In other words, the magistrate found that it was not a case where there had been intent, but a case where the powers provided for by the Police Regulations had been exceeded, or else a case of negligence. Sir, anyone who allows for human frailty and has regard to the pressure under which our police work will always be grateful if the Attorney-General in his wisdom decides that such a police officer who perhaps, in the stress of emergency, somewhat exceeds his duties should rather not be prosecuted. But instead of the hon. member being satisfied with the fact that the Attorney-General considered this matter and came to a decision, he persists in saying that the Minister should take vengeance and prosecute this poor police constable. I ask whether that is fair. The hon. member makes this extravagant suggestion at a tremendous price. He is prepared to pay the price for the Minister of Justice being directly concerned in the institution of prosecution in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether on sober reflection he does not think that he should rather not have raised this matter, and that we as Members of Parliament should rather have left it alone. Here we have the case of a police official who did his duty at a certain time according to his own discretion; there was a magistrate who held an inquest and freely expressed his opinion in regard to the matter; there was an Attorney-General who considered all the facts and decided not to prosecute. Let us be thankful that it was decided to leave the matter there and not to wreak vengeance on this police officer.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) surprised me. What were his allegations against the United Party? In the first place he says that because we believe that every man is entitled to be defended he now wants to associate us with the motives of the persons concerned in that High Treason case.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

No.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I think the last person to listen to the nonsense we had from the hon. member for Kempton Park is the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I will say why. It is because I have never heard the United Party accusing the Minister of Justice of being a communist. What has he done in his life? As a young articled clerk I saw that same Minister of Justice giving evidence at Caledon Square for a well-known communist of those days, Gomza, in 1936. He was not subpoenaed to give evidence. His leader, Dr. Malan, was subpoenaed as a witness, but he gave evidence of his own accord.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What is your argument?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

My argument is this. I have never said it and I do not believe for a single moment that that hon. Minister made himself guilty of subversive propaganda against the State because he believed that Mrs. Gool and Gomaz were entitled to all the defence available to them. [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

May I correct the hon. member? Dr. Malan gave the evidence and I merely accompanied him.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

That is quite correct. The hon. the Minister at that time was the organizing secretary of the Nationalist Party. Dr. Malan was subpoenaed …

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I will deal with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in a moment. Within a short time he will suffer the same torture as that applied to him during the war by the Ossewa Brandwag.

I referred to the Gomaz case. That person was stigmatized as a communist by this Government but they defended him. Dr. Malan, the then Leader of the Opposition, was subpoenaed. Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts were also subpoenaed, but they did not give evidence. Dr. Malan went, and he was quite entitled to go, but the hon. the Minister of Justice went with him and he was also available to them. What does the eloquent member for Heilbron say to-night? He says it was a scandal that a fund should have been established to assist political offenders, people who were accused of high treason, to defend themselves.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I never said anything of the kind.

*HON. MEMBERS:

That is not a point of order.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Then I do not know what the hon. member spoke about.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I do not object to the fund having been established to assist the defence, but to the fact that it was used to put the Government in the wrong light.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The position is this. If it is a crime to collect money for the defence of political offenders—if these people were in fact political offenders—then I just want to say that not a single member on this side of the House subscribed to the political motives of any of those people. We shall continue to fight for the right of those people to be defended. This is nothing new in the history of South Africa. Was there not a time when the supporters of that side of the House appeared in court not because they were political offenders but because they had committed high treason during wartime? And what happened? The Nationalist Party collected almost £500,000 from the poorest people, people who could not afford it, for the defence of those men. I am not saying anything against it, Sir; I myself would perhaps have contributed, but what I cannot subscribe to is the fact that that money is still being used to-day to make political propaganda and to allow that hon. member to continue sitting in the House …

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

That is not true.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Are you referring to the Helpmekaar Fund?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I cannot answer questions now. [Interjections.] They used that money for political motives.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

You are lying!

*HON. MEMBERS:

Order!

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Sir, the hon. member is giving the wrong facts …

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member must withdraw the words: “You are lying.”

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I withdraw, Sir.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Chairman, every word I say here is the truth. I just want to repeat that I hope that the political enemies of South Africa will not regard as martyrs those people who have an ideology which is foreign to South Africa, those people who are perhaps communistically orientated.

*Mr. GREYLING:

Perhaps!

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Yes, until such time as they have been convicted I must say “ perhaps But let me say that I do not agree with them, just as little as I agree with those people who set them the example that if one does not agree with the Government one is entitled to rise in revolt and to rebel against the Government. I want to ask the hon. members for Heilbron and Kempton Park whether they will be satisfied if these enemies of South Africa in these difficult times in which we live do what they did during the last war—no more and no less? Let the hon. member get up and say that he gives the right to every Native who is not well disposed towards this Government to do precisely—no more and no less—what this Government did when they sat on the Opposition benches during the war. There are such things as fairness and justice, and if we as White people no longer show reasonableness, we have no right to govern this country. [Time limit.]

*Mr. BOOTHA:

I am really disappointed in the trend this debate is now taking. I am bitterly disappointed in the behaviour of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), who has just resumed his seat. He now pleads for justice. Where was the justice when they were in power? Was there any justice on that side then? We did everything in our power to treat the accused persons in this high treason trial with justice. We even invited overseas lawyers to come and hear how we conduct such cases. Eventually they grew tired of the justice they saw in South Africa and they went back home. Now the hon. member makes insinuations against an hon. member on this side, and he talks about justice! Does he remember that it is only a few years ago that people sat in concentration camps without trial for four years? Does he no longer remember that? Has he no conscience? Did those people have a fair trial in court? Sir, I am compelled to ask these questions because of the hon. member’s behaviour. Does that hon. member remember that 58 people charged with high treason appeared before the court? Does he remember that they were found not guilty by the court and threw their hats into the air because they thought they were free to go home, but then the detectives rearrested them and put them in the concentration camp for four years? Does he remember that? These are unpleasant things to mention at this stage, but hon. members should not carry on in this mariner. We cannot bear it.

Mr. TUCKER:

I was amazed that a hon. member of this House, who is a member of the legal profession, should make the speech which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) made. All I wish to say in that regard is that it is my belief that one of the most priceless things in our legal system is that a person who is accused is entitled to be considered innocent till the court has found him guilty. Sir, I say that if the day should ever come when, what apparently is the policy of the hon. member for Kempton Park, should hold sway in this country, that will be a sorry day for South Africa. I have made it clear that I do not approve at all of the things which these people have done as found by the court. I want to remind this House that the penalty for high treason is death and that being so, Sir, I say it is the duty of a civilized state to provide a defence and the best defence. I would like to pay tribute to the State of Israel. There is a man on trial there for his life—Eichmann. The crimes with which he is accused are among the most dreadful of which anybody has ever been accused. It is to the everlasting credit of the State of Israel that they have ensured that he has the best defence possible at State expense.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 20 April.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

THURSDAY, 20 APRIL 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. LAND BANK AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a first time.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: House to go into Committee on Public Health Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:

I move—

In line 8, after “ costs ” to insert “ together with interest thereon calculated at 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date on which such costs were incurred,”.
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Second Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 19 April, when Votes Nos. 2 to 4 and 10 to 20 had been agreed to, precedence had been given to Votes Nos. 2I to 23, and Vote No. 21.—“Justice”, R8,637,000, was under consideration.]

*Dr. CRONJE:

Mr. Chairman, as you probably know a report was issued recently in regard to the contemplated changes to the Liquor Act. Some of these amendments are far-reaching and I believe there is a great measure of concern, particularly in the hotel industry …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not discuss legislation.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I want to know what the policy of the hon. the Minister is in connection with the legislation. In view of the fact that this report has had a stifling effect on the hotel industry I should like to know from the Minister what the Government’s policy is. Some of the recommendations contained in this report will have a far-reaching effect, particularly on the development of the hotel industry, and I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would indicate the extent to which the recommendations of the commission of inquiry will be accepted. It is particularly necessary to-day that money should be invested and that there should be progress in every economic field. But because a doubt exists as to whether some of the recommendations will be accepted, that doubt has a stifling effect on the development of the entire industry. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to enlighten the Committee on that?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I will give as much information as the Chairman will allow me to give.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I wish to address the Committee on another point. I think everyone in this Committee will agree with me that if there is one field in which the language used should be as precise and exact and neat as possible, it is the legal field. Many cases are centred round what the person meant when he used certain language. What was the intention of the legislator when he used certain language? What was the intention of the contractor when he used certain language? You expect, therefore, that of all the Departments, the Department of Justice should be very precise and exact in the language it uses in all its publications. Unfortunately the latest Annual Report of the Department of Justice (I am referring to the English version) does not come up to that standard. I can only say that the language used is clumsy and not even English in many instances. I want to give the Committee a few examples. On page 22 of the Annual Report for the year 1959 the introductory sentence under the heading “ Inter-Communication System for Head Office ” reads: “ In view thereof that alternative accommodation was provided.” “ In view thereof” is an Afrikaansism. The Afrikaans probably reads “ aangesien ”. They could simply have used the word “ because ”. I learnt my English at Zastron, but even there I never heard anybody say “ in view thereof ”. That is not the worst example, Sir. I can give examples which are worse. On page 24 we find—

Reprint of Departmental Forms: The printing of a number of forms which has become obsolete was discontinued.

We were taught at school that if the noun was plural the verb too had to be plural. There are many more examples. I find, for example, that “ the revised Public Service regulations relating to official residences is not yet available ”. What shocking language! Not only is the language shocking but it is clumsy. The sentence in this report which takes the Oscar however appears on page 34 under the heading “ Deaths ”—

The death of none officers is reported with regret.

Not only is it bad English but also bad Afrikaans. On page 44 under the heading “ Districts ” we find—

As stated in the previous report that owing to the lack of the necessary accommodation …

I cannot understand why it was necessary to insert the word “ that On page 46 we find—

As stated in the previous report, that owing to the lack of accommodation …

A similar mistake. Here is another example—

The investigation in connection with the decentralization of Johannesburg has for a considerable time been finalized.

This is a Department of Justice which is in daily contact with the courts. How do they describe our Chief Justice? On page 48 they talk about “ Hon. Chief Judge Mr. Justice H. A. Fagan ”. It is not a typing error because in the following paragraph we find “ the hon. Mr. Justice L. C. Steyn was appointed Chief-Judge ”. Here is another example of fantastic English which I did not even learn at Zastron. On page 49 under the heading “ Griqualand West Local Division ” we find—

“ Adv. G. F. de Vos Hugo, Q.C., was appointed in the vacancy caused by the appointment of the transfer of Judge Diemont.”

Hon. members laugh, but this is serious. The hon. the Minister who attended the Cape Town University will agree with me that this is a serious matter. I attended the Pretoria University but even there we never used English such as this.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

My difficulty is that it is not my Department. You should bring that matter to the notice of the Government translator.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has made that point. As it is, the whole world is interested in us to-day and this report is sent to all the libraries in the world; jurists throughout the world read, not in Afrikaans but in English, what is happening in our Department of Justice. What must they think of South Africa when they read language like this? The hon. the Minister blames the translator, but the report is signed by the Secretary for Justice and surely he is the person responsible.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

He does not translate it, does he?

*Dr. CRONJE:

But he is responsible for it. The Minister ought to go seriously into this matter. This sort of English should not go into the world. What will people think of our legal system when they read English like this? This is one of our official languages and a report such as this should be written in proper language. I read a short report recently about Ghana and I was amazed at the standard of the English. What impression must people get of South Africa when they read a report in which one of our official languages is mutilated like this, in which it is murdered like this? I trust that in future the hon. the Minister will ensure that before his Department sends any official document into the world, the language is checked by one of his senior officials. It is no good blaming the Government translator. [Time limit.]

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

I am grateful to the hon. member for having drawn the attention of this House to this bad translation. I am not trying to find excuses for it. It ought not to happen. However, when you complain in this House, your own conscience should be clear. Let us compare the Afrikaans used by the previous Government with the example which the hon. member has quoted, and let us even compare it with the Afrikaans used by the Convocation of the University of Natal.

*Mr. HORAK:

Which Vote are you discussing?

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) took exception to the bad translation into English. He spoke in the interests of the English-speaking public and I said that I agreed 100 per cent with him. But this is a case of a university where students are trained to become teachers, and they are the people who want to have language rights entrenched in South Africa.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that question.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

I admit that, Mr. Chairman. I will probably have the opportunity under the Vote dealing with the Government Translator to discuss this matter and to give the hon. member an example of how the Convocation of the University of Natal murders Afrikaans.

*Mr. MOSTERT:

There were occasions when I too quarrelled about the use of a language, particularly an official language. I agree that the hon. member for Jeppes has reason to complain. You seldom read perfect Afrikaans or English in this country to-day. The two languages influence each other and in many cases the idioms in the one language have an adverse effect on the idioms in the other language, and in some cases the other language has been enriched because of that. The attitude we should adopt in this instance, however, is that the two groups in this country should have greater respect and love for each other’s language and be less critical of each other. We should not weigh every word that is spoken to ascertain whether too much or too little English is being spoken or whether too much or too little Afrikaans is being spoken. Those days are gone.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member can raise that under Vote 29.

*Mr. MOSTERT:

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I conclude by saying that we should help each other. We can be of greater assistance to our officials by helping them not by criticizing them. At a later stage I will have a great deal to say on this question that this is not the right time to quarrel about language. We must help each other.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Mr. Chairman, straight away I should like to get out of the way a relatively unimportant matter, although it has its importance. On 7 February, Sir, I put a question to the hon. the Minister, namely:

Whether his attention had been drawn to a report in the Press that his Department was investigating a proposal that only the initials of persons accused under the Immorality Act should be published in the Press?

The hon. gentleman replied that his Department was indeed investigating the question, but that no decision had as yet been come to in the matter. I raise it because I have serious misgivings about that proposal. There are a great many objections to it, and a great many dangers will arise if that proposal is implemented. I need only point to the possibility of mistaken identity if initials are used instead of the full name of the person accused. I want to say that I hope that the hon. the Minister will not agree to such a proposal. I hope that he does not intend to introduce such legislation. If he does, I would ask him why this exception to the salutary rule that save in exceptional circumstances in regard to the hearing of cases by a court, where for instance on grounds of public interest or public morals the Press is excluded, court proceedings should be published.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I may just tell the hon. member that the matter has not yet been considered on ministerial level.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I only wish to say that I hope that if it is considered, he will not urge his colleagues to accept such a proposal.

Then a short word about the treason trial, which was very fully ventilated yesterday afternoon in the course of the debate. I want to say at once, Sir, that I am perturbed about the suggestion that the Minister and the Government may be contemplating some appeal in this matter. I could not be here last night, but the hon. the Minister is reported as having said that when the full judgment of the court becomes available, the Government will decide whether to appeal against the recent decision acquitting the accused.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I did not say that. I said that the Attorney-General would decide.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Very well, Sir, but the hon. the Minister has an over-riding decision, and in this case I suggest that he has a duty to exercise that decision, if it should come before him, to ensure that these unfortunate people who have been subjected to so much anxiety, so much uncertainty for a period of five years, will not continue in that uncertainty. Rightly or wrongly, this trial has been regarded overseas, as well as in this country, with great disfavour, and I believe that this has done us very great damage indeed. Why? I believe that this case—this marathon witch-hunt—had all the totalitarian trappings of a mass political trial, the sort of thing that happened in Russia under Vishinsky. It failed because our Judicial Bench is still a sure shield and upholder of the Rule of Law. Sir, in this hour of South Africa’s isolation from the rest of the world, I think we should be profoundly grateful that the reputation of our courts stands high wherever the Rule of Law prevails. But I ask: Are the accused and their families to be subjected to further uncertainty and to further anxiety? I hope not. And incidentally I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would repudiate the astounding suggestion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that in future, if citizens of this country are tried for their life on a charge of high treason, the trial court should be a court martial and not the normal courts of the land. I can only assume that this suggestion possibly springs from the hon. gentleman’s military reminiscences in the time when he was a recruiting officer with the South African Forces, and that he has so admired the military tradition that he believes that we should outrule the Rule of Law, the ordinary civil law by the military law! I hope the hon. the Minister will very firmly turn down that suggestion.

I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the sombre picture which the hon. the Minister of Justice has painted to this Committee, a picture of lurking dangers, of conspiratorial plotting in South Africa. I am certainly most perturbed at his suggestion that another state of emergency may be declared next month if the Government’s attempts to maintain law and order were to fail. The hon. the Minister is reported as saying: “We all hope that bloodshed can be avoided in South Africa, and we do not want any more Sharpevilles, but if necessary the Government will do its duty ”. Those were ominous words, Mr. Chairman, and one assumes that the hon. the Minister has information at his disposal, which he may not be able to give to this Committee …

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Certainly not to you.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Bantu-“ hater ” will cease these stupid interjections. I assume, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has information at his disposal which has caused him to utter this ominous warning. But if that is so, I would ask him how his sombre picture of South Africa sitting on a smouldering volcano can be reconciled with the extravagant announcement of his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that race relations have never been better in South Africa? How is this sombre picture to be reconciled with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister only last week, when he painted a picture of a rosy future for South Africa, and said that all was going well with us. Of course I concede at once that it is the duty of the Government, any Government, to maintain internal security. That is their responsibility. But what the Minister is offering to us in the picture which he paints and the steps he says may become necessary and in the preparation which his Department is making in co-operation with the Department of Defence, is a palliative and not the remedy for our ills. The hon. the Minister and his Government still fail to get down to the root causes of unrest amongst the non-Whites. The hon. gentleman talks glibly about the “ troublemakers ” among the Bantu no longer demanding R2 a day, or the abolition of passes, but wanting the whole country. I ask the hon. gentleman: Who are the trouble-makers to whom he refers?

An HON. MEMBER:

You are one of them.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am not really disturbed by that, Sir, but I find it difficult to reconcile this noise with the occasional murmurs that come from my friends on my right over there, which are quickly stifled. I say that the Government still fails to get down to the root causes of unrest among the non-Europeans if the Minister talks glibly about the troublemakers among the Bantu no longer demanding R2 a day. Who are these trouble-makers? Are they members of the banned African National Congress and the banned P.A.C.? Last year we were told, when the Minister introduced his Banning Bill, the Unlawful Organization Bill, that the members of the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. constituted only some 70,000 of the Bantu population, less than 1 per cent of the whole Bantu population. Are they the trouble-makers? Is it because on the most extravagant estimate 70,000 people may attempt to make trouble that we are now to be put in a suspended state of emergency, a constant state of emergency in South Africa? If it is not the Bantu, is it some of the Coloured leaders who now say that their patience is exhausted and that they feel they can no longer refuse to align themselves with members of the Bantu group? Or is it the persons referred to in the Report submitted by Mr. Justice Diemont on the Langa inquiry, who on page 125 of the report talks about the unprecedented crowds attending meetings at Langa, an estimated 10,000 people being present at the final meeting. What does he attribute this tremendous attendance to? These are the words of the learned Judge—

Dissatisfaction with the reference book system, low wages and the difficulty of giving expression to their grievances were the reasons given for the big attendances at these meetings.

Does the hon. Minister believe that to be correct? Does the Minister believe that that is one of the basic causes for the unrest among the Bantu people at the present time? The hon. Minister talks about “ trouble-makers ”. He talks about having to do his duty to use force if it should become necessary. I would say that this approach to our race relations problem characterized the Minister’s handling of the emergency last year, the emergency in Pondoland and all matters cognate to them. I would say that that attitude is the granite rock of unrealism, the complete unrealistic approach to these cogent problems. I would say that if this approach is maintained by the Government, we shall, in effect, be in a continuous state of emergency which will be ended only by some mighty explosion, in which our Coloureds may be involved by linking up with the Bantu. Now, Sir, not one single member of this House wants that explosion; not one single member wants there to be a clash of races in this country; not one single member of this Parliament, the supreme body in the Union of South Africa, wants that state to arise in our country. I ask the hon. the Minister: What did the Government do last year after Sharpeville and Langa? What did they do to avoid such an explosion, and what has been the results of the steps they then took? In the first instance they declared an emergency. Then the hon. the Minister detained 11,513 persons, White and non-White, under the emergency regulations. They were imprisoned as detainees under the emergency regulations. He introduced the Unlawful Oragnizations Bill, the Banning Bill, and he banned the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress. At the time I and others warned the Minister and the Government that neither by the use of force nor by the imposition of a Banning Bill could the Government hope to solve the deplorable situation in which South Africa then found herself.

Mr. GREYLING:

You now talk like an inciter.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

We all deplore violence and lawlessness. But you cannot cure violence and lawlessness, you cannot prevent incipient unrest, by merely banning African organizations. The answer does not lie in force and bannings. The answer lies in consultation and reform—“ Aanpassing ”, call it what you like. In the ultimate event the answer lies in fair dealing between man and man, so that there can be no domination eventually of any one group by another group. But I would say to the Minister and I would say to the Government, at this time when he is contemplating further trouble in this country, that if you want to know what the African people are thinking, and if you want to meet their legitimate needs, the best way is to hear what they have to say, however extreme they may be. Do not push a man aside, because you think he is too extreme, because you do not agree with his views. Hear what he has to say. Let him get it off his chest. Understand what is the motive force. I concede at once that there are agitators, there are communists. But I do not for a moment concede that the great bulk of the Bantu people, or that the great bulk of the Coloured people, or the great bulk of the Asiatic people in this country are communists or have any near affinity with Communism. But, Sir, they are suffering under certain disabilities, and people in that situation provide a fruitful field for ploughing in the doctrines of Communism and sedition. Therefore, I say that the Minister should listen to these people. Let them get it off their chest. Let him consult them. As I said, the hon. Minister has painted a sombre picture. He has actually filled in the darker colours here and there of a picture which was painted by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and other hon. members recently, this picture of gloom, unrelieved gloom, which suggests that our destiny is what it is, that if our destiny is to go under to the Blacks, we shall go under. Let me say here that I have no time for this “ laager ” complex, the sort of suggestion that we, the Whites of South Africa, are right and infallible, and that if it should come to that, we must band together with our backs to the ox-wagon to fight it out. Sir, we are living in the second half of the twentieth century—not in 1838, not on the banks of the Bloedrivier. I am not so pessimistic as the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Education. I still believe that we can go forward and win the battle of race relations in this country—if we read the signs properly and make adjustments in our policies. But we must make these adjustments from strength, and not, when it is too late, from weakness. It is essential for us to put ourselves and our laws on a tenable basis and on a fair basis. This, of course, cannot be done overnight. But if we do that I believe we can stand firm against any unreasonable demands and look for support, not only in this country, but also from outside.

Sir, I have said that I do not believe that the answer to our race problems lies in force and bannings. And this brings me to the Banning Bill which the hon. the Minister introduced last year. Our attitude towards the Banning Bill was very clear. We opposed it. We did not want to have anything to do with it. We said that by that method you would not curb incipient discontent. Let the people come into the open and then deal with then under the ordinary common law. Sir, the attitude of the official Opposition at the first reading at the Bill was that it was not the correct way to set about it.

An amendment was moved at the first reading of this Bill, to this effect—

That this House, whilst deeply conscious of the need for steps to be taken to restore and maintain law and order, declines to grant leave to introduce legislation to declare certain organizations unlawful, unless and until the Government gives an assurance that the powers to be granted to the Executive be made subject to annual renewal by Parliament.

That was an amendment to the first reading. Now the hon. the Minister responded to that appeal, and in the course of his remarks on 29 March 1960—and I quote from Hansard, Volume 104, columns 4303 and 4304—he said this—

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised an objection to the provision contained in sub-section (3) to the effect that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, also withdraw any one of the proclamations issued under sub-section (1) or (2). The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain suggestions and for my part I promised that I would consider the objection raised by him and that, if necessary, I would move an amendment. I propose to move an amendment at the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister then detailed his amendment as follows—

The Minister shall lay copies of any proclamation issued under Section I on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of the publication thereof, if Parliament is then in Session, or, if Parliament is not then in Session, within 14 days after the commencement of its first ensuing session.

That apparent assurance—and I did not regard it as an assurance—but that apparent assurance was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition who said this—

If the hon. the Minister does take power to ban, he may or may not exercise that power. If he does exercise the power and he does ban, is he in a position to-day to make that banning effective? I want to say to him that in present circumstances we are prepared to be very generous to this Government and to give it almost any powers that it wants to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and for that reason we shall support the second reading of this Bill because we are now in the position that the power which the Minister has will come before this House for review after 12 months, and we shall be able then to decide whether the Minister has acted rightly or wrongly. But I want to warn him that we shall scrutinize very closely any action he takes under this Bill and we shall require a very fine justification for any steps he finds it necessary to take. Otherwise we shall bitterly oppose the extension of any ban that he might find it necessary to impose.

Now the hon. the Minister has apparently found it necessary to impose an extension of the ban because he has renewed, merely by proclamation, not by means of a resolution before this House—he has renewed the ban against the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress. He has given us no reasons for the renewal of that ban; he has given us no “ fine justification What are his reasons for the extension of that ban? He takes it all in his stride as we suggested he probably would. It is merely a matter of a rubber stamp! A ban was imposed. And once the power was taken under this Banning Act the hon. the Minister merely puts his rubber stamp on an extension of the ban, and he treats Parliament with contempt.

Why has the hon. the Minister not come to Parliament and said: “ I propose to renew the ban on the A.N.C. and on the P.A.C., and I propose to renew it for the following reasons”? He has treated the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with contempt. He has treated the whole of this House with contempt. We warned that that might happen. I never for a moment considered that that was a safeguard, that provision in the Act. And that is why we voted against the Bill.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I always held it would depend on the circumstances.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well, what are the circumstances, Mr. Chairman? What is Parliament? And why does the hon. the Minister of Justice not tell Parliament what the circumstances are? I challenge the hon. the Minister this afternoon to produce one title of evidence of “ fine justification ” for this further banning.

Talking about banning of these organizations, how does the hon. the Minister believe that he is going to solve our problems by this continuous banning of individuals under the Suppression of Communism Act? How does he believe that that will help us? The question of the banning of Mr. Patrick Duncan has been raised in this debate. Now I hold no brief, necessarily, for the political views of Mr. Patrick Duncan. But he is no communist. The hon. the Minister was challenged to say why he had banned Mr. Patrick Duncan as a communist. He has remained silent. Answer came there none. And I challenge the hon. the Minister again to tell this Committee this afternoon that Mr. Patrick Duncan, the son of a distinguished South African, is a communist. He is no communist. I say that if this sort of thing goes on we in this House, and the public of South Africa, can be left with only one irresistible conclusion, namely that the hon. the Minister is abusing the powers granted to him under the Suppression of Communism Act to stifle the opinions of persons whose political views are not consistent with those of the Government.

I come back now to the hon. the Minister’s approach to these race relations problems. I say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing certain aspects of the emergency last year and the resultant detentions, because the emergency was lifted only at the end of August 1960, after Parliament had been in recess for some three months. I say that in the light of events, in the light of the information we now have at our disposal, the detention of many of these thousands of citizens—in fact the vast bulk of these thousands of citizens— was not justified.

An HON. MEMBER:

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. gentleman says I am talking nonsense. Let me give this Committee the figures. The official figures as given to me by the hon. the Minister of Finance are as follows: 63 European men and 35 European women were detained, making a total of 98 Europeans. Many of them were detained for a long time; many of them in dire circumstances. In the result, three European men and one European woman were charged before the established courts with offences. But there was not a single conviction.

It seems to me that that leads to the irresistible inference that the alleged prima facie evidence upon which those persons were detained was not such as to justify their detention. It was an intimidatory move and not a basically genuine attempt to preserve law and order. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that these 35 European women who were detained, many for long periods, if left free, would have gone about subverting the Government and being guilty of subversive and dangerous actions? If the hon. the Minister had felt that they needed some curbing, could they not have been put under some form of control rather than being compelled to submit to this detention?

Of the non-Whites, 11,279 were Bantu; 36 were Coloured, and 90 were Asiatics, all of whom were detained, making a total of 11,405 non-Whites. That made a grand total of detainees of 11,493. Of the non-Whites, 301 men where charged and 136 men were convicted of offences not related to the Pass Laws or employment. And of the women 19 were charged and 16 were convicted. Those facts, in my view, show that the action of the Government in detaining this large number of persons was not justified in the interests of public security and public safety.

In answer to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher), the hon. the Minister of Justice gave an assurance to this House last year—I think it was last April—that all persons detained would be brought before the established courts and charged before the courts. The figures show that of all the persons brought before the courts only a limited number were charged and, as I say, in the case of the Europeans there was not one single conviction. I ask the hon. the Minister: Why this prolonged misery of imprisonment for these detainees? The hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House. The fact that the emergency was lifted when Parliament was in recess is no excuse for the hon. the Minister now to slip out of this matter, and for failing to give this Committee and Parliament and the country an explanation of what happened. If we are to judge by what happened then, Heaven help this country if there is to be another emergency.

Let me return to where I started, Mr. Chairman. I have talked about the granite rock of unrealism. I say that force and bannings are not the answer to our problems. The nightmare which seems to obsess the Minister and the Government is, I would suggest, expressed in Roy Campbell’s poem on the Zulu girl suckling her child—

His flesh imbibes
An old unquenched unsmotherable heat—
The curbed ferocity of beaten tribes,
The sullen dignity of their defeat.
Her body looms above him like a hill
Within whose shade a village lies at rest,
Or the first cloud so terrible and still
That bears the coming harvest in its breast.

Sir, as men sow, so they reap. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister, and I would suggest to this Government, that it depends upon us, the White South Africans, what the coming harvest is going to be.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Before dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) I want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The hon. member has always posed as the economist—the expert economist—on that side, but he has now assumed the role of philologist. I am of the opinion that he will be as great a failure as a philologist as he was an economist. He uses an Afrikaans which hurts one to listen to and then he has the temerity to criticize the English of Government officials. He was incapable this afternoon of using his own mother tongue language. He referred to the “ universiteit Pretoria ”. The correct Afrikaans is “ universiteit van Pretoria ”. He said “ die Minister sal sien ” but it should be “ die Minister sal toesien of sorg ”. If he lives in a glass house he should not throw stones. Sir, do you remember how the Opposition murdered Afrikaans in every official document they issued?

I now want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Salt River. That is a more serious subject than the hon. member for Jeppes. The hon. member for Salt River said that he hoped the hon. the Minister would not note an appeal in this case. On what grounds should an appeal not be noted? In the first instance the Minister is not the person to decide whether or not an appeal should be noted, but the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General will note an appeal if, after having studied the judgment, he thinks there are good legal grounds and argument to do so. If there are good legal reasons for appeal, the Attorney-General will do his duty as it behoves a good official, and note an appeal. But what does the hon. member for Salt River want? Even if there are good arguments and legal grounds for appeal he wants the Minister to act and to tell the Attorney-General not to note an appeal. On what grounds does the hon. member say that? He probably does so on behalf of people who are very close to him. The hon. member for Salt River does so on behalf of those Leftists who are his kindred spirits. Because they are his kindred spirits, and for no other reason, an appeal should not be noted against them.

The hon. member asked which people had caused trouble and who had been banished. He spoke about 70,000 people and he wanted to know whether we were afraid that those 70,000 people who were members of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. would cause disturbances, etc. He said that the majority of the non-Whites were kindly disposed towards us but that we were afraid of these 70,000. That was his argument. Let me tell him that one swallow does not make summer, but one fly can spoil an entire jar of ointment. When you hear a speech such as the speech of the hon. member for Salt River, you will think that that fly is in this House, Mr. Chairman. I listened very attentively to what he had to say but I did not hear him say one word disapproving of riots or possible riots in this country. Does he want me to believe that he is so stupid that he is unaware of conditions in South Africa; does he want me to believe that he does not know that there are people in South Africa who want to riot? We are all aware of the fact that there is a large number of those people all over the country and that they are wide awake. Is one of the tactics of the communists not to infiltrate and to incite the people in order to create unrest? What are the tactics they employ? We know they are in our country and must we not take action against them? The Minister has issued a warning to those people and instead of the hon. member going out of his way to back that warning, he disapproves of it and encourages those people all the more to riot. I think it is scandalous for an hon. member to be so irresponsible as to act like that towards his fatherland in this House. He says we should follow the road of consultation and right and justice. Did he follow that road when he was Minister of Justice? When he was Minister of Justice did he consult the people whom he banished and placed in concentration camps—without trial? He kept those people there for three years and more. What was his reply in those days when members of the Opposition approached him and asked him to try those people? He told them that it was difficult to prove many of the actions but that they knew that they had been committed and that that was the reason why those people were placed in the concentration camps. That was his reply in those days to Europeans. We know, however, that on occasions such as we had last year, in times of unrest and disturbances, in emergencies, you arrest people and put them in prison not because you can prove anything against them but because you want to prevent them from causing unrest in the country. You want to prevent them from doing the things which they can perhaps do and from committing crimes. The hon. member knows that. Not only are you protecting those people themselves, but you are protecting society. The hon. member knows that as well as anybody. He ought to know it much better because he has had three years’ experience.

Mr. Chairman, whom does this hon. member who spoke here this afternoon represent? The hon. member for Salt River hardly represents himself in this House. His own committee in his constituency has discarded him and asked him to resign, and yet he hangs on to his little position in which he represents nobody. I remember when I was a youngster here in Cape Town that that hon. member was a prominent member of the United Party; he was already a member of the Cabinet. He was a person with a sense of responsibility and who sat in the same Cabinet with right-wing men like General Hertzog. Do you know, Sir, that since that time he has been leaning more and more to the left? There is one disease to which no one is immune, and that is what they call “ senile decay ”. And when you look at …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I did not accuse the hon. member of suffering from it. It is not necessary for you to call me to order. I said that there was one disease to which no one was immune, and that was “ senile decay ”. But one finds that that hon. member has deteriorated politically to such an extent that he has joined the ranks of the Leftists in this country, and that he is only talking on their behalf. He did not say a single word this afternoon to promote the interests of South Africa. He did not even plead the cause of the Progressives or the Liberals, not even that of the United Party. He pleaded the cause of the Leftists and the Leftists alone. The hon. member wants to know why the Minister does not give the reasons why the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. have again been banned. But it is only a week or two ago that the court gave its judgment and said the following, inter alia—I am referring to the treason trial—

The State seen by the A.N.C….

That is the organization which has been banned—

… is a dictatorship of the proletariat, and accordingly the state known in Marxist Leninism as the people’s democracy.

That is what a court of justice in South Africa says about the A.N.C. The judgment goes on—

The evidence proves the following, that it was the policy of the A.N.C. that communists and anti-communists could clearly become members of the A.N.C. and that some responsible executive leaders of the A.N.C. were members of the Communist Party before it was banned in 1950. There is no evidence to support the allegation of the prosecution that there was infiltration of the members of the former Communist Party into the A.N.C. after 1950.

It clearly says “ the evidence proved that the A.N.C. took up the attitude that communists were free to express their ideology amongst members of the A.N.C. ”. It is quite clear from the judgment which was given only two weeks ago in the treason trial, that they are communists. That is in regard to the A.N.C., but the P.A.C. even goes further. The hon. member for Salt River now asks the Minister why he has again banned these organizations. I think it is clear to every rightminded person in South Africa why those organizations have been banned. It is not necessary for us to tell the hon. member that. The facts are well known to everybody except to the Leftists who associate themselves with those people. The people who associate themselves with the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. talk the same language as the language which the hon. member for Salt River talked this afternoon. I am sorry he made the speech which he did, because it is something else that will be used against South Africa in the world outside. [Time limit.]

Col. SHEARER:

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) stated this afternoon that South Africa was living on the top of a volcano. There is no doubt that all of us in this House, and, I am sure, the people outside, appreciate that the situation in so far as this country is concerned is very grave indeed. The matter which I wish to raise is one which has been under consideration for some considerable time, and it is the matter of establishing a sound civil defence organization.

Mr. Chairman, this matter goes back to 1950. In the year 1950 the Secretary for Defence of that time stated this matter was under consideration. However, this responsibility now falls under the Department of Justice, and it came under the Department of Justice in 1955. I cannot see any expenditure for civil defence reflected in the Estimates, but on inquiry I find that the expenditure incurred falls under the heading of salaries, subsistence and transport allowances. I have made this point, Sir, because you may have felt that I was deviating from this Vote and was raising a matter which rightly belonged under another Vote.

I have stressed the importance of this question of the organization of civil defence in view of the grave situation in which we in this country find ourselves. No less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister has referred to the gravity of the situation, both as a result of external pressure and the circumstances within our own borders. Why are we in this grave position? Externally this may be said to be due to the strategic importance and the vital lifelines of the Cape route. Externally, also, it is possibly due to danger from communist countries. And it is also due to the pressure from the explosive nature of the conditions on the African Continent north of our borders. In so far as we in the Union are concerned, we may be in difficulties due to the explosive nature of the situation arising from the natural organization of the non-European bloc which may at any time—and we have had experience of this in the past—erupt and result in actions which may have serious consequences for the people of this country.

Civil defence is extremely important because its basic approach is designed to protect the civil population of a country. We know that in a global war it is the civilian population which will be affected, perhaps more than the armed forces. In addition, and quite apart from global war, we have occasional outbreaks of mob violence within our own country. In this event it is absolutely necessary that, quite apart from the army and the police, we should have another organization to make certain that the people of the country will be protected and cared for in times and conditions which might almost bring chaos. From time to time, ever since 1950, when the Government stated they had this matter under investigation, this question has been raised under the Justice Vote. The need for a sound civil defence organization has repeatedly been stressed. We do get assurances from the Government, but what are those assurances? Those assurances are to the effect that the Government is building up an organization; that the Government has a blue print. But what is the use of a blue print when you are suddenly faced with a revolt or, in time of war, military aggression? Organization means you have to be prepared, and a blue print is useless unless its details are translated into action. After all, in modern war there is no timely warning. The blue print itself may be completely ineffective because the public have no confidence, and panic and chaos results. It is on this account that I wish to stress the vital importance of having a sound civil defence organization.

Sir, blue prints in themselves are useless. In a previous piece of legislation reference was made to powers given to the Government to remove people from certain areas and transferring them to other areas. But although the Government has such power, if the eventuality does arise, how are those people to be removed? You have to take into consideration questions of transport; you have to take into consideration the siting of an evacuation area. You have to take into consideration such questions as whether the evacuation area has water and sanitation. There is the question of food supplies. In fact, the people in the area to which they have been evacuated have to be amply protected from every conceivable angle. When I refer to the necessity for a blue print having to be translated into action, I contend that the action in so far as such blue print is concerned with a civil defence organization, that translation can only be made effective if the details of the blue print are exercised in advance. You must have exercises in which the transport is employed, where the transport is earmarked for a specific purpose in a specific area. It must be able to remove people at a given time from one area to another.

What other implications are there in a sound civil defence plan? Quite apart from transport and evacuation and the satisfactory siting of evacuation areas you have to consider the question of medical auxiliaries. There is the need for medical personnel and nursing personnel. There are numerous other approaches in this connection which also have to be given consideration. I think the time has arrived, in view of the situation in which we find ourselves in this country, for this Government to let this public know what proposals they have for the implementation of a sound civil defence plan. After all, it is the public that has to be protected in terms of a civil defence plan. And I cannot understand why, if such a plan does exist, there should be any secrecy about it, because the very people it seeks to protect are the people whose co-operation you require. If there is a civil defence organization it is imperative that the Government should reveal to the public what their plans are in this connection so as to give confidence to the people. And with that confidence, when the time comes, the public will be able to appreciate that there is a plan ready to put into action. Then they will co-operate and that will tend to alleviate panic. But without a proper plan and without adequate exercises based on that plan, you will not eliminate the inevitable panic and chaos if faced with an uprising and mob violence. Because chaos precipitates panic. I feel that the hon. the Minister of Justice and this Government have a definite obligation to the public. Civil defence is designed to protect the public, and in the protection of that public no plan will adequately succeed unless it has the cooperation of the public. And fundamentally, if you have a plan for the public which requires the co-operation of the public you must reveal what your plan is. And you must carry out the essential exercises to ensure that there are no faults in the successful operations of that plan. Now I think the time has arrived and that it is long overdue, because I think that in any sound Government in the world this was done. The U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Britain ever since 1948 have had their civil defence plans. But in this country, in our isolation, with our small White population, we delayed and delayed, and the time will arrive when that delay will be regretted due to the chaos which will ensue. I appeal to the Minister to institute this plan as quickly as possible, because the survival of our women and children is wrapped up in what should be an outstanding plan for their protection.

*Mr. GREYLING:

I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat on his participation in the debate as compared with what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has just said. I do not think it redounds to the honour of the hon. member for Salt River to say what he did to-day.

I would like to speak about the heavy task resting on the shoulders of the police.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member will have to do so under the next Vote.

*Mr. GREYLING:

This whole task rests on the shoulders of the Department of Justice and I want to discuss it under the Minister’s salary.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The Police cannot be discussed under this Vote.

*Mr. GREYLING:

If you do not want to allow me to do so, I will say what I want to say now under that Vote, but I do not want to say anything specifically about the police.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Then there will be no restrictions. The hon. member may continue but I will listen to what he says.

*Mr. GREYLING:

For the sake of safety I shall then discuss it under the Police Vote.

Mr. TUCKER:

On a point of order, I wonder whether for the guidance of the Committee you could give a ruling. It would appear that there has been a change in practice. I am not objecting to it, but I would like to get the position clear for the information of hon. members, because the same point was raised yesterday. I understand that in the past in general most matters could be raised under the Minister’s salary.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I say something on a point of order. May I suggest with great humility that this is a matter on which you might reserve judgment, because I think there is an important question of principle involved. The ruling you gave yesterday is, I think, a sound one, but it may very well be that circumstances arise in which it is very difficult to disentangle the activities of the Police Force from those of the Minister of Justice. For my own part, I would prefer a wider latitude. But I do not ask for a considered ruling now. Perhaps you can give it later.

The CHAIRMAN:

In the past we always had three Votes, Justice, Police and Prisons, and where it is easy to differentiate between them there is nothing to prevent one from doing so. So far we have not had any difficulty, and this is the first time that difficulty has arisen.

*Mr. GREYLING:

On a point of explanation, I think that if I had not specifically said that I wanted to discuss the police you would have allowed me to continue.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps it is as well that the hon. member mentioned it, because if he specifically wants to discuss the police it it easy for me to judge.

*Mr. GREYLING:

May I just say that instead of discussing the police I want to talk about the duty of the Department of Justice to maintain peace and order in the country.

*The CHAIRMAN:

But surely that is the duty of the police. But the hon. member may continue.

*Mr. GREYLING:

In regard to the task of the Department of Justice in the present circumstances in which we live, I would like to say the following. A tremendous task rests on the shoulders of the Department of Justice, with special reference to the police. This heavy duty is that as a result of the attack being made against South Africa at the moment, this attack consists of two parts. The first is directed towards subverting the existing authority as we know it in the Union, and the second consists of propagating that which they want to put in the place of the existing authority. Both these methods, the whole flood of propaganda, are directed at poisoning the mind of the Black man against the White man, and not only the White man in the whole of Africa, but lately specifically against the White man in South Africa. Through this process of subverting the authority and propagating their own ideology, their own alternative, the Black man in South Africa must be conditioned, and we must see that in the shape of a certain form, and the form in which it is done is part of the whole communist process of forming a front in Africa, and that places a tremendous task on the shoulders of the Department of Justice in combating it.

In order to take counter-action we must analyse the working of this front, because its operation is similar in South Africa to what it is in Africa and it is already assuming a pattern here. How does this front work? What are their methods and through which channels do they make their propaganda, and how does it reach the Black masses? Because we should not forget one thing, viz. that all this propaganda directed against South Africa is not meant for the White man but for the Black masses. How does this front work, and how does the propaganda reach the Black masses? How does it reach the ears of the millions here? What happens in South Africa and Accra and Addis Ababa and Cairo reaches the ears of our Blacks here and as against that we can set up no alternative.

This front works as follows and the channels through which the propaganda comes to the ears of our Black millions is in the first place by the Afro-Asian Conferences held periodically in different parts of Africa; and, secondly, by periodical threats intended to influence the minds of the Black people. I wonder whether there is anybody in this House who could show me a single speech made by the Black leaders in Africa during recent years in which there were not threats and attacks on the White man and Western authority in Africa. These threats are the second method.

The third method is the radio. Here I have some data given by the monitoring service of the B.B.C. in connection with the bombardment directed at the minds of the Black man in Africa over the radio, and I think it is interesting to give it. I want to show how many hours are devoted by the various Eastern communist countries to influence the minds of the Blacks in Africa and here, and that complicates the task of our Department of Justice and particularly of the police of maintaining peace and order and to keep these people calm. From the Soviet Union there are broadcasts in English for 19£ hours, in French for 19¼ hours, and in Swahili for 3½ hours. From East Germany they broadcast in English for 5½ hours, in French for 5¼ hours; from Czechoslovakia they broadcast in English for 3½ hours, in French for 3 hours and in Portuguese for 3 hours. From Rumania they broadcast in Portuguese for 3½ hours. From China they broadcast in English for 5½ hours, and in Portuguese for 7 hours a week, and they say further—

In addition, 14 hours in English and 28 hours in French from Peking, while not announced as being directed to Africa, appear to be beamed to that continent in addition to other areas. In Arabic the U.S.S.R. broadcasts for some 50 hours weekly, 35 hours from Moscow, 7 from Bako and 8 from another station. The weekly totals of broadcasts in Arabic from other communist countries are Rumania, 21 hours; Bulgaria, 12¾ hours; China, 14 hours; Czechoslovakia, 12½ hours; Eastern Germany, 49 hours, and Hungary, 7 hours.

What does all this mean? It means a terrific bombardment emanating from the communist countries and directed to Africa to incite the Black minds against one thing only. If one analyses these broadcasts, one finds that they are directed at the undermining of White authority in Africa, including South Africa. The poor Black man in South Africa is being harried day after day and does not know where he is any longer. They have radios and they read what happens beyond our borders, and they listen to what comes over the air. In the face of this continuous process of poisoning the Black man’s mind, we must preserve peace and order, and what assistance, I ask in all seriousness, do the White man and the Department of Justice get in maintaining order and calming feelings which are incited in this way by the Communist countries, i.e. by our enemies by propaganda directed to the White man, from a speech such as that made by the hon. member for Salt River? [Time limit.]

The CHAIRMAN:

In regard to the two points of order raised I want to quote two sentences from the principle rules which cover debates in this Committee of Supply. It should be emphasized that the discussions must be relevant to the items contained in the Vote proposed from the Chair and must not traverse services for which provision is made elsewhere. The same rule of relevancy applies to Votes which are either directly or indirectly charged with Ministers’ salaries, and general questions affecting ministerial policy or administration may only be discussed under such Votes if there is no provision on the subject in another Vote. So that obviously police matters will have to be discussed under the Police Vote.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the matter of the exercise of the discretion of Attorneys-General. The Minister stated yesterday that it was not his policy to interfere with the decisions of Attorneys-General. I would like to suggest to the Minister that the time has arrived when the decision of an Attorney-General should be given as soon as possible and in certain cases should be expedited. My reason for bringing this up is illustrated by a case which occurred in my own constituency, a very sad case indeed, the full details of which are known to the Minister.

In 1959 a young girl of about 11 years of age was sent to her parents’ garden to pick fruit. The allegation is that she was enticed to another part of the garden by a policeman, and there she was criminally assaulted. She reported the matter to her parents and immediately the mother telephoned the father, who advised the mother to go to the police at once and to report the matter to the police and to the doctor. Some three to four hours intervened before the mother took the child to the district surgeon. In the meantime the child had been examined by the parents’ own doctor, and the policeman had been allowed to go home and change, and later there was an examination and some three to four months later, in April 1960, the father received a telephone message to the effect that the Attorney-General declined to prosecute. The father wrote to the Department asking for further particulars and was unsuccessful in getting them. He wrote to the Minister’s Department but was unable to get satisfaction. Then they were advised by friends to see me and the parents were introduced to me and I was shown all the documents and I took the matter up with the Minister. The Minister then told me that it was his practice not to interfere with the decisions of the Attorneys-General, and I respect the reasons for the Minister making that decision. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the section of the Act to which our attention was drawn yesterday by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), which says that every Attorney-General shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and the directions of the Minister who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or on any specific matter exercise such authority and perform such function. Sir, I submit that in this particular case the Minister might well have been advised to exercise his discretion. In this case the father was employed in the Minister’s Department. The policeman was employed by the Minister’s Department. The parents feel very bitter indeed. They feel that an unnecessary amount of time was taken before they were advised. I think that wherever possible the Attorney-General should notify persons as soon as possible and preferably in writing, giving reasons why the charge should not be preferred. I am in this difficulty, that I am faced with this question from the child’s father which I do not wish to answer. I would like the Minister to answer it.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This practice has been customary since 1910.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

This is the question that father put to me: If I was a White man and my daughter was White, and if the policeman had been an Indian, would the case have been treated in the same way? This little girl of 11 was the child of an Indian, and the policeman was White, and that is my difficulty.

*Mr. PELSER:

I want to thank the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) for having drawn the attention of the Committee to the type of language used in the report of the Department of Justice. We should certainly not allow language such as that to be used in any official publication. But I resent the way in which he did it. He treated it as a joke. I think the hon. member should regard it in a serious light. There must be a reason for that language. I think there are only two reason for it. The first possible reason is that it was not an English-speaking person who wrote it otherwise the language would not have been as weak as that. The other reason is that it was written by an Afrikaans-speaking person, who did not receive proper training in the use of English. In both cases the solution is that we should receive more assistance from the English-speaking section both in the educational field and in the Public Service. However, I say that in passing, Sir.

I want to refer to the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan, which has been raised by various hon. member, amongst others the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). He asked the Minister to give the reasons. He says Mr. Duncan is not a communist and wants to know why he has been prohibited from attending meetings for a couple of years. [Interjections.] The law does not say that action can only be taken against communists but that action can be taken against anyone who says anything to promote Communism. [Interjections.] Many speeches are made in this House which, if they are made outside by people other than Members of Parliament, will not be allowed under the law, such as the speech of the hon. member for Salt River.

Another surprising thing is the way hon. members have pleaded for the treason trial case. Listening to the remarks made by hon. members opposite and the pleas put forward by them and not knowing any better, Sir, you will think that those people are the most peace-loving in the whole country, people who will not harm a child, people who find no pleasure other than in doing their daily task of work and having done it going home in peace and finding their joy and pleasure in their families, and watching football or cricket on Saturday afternoons and occasionally participating in our great national sport by attending innocent political meetings. That was the picture we got of the 156 accused. On the other hand, we had the picture of the police, more particularly of the Security Branch and of the Attorney-General and of the Minister’s predecessor, as people who found pleasure in conspiring to ruin and to embitter the lives of these peace-loving and innocent people for four long years. But we know that that is not the case. Surely the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) is a sensible man and he has read the judgment, has he not, and he knows that just as in the case of the moth of Langenhoven, they have flown very closely to the candle. In this case the story did not end, with the ash of the moth, but there is no doubt about it that those moths singed their wings badly. That being the case, the hon. members say those people should be compensated on humanitarian grounds. They go as far as to say that it is shocking on the part of lawyers. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) went so far as to call it a “ judicial farce ”, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) called it “ a travesty of judicial proceedings ” and the hon. member for Salt River called it a “ marathon witch-hunt ”. Sir, we know that that is not the case. We know that these people were charged in the usual manner and if it did last for a long time, it was due to the scope of the case. We even know that an international jurist was sent to keep a watchful eye over matters and that he returned because he was satisfied that everything was all right. We also know that a British lady journalist came here and that she got into trouble because of what she had said about the case. Where it is clear to everybody that they were definitely up to something, even though they were discharged on the main charge, it is also clear that they were sailing very close to the wind, and on those grounds alone, apart from the accepted legal principle that an accused who is found not guilty is not entitled to compensation, I really cannot understand how the hon. member for Springs and other hon. members can plead for special compensation to these people.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

I do not intend to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because there is a certain other important matter that I wish to discuss with the Minister. At the outset I would like to say that last evening when I was passing comment in regard to the statement made by the Minister in connection with the establishment of youth rehabilitation centres, I dealt with certain suggestions that I wished to put forward to him. However, as a number of those suggestions deal with preventive measures that can be taken by the Police Force, I hope to have an opportunity of putting forward those suggestions when that Vote is discussed.

The matter that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is one which I sincerely regret haying to raise in this Committee. However, it is the only opportunity I have of asking the Minister what his policy is and why he has not answered certain questions put to him in this House in regard to a very important principle. The principle that is involved is the question of telephone tapping as a means of obtaining certain information. I think all will concede the necessity in certain circumstances of tapping telephone lines in order to obtain certain information. However, it is in the public interest to be assured by the Minister that indiscriminate tapping of telephone lines by the police to obtain information is not permitted, because I am sure that people look upon this means of obtaining information as an inroad on the individual’s rights, and therefore it is an important matter of principle and one on which I am sure the public would like to know on whose authority the tapping of telephones was permitted to obtain certain information.

I want to refer to the questions that were placed on the Order Paper and to which the hon. the Minister favoured replies. In response to letters that I received from constituents, I placed a question on the Order Paper on Tuesday, 21 February, asking the Minister whether he had seen a certain Press report stating that telephone lines had been tapped in the Durban area by a branch of the police during the emergency last year and asking him to make a statement in regard to the matter. The Minister replied that he had seen the Press report, but that he was not prepared to make a statement in connection with the matter. His reply was—

No, because the telephone system of Durban falls under the Municipality of Durban, and consequently it is a matter which rests with that body.

Arising out of that reply I asked the hon. the Minister whether in fact the security branch of the police had made an approach to the City Council of Durban for permission to tap telephones. The hon. the Minister then asked me to Table that question. Following up the reply given by the Minister and realizing that this was not a matter of purely local interest in connection with the Durban municipally owned telephone system, realizing that this was a national issue, I then placed a question on the Order Paper for 24 February. The hon. the Minister on that date asked for the reply to be allowed to stand over, and it was finally answered on 28 February (Col. 2012). Here I put certain specific questions to the hon. the Minister, again trying to ascertain what part the police had played in obtaining information by these methods. Sir, I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee unnecessarily by quoting this lengthy question that was put to the Minister. I would simply say that in that question I tried to obtain the necessary information by setting out a series of questions, the last of which was whether he would make a statement in regard to his Department’s attitude towards the principle of tapping telephone lines. His short reply was—

The hon. member’s question refers to the same matter to which I have already furnished a reply in this House on 21 February 1961.

I thereupon asked the Minister of Justice whether he would state whether the security branch of the police do in fact tap telephones and once again he asked me to Table the question. I replied that I had already done so. Following up the Minister’s further request to Table another question on this matter, I then tabled a question which was replied to on 3 March 1961 in Col. 2332 of weekly edition No. 6, and here again I put another series of questions asking the Minister to give further information in regard to the matter. I may mention that one of the questions was for what reasons the police wished to tap telephone lines in Durban, and the Minister then replied—

The question of the hon. member refers to the same matter to which I have already replied in this House on 21 February 1961 and 28 February 1961.

On that same day, arising out of the reply, I asked whether the Police Force had any apparatus for the tapping of telephones and what the Department’s attitude was towards the principle of tapping telephone lines. The Minister’s reply to the first question was “No ”, and he said that the second portion fell away. However, that was not a reply to the question as to what the Department’s attitude was towards the tapping of telephone lines. The hon. the Minister may have good reasons for not wishing to reply to these questions. I used every means that was open to me in terms of the Rules of the House to Table questions. As you know, Sir, according to the Rules I am unable to Table identical questions, but I did endeavour in various ways and means to ascertain from the hon. the Minister this vital information in regard to this particular principle.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It will be generally admitted that you did your best.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will not be obstinate and that he will in this instance use this opportunity under his Vote to reply to the questions which have been put to him. The reason why I have been persistent in regard to this matter is because to the best of my knowledge I have been certain of my facts. As far as Press reports are concerned, I checked these facts. In the Natal Daily News of Monday, 13 February, it was revealed by the deputy mayor of Durban, Mr. J. Forsdick, that permission had been granted for the tapping of telephone lines subject to certain conditions. The deputy mayor, explaining why he and Mr. Gild had agreed to the police request, said—

On 22 February last year, the town clerk had received a request for a confidential appointment with the mayor.

The Press report goes on to say who were represented. It said that the police were represented and also a member of the Government postal services at this meeting. I have also checked with the responsible person, the town clerk of the City of Durban, and he has said that on 22 February 1960 a meeting took place at which the officer in charge of the Special Branch of the South African Police and another Government official were present. He also refers to various requests that were made to tap certain telephones, which were acceded to subject to certain undertakings and conditions. Then there is another matter which goes even further to substantiate that this method is being employed at the present time, and it does require some guarantee from the Minister that these telephones are only tapped after due authority from his Department or from some higher level, because the evidence appears to be irrefutable that during or about November 1960 a further request was made by the Special Branch of the South African Police for similar facilities to be given in the new offices to which Police Headquarters had been transferred. [Time limit.]

*Mr. GREYLING:

When my time expired just now, I was saying that the Department of Justice has a tremendous task in their fight against a big organized, well-planned onslaught on the minds of the Black millions in Africa and in South Africa in order to poison them against the White man and against existing law and order. I was saying that they were trying to attain their object by means of periodic conferences and threats over the radio. But the Black people in South Africa—I am saying this with a view to the trouble we had in the past and which we can expect in the future—are also influenced by what is said on the international platform at UNO. When we consider everything that is said there, we can come to various conclusions, but there is one that we have to come to namely that there is a tremendous campaign against Western White authority in the world, and this must inevitably have an effect on the mind of the Black man. However, it is not only the international platform that exercises that influence. It is a well-known fact that agents are being trained in the Eastern communist countries in the art of undermining and in the art of propagating the communist ideology. They are in our midst. It is difficult to lay your hands on them. It is difficult to lay your hands on them but they are well trained in the art of mobilizing the entire anti-White feeling in South Africa. They are active to-day in the areas to the north of South Africa; they are active at the moment within the borders of our fatherland. We need only listen to what the so-called leaders of the Black man north of our borders say; we need only listen to what they are saying within our borders; and we get an idea of the gigantic task which rests on the shoulders of the Minister and his various departments in maintaining law and order. Sir, we ask ourselves what we must do. I say we should erect our defences; we must employ the strategy of our enemy. We should react to the periodic Afro-Asian agreements which all pass the same resolutions, namely anti-Black resolutions— “ Away with imperialism, away with colonialism, free the oppressed nations ”—by availing ourselves of the goodwill of those Black people within our own borders who are well disposed towards us and anti-communist. If South Africa allows discussions to take place at a high level under certain conditions on scientific and technical matters, what prevents us from countering this organized method of periodic Afro-Asian meetings, by having anti-communist meetings in South Africa against the threats of organized and mobilized Black leadership? Within and without our borders we can avail ourselves of the assistance of those leaders within the ranks of the Black people in South Africa to state our case as well as their case. That can be our reply to the onslaught on Africa over the radio. I know it will cost a great deal, but we should at least try to do something from our side to counter their activities and I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to establish a branch of our information service amongst our Bantu to state our case and the case of the anti-communists against the endless—one can say everlasting, unceasing propaganda campaign of this communist front which has already taken a definite form in Africa and in South Africa. We must remember that the battle will be decided in South Africa. I am not afraid of UNO; I am not afraid that any foreign power will invade us because there are too many implications involved in that. But if we can maintain internal security and if we can maintain stability in this country in spite of the communist pattern to cause localized eruptions —and South Africa is definitely part of their pattern—and if we can maintain our position in this country, we will cause a breach in that communist front as far as their aims in South Africa are concerned. I want to ask this question; Do we not have the Black people? We have them here. We have Black people in this country who are well disposed, who are as anti-communist as we are. But I think we made a mistake in the past, or rather we neglected in the past to use the Black goodwill potential within our own ranks as a countermeasure against that used by the communist front throughout South Africa and Africa. If the communist front employs agents to work against us, to stalk by night to undermine law and order, I am sure we too have agents who can counter them. We have our defences. We who sit here as legislators constitute the first line of defence and I want to know this from the Opposition: What have you as legislators done during the past 12-13 years that the National Party has been in power, to erect a line of defence against this communist front which has been erected in Africa and in South Africa against the White man? If I have to judge from your speeches, I think you have been of great assistance to them in establishing that front against us. That is the gravamen of my charge against the Opposition as legislators. Our second line of defence is the police. They have to maintain law and order. They have done so in the past with great distinction. Their task becomes more onerous every day. The onslaught against them is being intensified. There is an organized onslaught, an onslaught which is directed against us not only from within our own borders, but from beyond our borders. As legislators in this country it is at least our duty, both as a Government (which we fulfil) and as an Opposition, to support our police by word and deed, particularly in this House, in their task in establishing a front against the communist front which is being erected in this country. [Time limit.]

Mr. COPE:

I would just say that there is a very simple answer to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). If he will stop following a policy of discrimination based on colour, and instead assume a policy of judgment on merit, then I would say that his troubles, his fears and his phobias will quickly disappear.

Mr. GREYLING:

And my reply to you is that that will land us in complete chaos.

Mr. COPE:

I got up this afternoon to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister on the subject of the Press and his relationship with the English-language Press. I do so because I think it must be obvious to the hon. the Minister that it is vitally important to the country, in the very interests of the country, that there should be an excellent understanding between the Minister and the Press and a very good relationship between the Minister’s Department and newspapers.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Is there any reason why you think that it does not exist as far as I am concerned?

Mr. COPE:

As far as the Minister’s Department is concerned, there are reasons and that is why I have risen to my feet. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring statement this afternoon. I do not think I need to dilate on the importance of such a good understanding and how mutual co-operation can lead to the good of the country. I am not referring to day-to-day association on such matters as criminal investigations, burglaries and all that kind of thing. Press relationships in that regard depend very greatly on the personality of the local Commissioner of Police and his own personal relationships with newspapermen. As far as I know, on the whole, there is nothing to complain of in that regard, and while these relationships do vary from area to area, on the whole I have nothing to complain of there. What I am complaining of and where I say misgivings do exist, is that I fear a measure of political pressure is being brought to bear on newspapers via the hon. the Minister’s Department. That is the gravamen of the charge that I am making and I hope the hon. the Minister will reassure us in that regard. Sir, what has given rise to misgivings in Press circles is first of all the fact that over the last six months, especially since the emergency, there seems to have been a sudden spate of proceedings against the Press on matters in which the police have never attempted to interfere before. There have been no less than six charges brought against newspapermen, some of them very prominent indeed, and on subjects where they have not intervened before, and I would suggest that on the whole they were matters which would have been very much better left alone. I will not quote all of them because I have not the time, so I will just mention three. The first is the case instituted against the editor of the Evening Post, Mr. John Sutherland, in Port Elizabeth. Mr. Sutherland’s offence apparently, according to the Department, was that he had published an interview with a Canadian visitor, who had made a statement to the effect that all over South Africa he had found people who were afraid to talk. Sir, what an innocent statement that is, and how many more serious Statements have been published where action might have been taken not merely against the English-language Press, but also against other sections of the Press. But, Sir, the editor of the Evening Post was singled out and proceedings were taken against him. The whole feeling of the public was that this action was political action against that particular editor. Then, we have had cases where newspapermen were suddenly called up before the magistrate under the provisions enabling a magistrate to compel a witness to give evidence who is reluctant to do so. Suddenly out of the blue these newspapermen are hauled up. There was the case of Mr. Brian Parks of the Rand Daily Mail who was subpoenaed on a very ridiculous quest, it would appear, where a semi-humorous article appeared in the newspaper about taking bets in regard to the republic. He is suddenly hauled before the magistrate and sentenced to the usual eight days’ imprisonment, a sentence which was fortunately quashed before the sentence was put into effect. Then there was the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan who was sent to gaol for refusing to disclose the source of his information for an article on Communism. In this regard may I say that if the Minister wants articles on Communism, he can see plenty of excellent articles on what is happening in regard to Communism, not only in the overseas Press but in many sections of the Press. However, they picked on Mr. Duncan’s article, which was nothing unusual so far as articles are concerned. That action had the appearance of a sort of semi-political action. But that is not all, Sir. There appears to be an intensification of special branch activities in relation to newspapers, visits by the Special Branch and questioning of prominent newspapermen. But there also seems to be a sudden new practice of questioning people who write letters to the Press, if they write and express a certain opinion which may be off the cuff, as it were. Most of them are perfectly innocent. These people get a visit from the Special Branch and they are asked a lot of questions. A number of perfectly innocent cases which could not possibly have been of any political significance whatsoever, have been communicated to me, but I will refer to one about which a public complaint was made; and that was against one of the correspondents to the Natal Mercury, who wrote a seemingly innocent sort of letter and immediately got a visit from the Special Branch. This person was extremely indignant about it. There was no possible evidence allied to any kind of subversive activity in which that person could have engaged and yet the Special Branch paid him a visit. The Natal Mercury was very indignant about this and wrote an editorial which began—

It seems that even the quite harmless yet useful activity of writing to the paper is now a sphere to which the Special Branch of the South African Police has extended its investigations.

The paper gave details as to how this correspondent had been visited by the Special Branch and it ended by saying—

Those who instruct the Special Branch on its duties ought to remember that police investigation into spheres where police inquiries are unnecessary can scarcely help to repair South Africa’s already damaged name abroad.

I hope the hon. the Minister is going to get up at once and tell us that he is keeping a very close control over the activities of the Special Branch, and that he will not stand for undue persecution of the Press and undue nosy-parker activities and intimidation. There is a strong impression that that is happening, and that it requires curbing. I say that if that sort of thing grows—and there is such a trend— then it is going to do our country and relationships between the Press and the Minister an enormous amount of harm, and it has to be taken in hand straight away. I hope the Minister will get up and say that he does not stand for anything in the nature of undue harrying, not merely of the Press, but of private people. May I say here that I have previously in this House drawn attention to what seemed to be entirely unnecessary harrying of private individuals by the Special Branch. I hope he will get up and say that those things will not be tolerated by him. I think a declaration of that kind at this stage will do a very great deal of good. It will help to improve relations between the Government and the Press. Finally, may I say that at the moment one is under the impression that this kind of activity may be coupled with the wholly irresponsible campaign against the English-language Press which is being waged by hon. members on the other side of the House. I hope there is no such relationship, and I hope that it is not indeed a new interest and a new and uncomfortable kind of interest which the police are now taking in the Press. I would say to the hon. the Minister that much as I deplore the irresponsibility of the campaign which hon. members on the other side are waging against the English-language Press, and much as I believe it harms this country, the Minister must be very, very careful that this kind of police activity does not give some substantiation to the feeling that the Government is, indeed, conducting a vendetta against the English-language Press.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I think I should at this stage reply to a number of points which have been raised since last night. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asked certain questions in connection with local defence, and he and other hon. members made certain suggestions as to how the question of local defence should be tackled. The hon. member said that home guards should be established for assistance. I want to tell the hon. member that in our commando system we have an excellent home guard organization of which the world outside has been very jealous in the past from what I have heard. That is South Africa’s home guard, more definitely, and within those commandos smaller groups have been organized which are more mobile, and I think we should regard the question of home defence as a question which is closely associated with existing organizations. Perhaps the hon. member could again raise this question when the Defence Vote comes up for discussion.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) last night made some observations in regard to juvenile crime and in connection with the statement that I made yesterday afternoon in regard to youth rehabilitation. I must congratulate him on his observations, because I think that he showed signs that he has made a study of this subject. His first question was that he wanted to know whether the instructions will be given by artisans. The reply is, as I said yesterday afternoon, that qualified artisans will be appointed in these youth rehabilitation centres. He asked about the training. The training of prisoners was discussed with the Department of Labour and labour organizations and, so far, no objections have been raised. As far as short-term prisoners are concerned, I am not in a position at the moment to make a statement in regard to the treatment that they will receive. The hon. member will readily understand that some are convicted for about three months and it will be almost impossible to put them through this course of training in that very short time. Therefore the position of the short-term prisoners, as far as these young people are concerned, will be considered in due course. As far as further rehabilitation centres are concerned, I cannot say at the moment to what numbers we will be limited in the different centres. I can, however, say that at Leeukop the intake cannot be greater than 600. At the other two centres we may be able to take in more. There has been collaboration with the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Coloured Affairs, and the Department of Bantu Administration, aided by non-governmental associations. These Departments have all promised us that they will help us in guiding these young people when they are released.

The hon. member asked me about the alleged tapping of telephones in Durban. I said by way of interjection that the hon. member did his level best to put his questions in a way that I had to give the desired answers. But, after so many years in South Africa, I have the guidance of the precedents of my predecessors in the Department of Justice.

An HON. MEMBER:

But there have been changes.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That may be so, but since 1910 the practice has been that, as far as the security organization is concerned, Ministers of Justice have never, as far as I know, been prepared to supply information of a kind the hon. member has been asking.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

May I just ask the hon. the Minister where the authority comes from to tap telephones?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

All authority of course vests in the Minister in the end. But that has been the practice, and I think my predecessors will agree, that they were never asked questions about these things. We don’t question the security organization about the steps they take; whatever steps they do take in the carrying out of their work. I think that is general practice. I think no Minister before me has attempted even to reply to such questions, because of reasons of public interest. Nowhere in any Western country, that I know of, are particulars supplied in connection with the work of their security organizations. That is why I have said that I know I have been hedging, because the hon. member has been asking these questions, and I did not want to say to him straight away that he must stop asking these questions because I am not prepared to reply to them. That would not have been the correct way to go about it. But he has put these questions, he has done his best, and I would say to the hon. member now that it would be inadvisable to go on asking questions of this kind, because it is only wasting his time and the time of the House, and my reply will remain the same.

Mr. RUSSELL:

But in case of abuse, would you not take some interest in it?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to draw the obvious inference from the Minister’s reply now?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I think he can draw the obvious inference that information on this score will not be forthcoming.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Do you approve?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member has come to certain conclusions, that is why he has put his questions. I say that never have Ministers of Justice been prepared to give this information, and I follow the same line.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Is telephone tapping a means of obtaining information, and secondly, is the Minister satisfied that it is not being abused?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

As far as the last question is concerned, I do say and can say that, of course, they do not abuse their privileges, but they act in the interest of the security of the country, and I do not think I can be expected to carry this matter very much further.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park wanted to know what the position was in connection with the granting of bail by magistrates and also in the Supreme Court and in the Appeal Court and he wanted to know what we were doing in this regard, because his objection was that bail was often granted in cases where the Attorney-General had even recommended that it should not be granted. I can merely say this that the whole question of the granting of bail is receiving the attention of my Department at the moment. The hon. member also asked me what the position was in so far as appointments to the Bench were concerned and whether the method of appointing judges had been altered. My reply is: No, we will continue to appoint Judges as in the past. Therefore as far as the type of person who is appointed as Judge is concerned, we are not departing from the procedure which we have been following.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) asked a question about firearms. He wanted to know whether too many firearms were not being brandished in the country, as he put it. I am pleased that he has raised that because I think that in a country like South Africa with its small White population and its large non-White population it is obvious that we should continue with the policy which we have adopted in the past, namely that licences for firearms should not be issued indiscriminately, particularly in cases where they may fall into the hands of children or irresponsible persons. That is the policy and I personally adhere strictly to it. I do feel, however, that it has become necessary—and my Department is attending to that at the moment—that a survey be made in South Africa of all licensed firearms and that facilities then be provided whereby any person who loses his licence or whatever the case may be, will in bona fide cases be in a position to have his licence renewed without having to pay anything. If we do take that step, which I trust we will, it will naturally take some time. You cannot do it within a month; it will take four to six months to go through the whole process of re-licensing firearms. In that way we will be able to determine who owns firearms in South Africa and how many there are.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has now assumed the role of a philologist. I listened when he spoke. He put certain questions to me in connection with the Liquor Act and he said that “ verregaande ” (extraordinary) recommendations had been made, whereas I gathered from the trend of his speech that in his quest for purity of language he did not mean “ verregaande ” but “ verreikende ” (far-reaching) recommendations.

*Mr. HORAK:

Does that warrant the use of incorrect language in reports? Two negatives do not make a positive.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member is prone to interrupt before you have completed your sentence, Sir. I do not blame the hon. member for Jeppes for having raised this matter, but I just want to tell him that he should not blame my Department, although I admit that the Secretary for Justice probably signed one of the copies. We are dependent on the Government translator. I do not wish to put the blame on to anybody; I admit that it is wrong. It must be a correct translation and no doubt the Government translator will take note of what has been said here. I must add, however, that I was shocked to hear the hon. member comparing the translation of the Government translator of South Africa with a translation published in Ghana. I did not expect that from the hon. member.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I was simply giving an example.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes, but it was very unfortunate that he should have selected Ghana at a time such as the present to compare with our Government translator. “ His translation is not as good as Ghana’s! ” There are many other examples that the hon. member could have given. He could, for instance, have given examples of poor Afrikaans where the translation was from English into Afrikaans. That complaint has been raised for years. The Afrikaans-speaking people have always had reason to complain about the translation. The hon. member could have selected better examples than those which remind us of Ghana. In any case, he has raised the matter and I will give the necessary attention to it and request the Government translator to put the matter right.

The hon. member wanted to know what our plans were in connection with the Liquor Act. I am prepared to admit that the Liquor Commission has submitted a very voluminous report and that they have made very many recommendations. Due to the pressure of work and the long programme that still awaits us, the Government has decided that the Liquor Amendment Bill be submitted to Parliament in an abridged form of the recommendations made by the Commission. That is the position at present. A Cabinet Committee has been appointed and it is studying the Bill in its abridged form, and as soon as they have concluded their work—I trust that will be in the near future—the Bill will be published and made public. People who wish to make representations will then be at liberty to do so. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that anybody who wishes to make representations in regard to the Bill as it will be published, must please do so in writing and not by way of deputation because there will not be time to interview one deputation after another. If hon. members have people in their constituencies who are interested in this matter, they should be encouraged to submit their representations in writing as soon as the Bill has been published.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Will we have sufficient time to study it in detail?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The abridged Bill must still be passed this Session.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has now returned to the Chamber. He made a long speech of half an hour, but I do not intend following the example of the hon. member. I merely want to say that I care less for him than before in his new capacity as advocate—not for the Whites.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

My constituents do not care for him either.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This is not an accusation, but a deduction which I am justified to make from his speech. The hon. member also said that I painted a sombre picture yesterday but he only read a small extract from what I had said. What I did say yesterday was that the Government would do everything that was necessary in these difficult times. I asked which country in the world, also in Africa, was not experiencing difficult times. The Government will do everything it its power to maintain law and order.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Naturally.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Naturally, because it is a good Government. It does everything in its power to maintain law and order, and in regard to the predictions we have had as to what will happen on 31 May when we become a republic …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I trust the Government will not introduce emergency regulations and declare a state of emergency.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is necessary in certain circumstances. But the Government will do its best to ensure that everything goes off smoothly and peacefully. I said yesterday, and perhaps I should repeat it, that the Government will not allow anybody to disturb the peace the day when we become a republic in South Africa. That was what I said—and in that respect the hon. member did me an injustice by not quoting what I had said before that—that “ as a last resort, if nothing else avails ” the Government will declare a state of emergency. I adhere to that. The hon. member was not here yesterday, but I think the public of South Africa are wise to these people and they know what the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and certain other people stand for and they know what the White people in South Africa stand for who constitute the link between another government and certain circles here in South Africa.

We must be realistic as far as this matter is concerned and face the facts. My contention is that the people who pleaded for the £ per day last year and those who pleaded for the abolition of the pass book system, etc., were airing grievances which the people in South Africa believed—I think the hon. member for Salt River included—were their real grievances and judging from the speech which the hon. member for Salt River has made to-day he still believes that those people are making trouble because they have complaints. No, the only grievance is that we do not want to give them this country of ours. I want to tell that hon. member that there are more English-speaking people than I thought who had come to that realization. Judging from correspondence, from letters, from telegrams, from telephone calls from English-speaking people, it would appear that many English-speaking people stand by the Government to-day, people who say: “ We support you in your attempt not to allow these people to create the same position in South Africa as prevails in the Congo.”

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Was the object of the Afrikaners in days gone by not to get land?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, the Afrikaans-speaking race and the English-speaking races are both reasonable races, and under the 1936 legislation we told the non-Whites that we would give them land. That land is being made available to them. But what questions does the hon. member ask to-day? He wanted to know why I had extended the banning period of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. The hon. member complained and said that I had extended the banning period without consulting Parliament. What more could I have done than the law demanded of me? Parliament is in session, isn’t it? They were banned on 6 April and a few days later I tabled the relevant documents with a view to the fact that my Vote would shortly come up for discussion and that hon. members would then have an opportunity of discussing the matter. And that is what the hon. member is doing at the moment but he complains that I did not give Parliament an opportunity of discussing it. What has happened to the wonderful logic of the hon. member? I do not want to go into the whole list of reasons why the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. have again been banned. In anticipation of the judgment in the treason trial case, there is even more justification for he step which I have taken. Because of what that judgment says about the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. there is more justification to-day than there was on 6 April for extending the banning period.

I said a few moments ago that we should be realistic. It is clear what the object of these people is and they have never tried to hide it. I want to read something to the House which has been worrying me for a long time and which probably influenced my decision in this case. I am referring to the speech of Sebukwe, the leader of the Pan African Congress. I am only quoting two sentences from it: “ Briefly put, our organization aims at the complete overthrow of White domination.”

Mr. LAWRENCE:

White domination.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely the hon. member realizes that those words must be read in their context, and when he wrote that speech it could not have meant anything else than has also become apparent from the speeches which we had last week-end and the week-end before: The White man must go. This is their country. I have been very worried about this. I wish I could lift the veil for the hon. member. After what had happened during the past few months in South Africa, before 6 April, any government would have regarded itself justified in extending the banning period. And the Government did so.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer) asked a very important question in connection with civil defence organizations. I appreciate his interest in this matter and I agree with him that we have reached the stage where we should get beyond the “ blue print ” stage.

Col. SHEARER:

Time is running out.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I agree with the hon. member but what are the circumstances that have to be considered? The hon. member knows of course that during the past few years circumstances have changed considerably in the world and in South Africa. The civil defence organization was originally established to see to the safety of South Africa in the event of atomic warfare, etc., more particularly, in other words to provide shelters, transport and to establish medical auxiliary services, to lay in a supply of food and to attend to water supplies, etc., but the position has changed considerably since then. The hon. member says now that we should already have converted the blue print into reality. He must realize that as it becomes more evident that the world has changed, as far as one can reasonably expect, it is more probable that attacks will be launched on this country by means of ordinary conventional weapons than by means of atom bombs. I may be criticized for this statement, but I think I am correct. If South Africa were to be attacked, which we hope will not happen, it is more probable that the attack will come from within our borders or from wherever the case may be, by means of conventional weapons than by means of atom bombs. That is why the whole object of this civil defence organization has to be revised. A few months ago I seconded a high officer to the staff of General Brink, who was Director of Civil Defence up till a month ago, in order to assist him. My colleague from the Department of Defence also seconded somebody to him, so that in any case he had two officers who assisted him with his work. Unfortunately General Brink decided a short while ago that he wanted to rest and that he no longer wished to carry on with the work. The Government then decided that the best thing to do would be to decide on two matters. Firstly what form the civil defence organization should assume; and secondly which Department should be responsible for it. When I was still responsible for the Department of Defence I thought it should fall under Justice. But I am no longer sure about that. I do not know. We have to go into the whole question, but I do not think it can rightly fall under the Department of Justice; I think it should fall under another Department. I can assure hon. members, however, that the question is being investigated with a view to prevailing conditions in the world and in Africa and according to that it will be decided which Department should be responsible and how it should be organized; whether we should again appoint a director, or whether we should set about it in a different way. I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised this important question.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) pleaded inter alia for the establishment of an information service among the Bantu. I will appreciate it if the hon. member will raise that question when the Vote of my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, comes up for discussion, because I think he has an appropriate reply to the hon. member in regard to an information service under Bantu Administration.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) drew my attention to an unfortunate matter and I have acquainted myself with the facts. It is an unfortunate case, but one where I cannot do anything, for the simple reason that the hon. member should not ask me to interfere with the Attorney-General as far as prosecutions are concerned. In all democratic countries such as ours, the executive authority and the administration of justice should remain separate. I know the reply will be that the official concerned really falls under the Minister of Justice, and it can also be said that according to law the Minister must in the long run accept responsibility. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinetown that if he expects the Minister to play the role of public prosecutor the task of the Minister of Justice will become impossible and untenable as far as the public is concerned. In other words, if a case is brought to the Minister’s notice where the Attorney-General has refused to prosecute or where he has decided to prosecute, he should be the court of last instance— he has to be the arbitrator. As long as I have the honour of filling this position, I refuse to be the court of last instance as far as prosecutions are concerned.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I ask the Minister whether the person concerned, the member of his staff, has been charged departmentally? I am not referring to the criminal case, but I want to know whether action has been taken against him departmentally.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I will try to get that information. I do not have all the details with me at the moment. All I know is that there was no prosecution. All I can say is this, and this is not much consolation, that people who are dissatisfied because prosecutions have not been instituted, have the law on their side in that they can institute action privately. I know that that is a very difficult matter.

*Mr. HOPEWELL:

These people are poor.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member says that but they can always get someone to act pro Deo for them, or to charge a low fee. There are sources where assistance of that kind can be obtained. I do not blame the hon. member for having raised this matter because he is entitled to do so. But he cannot blame me either when I say that I will not allow myself to be forced to abandon the stand which I have adopted, even in very unfortunate cases, and I know there are unfortunate cases. I do not want to be forced to interfere in any prosecution, because once you have said A you must say B. I want to tell hon. members that had I sat in the Opposition benches and a Minister on their side interfered in a prosecution, I would never have left him in peace after that because I would continually accuse him of having interfered in one or other case as well, on the ground that he had done so in one particular case. I am guarding against a precedent therefore.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) has replied effectively to the point raised by the hon. member for Salt River in connection with Mr. Duncan and others. I do not wish to add anything except to say this. The hon. member must realize that the existing committee and the Department of Justice go out of their way to make a thorough study of every case before recommending to the Minister that the person should be prohibited from attending any meetings. It is not done lightly. The hon. member also said that Mr. Duncan was not a communist. Well, the hon. member for Klerksdorp has given an effective reply to that, namely that the Suppression of Communism Act is much wider than the hon. member would like to have it. The complaint is that the Government is abusing the Suppression of Communism Act in order to arrest people who are not communists. But the Act says that if you make speeches or say anything that will further the objects of Communism you are punishable. This Parliament passed that Act and that law is being carried out. It is said that Mr. Duncan is not a communist but his statements do not support that statement. I am not saying that he is a communist but I think he says things which may further the objects of Communism. Some time ago I made a public statement which I should like to read to the House. Ever since this Act was passed in 1950, and since, it has never been a law of the Medes and Persians to say to a person that he should not hold meetings for five years anywhere in the country. That was why I made this explanatory statement a short while ago in which I stated our policy clearly—

Asked in connection with steps taken from time to time by the Department of Justice in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, Mr. Erasmus said in an interview with our correspondent, that prohibitions in connection with the attendance of gatherings are very thoroughly considered by the Department of Justice and the police before restriction orders are made. The Act provides that the Minister must, if requested in writing by the persons restricted (except listed persons), furnish them with the reasons for the prohibition—and so much of the information which induced him to impose it as can be disclosed without detriment to public policy. Persons against whom action has been taken are therefore in a position to establish why it has been done. Furthermore, these people were not debarred by the Act from approaching the courts to set aside any restriction orders. Prohibition orders which expired as a result of a lapse of the periods for which they are issued, are not renewed automatically. The conduct of the persons concerned during the duration of the prohibition is duly considered. When at any time it appears that the restriction order has the desired beneficial effect, the Department will review such orders with a view to relaxation or withdrawl.
*An HON. MEMBER:

And where does the Department get the information?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

From the same sources where they got the information as to what the person had done. They get the information that the person has improved and rehabilitated himself in respect of the charge made against him from the same source.

*Prof. FOURIE:

May I ask a question? Supposing a person is banned for five years and cannot attend meetings or make speeches. How are you going to determine that that person has been rehabilitated?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Let us assume for the sake of argument that such a person is a newspaper editor. In that event you can draw conclusions and ascertain whether he has improved. Say for instance such a person sends a message to a meeting which is to be held, as happened in the case of the meeting which was held on the Parade last Saturday, you can conclude from that message what the position is.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Can the hon. the Minister tell us who serve on the committee to which he has referred?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The committee to which I have referred is a committee which has been appointed under the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. The committee consists of three persons and the chairman is a magistrate. The committee studies all the evidence which is submitted to it in connection with an individual and they make recommendations to the Department. The Department, with its officials, then go through it very thoroughly, and as you know, Sir, there are experts in the Department in this field. The Department go through it very thoroughly, and only then do they make a recommendation to the Minister.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Who are the members?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I know who the members are; I shall give their names at a later stage. The chairman is a well-known magistrate, but I must first consider whether it is in the public interest to disclose their names. There are many things to be considered in a case such as this and the hon. member must forgive me if I do not mention the names across the floor of the House. I am prepared to give him the names and he will realize that he should not make them public.

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I hope I misunderstood the hon. member, because I concluded from his speech that his allegation was that the police were probably motivated by political considerations in so far as the Press were concerned. I am not sure whether I should reply to such a wild statement. I really do not know whether the Rules of the House compel me to reply to something like that. Does the hon. member realize what he has said? He says that the Security Branch is politically influenced in so far as the Press is concerned, and everything that has been mentioned here in connection with the Press. I strongly deny that. I think that is an allegation which the hon. member should withdraw when he has the opportunity. Or if he does not withdraw it, he should produce data to prove it. He mentioned three cases where a charge was laid against the editor of a newspaper and some others. He should not forget, however, that the police give the facts as they see them, and the Attorney-General decides whether there should be a prosecution. He now blames the police and he says they are politically motivated. In the same breath he complains that that is how they act against the Press. He says the Security Branch ferret things out and ask questions, particularly when somebody has written a letter to the Press. Well, I should like to know what the position will be in South Africa the day when there is no Security Branch, either under the previous Government or under this Government. We should be grateful for the fact that we have a Security Branch which consists of trained men who have only one object in mind, namely, the safety and security of their country. As far as I know, that is their only consideration. If I thought that any one of them had considerations of a political nature, I shall know what to do. I do not think the hon. member should make these allegations against the Security Branch and leave it at that without giving the House instances where that had happened in the case of the Press or without saying to us: “ No, I said too much.”

Mr. TUCKER:

I do not think I missed it, but the hon. member for Klerksdop raised a matter in connection with the admission of Attorneys. My attention may have been diverted for the moment, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will reply to that.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I am sorry that I have not replied to the question of the hon. member for Klerksdorp in connection with the admission of attorneys. The hon. member pointed out that I had made a speech in the Other Place last year in regard to the admission of attorneys and he wanted more information. Since I stated that the admission of attorneys would be subject to stricter control, I have approached certain bodies in this regard. I have come to the conclusion, however, that there has not been sufficient consultation and that legislation of that kind will not be introduced this year. We are continuing with the consultations, therefore. I can merely tell the hon. member that all the interested bodies will be properly consulted before any steps are taken. The public of South Africa wishes the present position to be changed so that it will not be possible for anybody to become an attorney as easily as it is to-day. I do not think anyone holds it against me for having said that in the Other Place. The matter is receiving attention. The matter has and is still receiving attention but I want to assure the hon. member that legislation will not be introduced unless the bodies concerned have been properly consulted.

Mr. TUCKER:

I made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to Attorneys-General. The hon. the Minister has made a case out for the amendment of the existing legislation, and I would like to ask him, as a matter of policy, whether in view of his declared opinion that it would be utterly wrong for a Minister to interfere with the discretion of the Attorneys-General, whether it is not time that he should take steps to make that the law of the land? The hon. the Minister has said that in all the years since 1926 he knows of only one single instance of such interference. I can only say I believe it would give great satisfaction in this country if the hon. the Minister would take that step. I say to the hon. the Minister with respect for what he said, and accepting his word that it is widely believed by the public that the Minister of Justice directs the Attorneys-General in a large number of cases. That opinion is very widely held. If the hon. the Minister wants to do something of service to South Africa, then I suggest he should remedy that position.

The other point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: It happened that quite by chance at lunchtime I came across a paragraph in Look of 28 March which has just become available. I should like to quote this with approval to the hon. the Minister, because I believe he can do another service to this country if he will follow what Robert Kennedy, the new Attorney-General of the United States—who is, of course, the equivalent of the Minister of Justice—proposes in regard to a matter which has taken up some of the time of the Committee this afternoon. Among the questions which was put to Mr. Robert Kennedy who is, of course, a brother of the President of the United States, was the following—

While wire taps are not permitted as evidence in Federal Courts, some officials have pressed for new legislation to allow their use. What is your position as Attorney-General?

And this is his answer—

We are studying this question carefully. No conclusions have been reached. If such legislation were passed, my feeling is that the use of legal wire taps should be limited to major crimes such as treason, kidnapping and murder. In each instance, however, it should only be done with the authority of a Federal Judge. We would still have to request permission for a wire tap, exactly as we must now do to get a search warrant. At the same time, there is a great deal of indiscriminate wire tapping that now goes unpunished.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that constantly I find persons cutting into my telephone when I use it.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Ag!

Mr. TUCKER:

My hon. friend says “ Ag! ” I give it as my honest opinion that that is the case.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What evidence have you?

Mr. TUCKER:

I can hear it quite clearly, and I am told it is impossible to get a crossed line by accident under our system. As the hon. gentleman knows, it is apparently a very simple thing as you can even buy these tapping devices, I am told.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Where?

Mr. TUCKER:

You can buy them quite cheaply from any electrician. Mr. Kennedy said further—

Therefore, it is essential that the penalty for indiscriminate wire tapping be greatly stiffened. This goes for anybody, including law-enforcement officers.
One of the great problems we have is in the language of the law as it now stands. It states that we shall not intercept and disclose messages. Does this mean that we can go and intercept as long as we don’t disclose the contents as evidence? Some courts have said yes to this interpretation. I also fully recognize that legalized wire tapping is a two-edged sword that requires the most scrupulous use. For that reason I would not be in favour of its use under any circumstances—even with the court’s permission—except in certain capital offences.

I believe that it is essential, in view of the disclosure which has been made that wire tapping is taking place, that it should be brought under control. It is essential that there should be legislation which can be considered by this House as to just what safeguards are required. I quote with approval this statement from the Attorney-General of the United States. There may be circumstances where it is justified, but I think there is a great deal to be said for the security which will arise from the fact that such wire tapping cannot be indiscriminate and can only take place in the same circumstances as apply to a search for which there must be a special warrant.

*Dr. DE BEER:

When I took part in the debate yesterday for a few minutes, I said that I had been struck by the fact that the Justice Vote was being discussed in a sombre, and I can almost say, ominous atmosphere. Since then, having listened to some of the speeches and particularly the speech which is the most important one, namely the reply of the Minister’s to the debate, I am compelled to say that nothing that has happened here has in the least eliminated that ominous feeling which I have.

I want to return immediately to the case which I raised yesterday and to which reference has again been made, namely the case of Mr. Patrick Duncan. When I raised this matter yesterday, I did not say what I did say on the strength of my own knowledge that Mr. Duncan was not a communist but that he was really a staunch anti-communist, but I asked the Minister that in view of the difficulty in defining Communism under the Act, to try to draw some line or other, to tell us under what circumstances he would take similar action and when not. In his reply the hon. the Minister explained to me that Mr. Duncan or any other person who has been banned, had the right to ask for the reasons. Mr. Duncan did so and the reasons were given to him. I did not have the relevant document with me at the time. I said that I was under the impression that the information given to Mr. Duncan was not of great assistance to us in the problem that I had and which the House ought to have, in determining what class of person could be banned under this legislation, other than communists. I have in the meantime obtained the necessary statement—the statement which the hon. the Minister read to the House this afternoon, as well as the letter which the Secretary of the Department wrote to Mr. Duncan. According to the report which appeared in the Cape Times the letter read as follows—

During the period 1954 to 1960 (both years inclusive) you attended and addressed meetings, made utterances and participated in agitation as a result whereof, in the opinion of the Minister, there is reason to believe that the achievement of the objects or some of the objects of Communism would be furthered if you were to attend any gathering in any place.

No reasonable person will believe that it is possible to gauge from that what exactly will be regarded as a contravention for these purposes and what not. It simply says that it is in the opinion of the Minister …

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Duncan did not ask what the law says he must ask, namely information; he simply asked for the reasons.

*Dr. DE BEER:

I admit that—he merely asked for the reasons and not for information. The reason was given. But what was the reason? The reason is that in the opinion of the Minister Mr. Duncan had said something somewhere that may possibly serve one of the objects of Communism.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Could have furthered.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Yes, furthered. In that case you again have to turn to the Act on the Suppression of Communism. I think every member in this House knows more or less what the objects are of that legislation. Communism is defined inter alia as—

… the encouragement of feelings of hostility between the European and the non-European races of the Union the consequences of which are calculated to further the achievement of any object referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

It happens every day in this House that members accuse each other across the floor of the House of making speeches that are aimed at helping our enemies. As a matter of fact, that was why there was so much opposition to this Act when it was introduced, the definition is too wide. We now find ourselves in the position that in this case Mr. Duncan is a person who is generally known not to be a communist. I think we should know where the line is to be drawn. Mr. Duncan is somebody who is against the Government and who adopts a far-reaching attitude and who expresses his opposition to the Government in strong and almost drastic language. If a person who falls into that category can be banned, who will be the next one and how far will it go? Mr. Duncan is a prominent member of the Liberal Party. Will all members of the Liberal Party now be banned? If not, what is the difference between Mr. Duncan and the other members? If all the members of that party are in danger of being banned, where will it end? It is with a view to this that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) asked for certain information in connection with this Committee which the Minister says exists to provide him with information. I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Salt River.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said I would give the hon. member the names of the members of the committee.

*Dr. DE BEER:

I understood the Minister to say that he was prepared to tell the hon. member for Salt River confidentially who the members of that committee were and that he would consider giving those names to this Committee. I strongly associate myself with the plea by the hon. member for Salt River that those names should be made public because if there is one way in which a certain amount of confidence can be created that this Act will not be abused, it is to make those names public.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The chairman is a prominent magistrate.

*Dr. DE BEER:

I am pleased to hear that, but if the Minister is prepared to tell us that I ask him to give us the names of the other members as well.

I am also concerned about the renewal of the banning order against the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. The Minister told us this afternoon that he had information at his disposal which made it absolutely essential for him to extend the banning period. I accept his word, of course. The Minister, for reasons of his own, placed one portion of the evidence before the Committee namely a portion from the speech of Robert Sebukwe, and if it was correctly reported it reads like this: “ Briefly my organization aims at the complete overthrow of White domination.” Because of that the Minister now tells us that he will use the powers which he has to the utmost to ensure that that organization remains banned. Let us analyse this statement “ the complete overthrow of White domination ”. What I am about to say, I am not saying at all in the interests of my own party, but we go from platform to platform, and we say it in this House, that we believe the policy of White domination is wrong, and I do not think the Minister has any intention of taking action against us. In other words, that is either not the reason why the banning period has been extended, or the banning period has been extended because they differ in another respect from lawful political organizations which also strive for the overthrow of White domination. [Time limit.]

Mrs. SUZMAN:

In view of the warning the Minister gave us that he expected further emergencies and drastic action on the part of the Government, I think it is incumbent on me to raise complaints about the administrative regulations which were framed last time when we had the unfortunate experience of undergoing emergency conditions. I want to refer to some of the hardships experienced by people who were detained under the emergency regulations last year, persons who were never charged or brought before the court and who were never convicted. I want to raise the emergency regulations themselves. At a later stage, under the Prisons Vote, I will raise some of the hardships suffered by these people while in detention. Some of the things which I hope the Minister will never under any circumstances reinstitute under the emergency regulations are things such as these: First of all, that no detainees under the emergency regulations last year were given any opportunity whatever to make arrangements for the welfare of their families or financial arrangements for the care of their dependants before they were taken to prison. Secondly, no safeguard was framed in the regulations to protect detainees against detention based on malicious or mistaken information or even mistaken identity. Thirdly, until some time had elapsed, detainees were not even given access to the emergency regulations under which they had been arrested. I raised this matter several times in the House last year and eventually the Minister gave instructions that the detainees were to be allowed to see those regulations, but several weeks elapsed before that was done and during that time the detainees had neither the knowledge of the regulations nor of any rights they might enjoy, nor indeed of any punishment they might suffer for infringing the regulations. Other matters are—the fact that legal advisers were not allowed to see the detainees and even when they subsequently were allowed to see them they were not allowed to discuss anything at all pertaining to the detention of the persons, but only as regards their personal affairs. Visitors were allowed only in the presence of warders, and detainees were allowed to see their visitors through wire screens. The allegation is made by Indian, Coloured and African families that their relatives were not notified when they were transferred from the one prison to the other, so that useless journeys were made by these relatives trying to visit their detainee relatives, but the families of White detainees were so notified. Some African women sought information from the Special Branch and when attempting to visit their relatives were told to produce their reference books, although at that time and even to-day the carrying of reference books by African women was not imperative. The same complaint was made by Africans asking for assistance from the Welfare Department. I know this was subsequently denied, but the evidence is that persons were asked for their reference books before they could get assistance. It is also alleged, and I hope the Minister will give us some information on this point because it is particularly unfair, that during the period of detention Special Branch officers visited the employers of the detainees to discourage them from re-employing these detainees when they were released. Some African detainees were actually re-arrested under the pass laws.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Have you got sworn statements to that effect?

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I have information given to me by the relatives of some of the detainees, but they are not sworn statements, but I have a general statement which was sworn to by several detainees. This may be a far-reaching statement, but nevertheless it was made and I think it is most unfair if this was the case, that persons were detained and subsequently released, and it is most unfair that their employers were influenced not to re-employ them when they had served their punishment. Then there is also the allegation that many of the African detainees, on being released, were re-arrested under the pass laws, some of them because their reference books had not been signed by their employers during the four months they were in prison, because they obviously were not able to get to their employers to get these books signed. Then I would like the Minister to give us some information about the persons who were committed by administrative action by magistrates in the so-called “ special ” or “ secret ” courts set up in the prisons where detainees were being held. I refer particularly to the “ secret ” courts set up in terms of sec. 4bis (2) and (3) of the regulations, where magistrates sat in the prison and committed persons who had been detained under the regulations. These are the questions I would like to ask the Minister in this regard: First of all, I am told that among the thousands held at Modder B, which is the particular gaol where persons held in the Transvaal were detained under the section mentioned, there were many youths under the age of 18. I want to know whether charges were brought against these youths and all others who were tried at these secret courts in Modder B; whether the prisoners were asked to plead, whether evidence was given on oath and properly recorded, whether the prisoners were given the chance to cross-examine and whether they could call their own witnesses, and whether records were kept in such a form that any serious miscarriage of justice could be taken on review to the Supreme Court, and finally, whether convictions were recorded against these youths and what happened to them. [Interjection.] I will give the Minister a list of my questions in writing, and he can answer later. What happened to the youths of under 18 who were sent to reformatories, and what steps were taken against them if they were taken out of the urban area and on their return whether steps were taken to prevent them from returning to their homes in the urban areas by virtue of the fact that their period of residence in the urban area had been broken during the time they were in the reformatory? [Time limit.]

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I feel very strongly about this question of the composition of the committee appointed by the Minister in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. I asked the Minister whether he would give this Committee details of the personnel of that committee, and he replied that he would tell me confidentially and that he would consider whether he could disclose the names to this Committee.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is because the Act does not say I can do it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I appreciate that the Minister offered to give me information confidentially. If he did do so, I would observe that confidence. But I do not propose to put myself in that position because I think it would be wrong. That information is not something which should be given to an individual member; it should be given to Parliament and to the country. Why the secrecy? Why is the Minister so reluctant to give this information? [Interjections.] I should have thought the answer is quite simple: I have a committee consisting of an experienced magistrate and a few others. But instead of that the Minister creates a cloak and dagger atmosphere. That, in itself, must cast doubts upon this whole system, in terms of which the freedom of the individual is being infringed by administrative action, by the rubber stamp. A secret committee, a sort of local Ogpu, whose names cannot be disclosed in this Committee! I hope the Minister will reconsider that and give us this information. I say that, because I am very much perturbed about the observation made by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser). The hon. member said that one need not be a communist in order to be hit by the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act. He was replying to the representations I made in regard to Mr. Patrick Duncan. The hon. member went so far as to say that certain speeches in this House—and he specifically referred to my speech—if made outside this House could make one liable to action by the Minister in terms of the Act.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Quite so.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. member for Heilbron says “ Quite so ”. I think it is time we should get a pied piper to lead that hon. member out of this House! It is a very serious allegation indeed that the hon. member made, that speeches by representatives of the people in this House under the Privilege of Parliament Act, if made outside the House, would render us liable to this action. I would like to know whether the Minister approves of that statement. If he does, he is only giving confirmation to my suggestion this afternoon and to the suspicion which lurks in the minds of many members of this House and many members of the public, namely, that the Government is abusing the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act in order to stifle the political opinions of persons whose political views they do not like. They are not communists, but they do not like their views. They are persons who are advocating adjustments to the realities of the situation, but because they express those views forcibly they are told that they are advocating or furthering the objects of Communism. That is a very dangerous doctrine and certainly one which shows totalitarian tendencies.

I hope that before this Vote is passed the Minister will give us some details in regard to the position in Pondoland at present. I would like to know how many White persons and Bantu are at present being detained in Pondoland under the emergency regulations; and how many communists are detained, because we have been told that it was White communists who started the trouble. How many White communists are being detained? How many additional members of the Police Force are now engaged in Pondoland in connection with the emergency, and have any persons detained in terms of the emergency regulations been permitted to consult their legal advisers? I think these questions are important, and I hope the Minister will give us the information.

Then there is one final point that I would like to make, following upon the observations of the hon. member for Houghton. In terms of regulation 4bis, large numbers of Bantu youths were arrested during the emergency and whisked away out of the urban areas. Some of them were brought before the secret courts. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many of these youths arrested last year are still in detention? How many have been convicted? And of those under detention, what intention has the Minister in regard to the future of these youths? How many have been returned to their homes in the urban areas from which they were removed? How many have been sent to other parts of the country to be divorced from their families? These things are important, because I come back to the sombre picture painted by the Minister yesterday. The Minister is contemplating the possibility of declaring another state of emergency, and I am trying to get to the root causes and the reasons why such an eventuality may take place. I want to see the Government remove those causes so that there will be no necessity to declare another state of emergency. I ask these questions in no spirit of defiance, and certainly with no object of furthering the ends of Communism. I ask them because I want to prevent the objects of Communism being furthered in this country by the foolishness and shortsightedness and intransigence of this Government, which has so muddled our race relations that we have this position.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I just want to say that the speech just made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) makes one wonder just how difficult a member of this House can be. The hon. member actually had the temerity to accuse the Government of creating the impression that they are making misuse of certain laws. If ever a serious accusation was made, it is this one, and why does the hon. member make it? He makes this accusation because they put a question to the Minister this afternoon which he had no time to consider, viz. publishing the names of this Committee over the floor of the House. The Minister was as reasonable as anybody could possibly be by offering to give these names to the hon. member for Salt River confidentially until such time as he had had the opportunity to consider whether it would be advisable to publish the names or not. But the hon. member for Salt River was not satisfied with that. His reply to the Minister, to this reasonable offer made to him, is this far-fetched accusation that the Government is creating the impression that it is making misuse of a law. I say that is absolutely scandalous, for the simple reason that I know that the hon. member for Salt River is more intelligent than he pretends to be. Not only is he more intelligent, but he also has more experience, and therefore I do not expect him to act in this manner. Surely he knows the difficult position one has to cope with and what methods are used by the communists. Does the hon. member not think that one of the matters the Minister, inter alia, wanted to consider when the question was put to him so suddenly is whether it could not perhaps endanger the safety of those people if it is stated that they are members of the Committee, as the result of the dirty methods adopted by the communists.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

That is nonsense!

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

I think that in view of all the nonsense spoken here by the hon. member for Salt River, he should be the last one to talk about nonsense. He should not make me change my opinion about his intelligence. I blame the hon. member for adopting this attitude in the face of the very reasonable offer made by the Minister.

*Prof. FOURIE:

A few things have been said here this afternoon which rather disturb one. The Minister says nothing about it when these things are said. I regard these things in a much more serious light than some people seem to do. The hon. member for Heilbron has just reaffirmed that if the hon. member for Salt River had made the sort of speech outside this House that he made here, he would have made himself guilty under the Act, and it passes my comprehension that the Minister does not repudiate that statement. I want to tell the Minister and the Government that this sort of thing is going to result in ugly developments in this country. Hon. members will see what is going to happen between White and White. I should like to hear the Minister repudiating this type of statement. There are certain White people who are not point to put up with it, and if this sort of thing goes on they are going to resent it increasingly, and I should hate to prophesy what this might lead to. But the pattern that is being followed in this House and the remarks which are passed here and connived at by Ministers, are going to have tragic results. [Interjections.] I think every member of this House has the fullest right to put forward here what he regards as the true interests of the nation. There sit the democrats. Sir, the greatest tyranny is the tyranny of the majority. It is not democracy. There are certain basic principles of democracy that must be accepted and in the light of those principles the majority can then determine what the law should be; but as we see here, laws are made in this country which expose me and all of us who have the interest of the nation at heart to the accusation by members of this House that we are contravening the Communism Act when we make speeches here. I make an appeal to the Minister and to other Ministers not to connive at statements which lead to an untenable situation where White and White will be virtually at each other’s throats, not even to talk about White and non-White.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Because my name has been mentioned, I feel obliged to rise and to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. He has just given us a lecture on democracy, but I think the first rule of democracy is that one should obey the laws of one’s country. But apparently there are people here who believe that they can say whatever they like in a democracy and that they need not obey any law of the country. The hon. member made certain statements here this afternoon which would definitely have constituted a contravention of the suppression of Communism Act if he had made those statements outside this House.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

On a point of order, the hon. member is charging me with having committed a crime.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

No, not a crime.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Will the hon. member repeat what he said?

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I said that if he said these things outside the House, that would be the position. I did not accuse him; in this House he enjoys privilege. I do not accuse him of having committed a crime, because here he enjoys privilege; here he is allowed to say it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

On a point of order, if I were to commit murder in this House, I would enjoy no privilege. The hon. member has made the accusation against me that I have made allegations here which, if they were made outside this House, would be criminal, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether he is entitled to say that I am contravening the laws of this country by a speech made in this House.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Statements are frequently made in this House which it would not be possible to make outside the House. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, the accusation is that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is abusing his privilege as a member. That is the implication of the hon. member’s remarks, because if he says that the hon. member says things here which would be a contravention outside this House, he is suggesting that the hon. member is abusing his privilege in order to say things here for which he would be punishable if he said them outside this House.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That is not a point of order.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Chairman, there is freedom of speech in this House. The hon. member can say what he likes here. Here he enjoys privilege which he does not enjoy outside. To commit murder here would not be covered by privilege. He has no privilege to commit murder in this House. Not even the rules of this House would protect him there. Sir, I object to the tone of the speech made here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie). The plea has been put forward here to-day that we should reveal a sense of responsibility in our actions towards the nation. We must not defend people here who committed contraventions of the law outside this House. I protest most strongly against it. And that is what is being done constantly and what has been done in this House this afternoon. People who committed contraventions outside are represented here to the Minister of Justice almost as heroes.

An HON. MEMBER:

And as martyrs.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

That is the whole tone of the speeches on that side, and it is time we realized our responsibility towards our people and towards our fatherland and that we stopped representing as martyrs people who committed crimes outside, under the cloak of freedom of speech in this House.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

This development in my view is very serious. The House now has to choose between the verdict of the political rabble and the verdict of the Minister, and I put my conduct to the verdict of the House …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should try to moderate his language.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I say that a very pertinent question arises.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

On a point of order, the hon. member talks about “ political rabble” insinuating that I, amongst others, belong to that category. I take exception to it and I ask that the hon. member be ordered to withdraw that.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am drawing a distinction between irresponsibility and responsibility. I would like to know where I stand this afternoon, because the allegation that has been made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) affects not only me, but every member of this House, and more particularly every member of the Opposition, and therefore I am not prepared to leave it just where it stands. Before the hon. member for Heilbron sat down, he said quite clearly and unequivocally that the speech which I had made this afternoon was of such a character and of such content that, had I made it outside the House, I would have contravened the Suppression of Communism Act. In other words, I would then have been subject to banning by the Minister. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with that or not, because the whole question of free speech in this Parliament is now at stake as a result of what the hon. member has said. If the hon. member for Heilbron is correct, then only those who are intimidated dare get up in this House and speak in dulcet tones and express sentiments which cannot be taken exception to by members of the Government. I therefore put this crisp question to the Minister of Justice: Does he concur in the views of the hon. member for Heilbron or not? He must either repudiate the hon. member for Heilbron or he must repudiate me. He may repudiate the views which I express; I can understand that because we are arguing this matter on a political basis and we are approaching the matter from different political standpoints, but the hon. member for Heilbron has now brought this matter into a different plane. He has said quite unequivocally, without any reservation, that my speech would amount to a crime if made outside the House. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with that. If he does agree with that let him say so; if he does not agree, let him say so. But do not let him be silent. Do not let this House and this country be left under the impression that a certain section of the Nationalist Party can intimidate members of this House by suggesting that, if they speak fearlessly in this House, they are committing a crime.

Mr. HOLLAND:

There are a few matters that I would like to submit to the Minister’s attention. The first is the question of the supply of firearms to Coloured applicants for such firearms. I have had several cases in past years where such applications were summarily turned down. I am positive that had it been a White applicant, such an application might have been considered in the circumstances, and it is quite obvious that there is some form of discrimination in refusing applications for firearms where the applicants are Coloured, and I do not think it is fair, because in many cases it is merited and very necessary. At the opportune time I would like to submit further evidence on this score to the Minister. I had one case in point at a place called Harlem, which the Minister obviously knows, where a Coloured farmer has a White foreman, who has been working for them for many years, and who has a firearm licence. He has a shop on the farm right next to his residence and that shop has been broken into on several occasions. This man now has to face the problem of installing a private telephone line to his foreman’s house in order to be able to phone him at night should anything occur there, after all the thefts which have taken place there already. He has on several occasions applied for a firearm licence and his application has been refused every time, but his White foreman eventually applied and was granted a licence. I think that this is an injustice. I have more examples of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion here on the events of last March and specifically also on the way in which a young African student, Phillip Kgosana, was arrested. I wish to say at the outset that I unreservedly accept the Minister’s word when he says that he did not order that arrest. I also accept the word of Col. Terblanche to the effect that he was ordered by a senior authority to ensure that the arrest took place; so somewhere between the Minister and the colonel in charge of the situation there, that order was given by somebody. Sir, I was in Cape Town on that particular day. I saw that procession, or part of it, right from Klipfontein, and when I came to Cape Town I saw what happened here. It is quite obvious, whichever way one looks at it, that on that fateful day Col. Terblanche, in his negotiations with Phillip Kgosana, had the fate of Cape Town in his hands to some extent, if not the fate of South Africa. Nobody knows what could have happened there if anything had gone wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there who bleats occasionally does not seem to have any conception of the seriousness of the situation that existed that day. We know that there were over 30,000 Africans massed in the centre of Cape Town. If anything had gone wrong that day, damage and loss of life would have resulted on a worse scale than at Sharpeville, and we know what repercussions that incident had for South Africa right throughout the world. I feel that hardly at any time in the history of South Africa has so much responsibility rested on a police officer as rested on Col. Terblanche that day. I do not know who gave the order for the subsequent arrest but the fact remains that in his discussions Col. Terblanche gave the assurance to Kgosana that he and his deputation could put their grievances to the Minister.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is not correct. He did not make that promise. He said he would do his best.

Mr. HOLLAND:

Sir, I accept that also. I am discussing this matter with a full realization of the seriousness of the situation that existed that day, but the fact remains that the senior police officer in command of the Cape Town area on that day had discussions with Kgosana and gave the undertaking that he would endeavour to arrange an interview with the Minister. I feel that the Minister would not have sacrificed too much had he agreed to meet that deputation personally. However that may be, something seriously went wrong in ordering the arrest of that young African, together with the others, when they came to see the Minister or came under the impression that they would see the Minister. It is perfectly clear from what I have heard and from the information that has reached me that a breach of faith was committed on that particular day. I do not say that it was a breach of faith intended by the officer concerned or by the Minister or by the person who ordered the arrest, the fact remains that that was the impression that was created, my information is that the impression of the Africans is that they can never again trust a Government official or accept the word of a police officer. But that is not my concern at the moment. What I am concerned with—and I can give the Minister the assurance that I am dealing with this matter with the utmost sincerity—is the effect that this event had on the minds of the Coloured people. That is a matter of very great importance too. I have been surprised on several occasions since then to find that Coloured people who were looked upon in the past as reasonable and moderate, openly stated in my presence at public meetings or gatherings where many hundreds of people were present on some occasions, that this was a breach of a promise made …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No promise was made. How can you make that deduction?

Mr. HOLLAND:

That is the impression that was created throughout.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

It was the wrong impression.

Mr. HOLLAND:

The Minister has now told the Committee, and I accept that he personally had nothing to do with ordering the arrest of Kgosana but somewhere, somehow this order was given and it was given at a most inopportune moment and carried out at a worse time.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Someone let down Terblanche.

Mr. HOLLAND:

What I am concerned with is the effect that this had on the minds of the people, part of whom I represent here. Sir, this is a most serious thing.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Were there also Coloureds in the demonstration?

Mr. HOLLAND:

No, there were no Coloureds, but the fact that a young African aged 21, could lead 30,000 people into Cape Town in complete order, without committing any violence, has made an indelible impression on the minds of the Coloured people, and the fact that negotiations or discussions took place, and that subsequently when the undertaking was accepted and acted upon, an arrest was carried out at the worst possible time, has had a tremendous effect. [Time limit.]

Mrs. SUZMAN:

There is one matter I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether his attention has been drawn to a report …

Mr. GREYLING:

[Inaudible.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must stop making interjections.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared in the Sunday Express on 19 March of this year entitled “ Sick man is sent to cell to die ”. It would appear that a Native labourer was brought before the court on charges of armed robbery and theft. He sat in the dock in a half coma dying from a serious illness and his attorney asked that he be granted bail. The magistrate not only argued over a reduction in bail, which would have enabled him to leave prison and receive medical attention, but he actually increased the bail from R300 to R500, although the Crown had not asked for the man’s bail to be increased, but had simply opposed the reduction.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Must I interfere with the court’s judgment?

Mrs. SUZMAN:

No, I am not asking the hon. the Minister to interfere, but what I am asking him to take steps about is a comment which the magistrate made during the course of the case. What the magistrate actually said was that “ it would be better for people under these serious charges not to be released at all as, when they go out they commit further robberies ”.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

What are you quoting from?

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I am quoting from a report of this case which appeared in the Sunday Express. It appears that the magistrate therefore prejudged the issue, and I consider this to be a very serious matter as far as justice is concerned. I want to ask the Minister whether he will investigate this case, whether he will see whether this report is correct, since it is in quotation marks and whether he will take steps to see that magistrates do not make remarks of this kind in the courts and prejudge issues which come before them.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It looks as though the debate on this Vote is drawing to a close, and I should like to make use of this opportunity therefore to thank hon. members for the way in which this debate has been conducted. We have not at all times had the peaceful debate here this afternoon that I imagined we would have, but generally speaking I have heard debates on the Department of Justice in the past which have been more lively than this one, particularly when the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was Minister of Justice.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has referred here, amongst other things, to Robert Kennedy’s view, which he quoted here, in connection with the tapping of telephones. As the hon. member read it out, it gave me the impression that Robert Kennedy draws a great distinction between cases where tapping should not be allowed and those cases where it should be allowed. He does not want indiscriminate tapping, however. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that telephones are being tapped in South Africa. As a matter of fact, I must deny it because the Postal Act in this country forbids the tapping of telephones. According to what the hon. member has quoted here, Robert Kennedy says that there must not be indiscriminate tapping. I say that there must be no tapping. But it is not for me to decide what the security of South Africa may require under certain circumstances. If the security of this country calls for it, then there is nobody on the other side of the House who would suggest that it should not be done, because then they would not be fair; then they would want this Government to follow a course which the previous Government did not follow. The hon. member for Springs quite correctly raised this point. I just want to tell him that I shall look at the article. It will not help much if I do look at it because I should not like to follow what Robert Kennedy says, because not only do I think that there should be no indiscriminate tapping: I think that if the security of the country does not require it, there should be no tapping of telephones.

The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) has put a question to me to which I replied when he was not in the House. He wanted to know why the ban on the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. was extended again.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asked me about a dozen questions and she was kind enough to let me have them, because she will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to reply to them pat off. But what I can say is that in two instances the hon. member has the wrong information. The trials in the prisons were not secret. They were open to the Press and to the public. That is the first allegation made by the hon. member in respect of which she was supplied with wrong information. Her second allegation was that the security police went to employers and induced them not to re-employ people who had been detained. That is categorically denied by my Department, and I shall be very glad if the hon. member will furnish me with the information. I shall certainly go into that question.

She also drew my attention to a case mentioned in the Sunday Express of 19 March, where it is alleged that the magistrate made certain comments. She wants to know whether those comments were actually made by the magistrate. I cannot, of course, be expected to know the details of the case. I know the hon. member says that this person was found guilty and sentenced to gaol. That may be the information that the Press received, but it may not be correct. That is why I propose to investigate this and let the hon. member know the result. I cannot take the matter further.

Then the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) wanted to know how many persons were detained in Pondoland. Well, I gave the House that information a few days ago, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I said that the number was 524. Of these 524, 114 will be charged with murder; 121 will be charged with arson; 289 will be charged for multiferious breaches of the law. The hon. member also referred to regulations framed under Section 4bis. These regulations have been withdrawn, and no prisoners are still being detained under these regulations.

*The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has asked whether there is any discrimination at all in the granting of firearm licences to Whites and Coloureds. My reply to that iS that every case is treated by every Government on its merits. The hon. member went on to mention a few cases where shops had been burgled and where it is necessary for the shop owners to be provided with firearms. I shall have every case dealt with on its merits, according to the information given to me.

Then the hon. member again raised the case of Kgosana. I honestly wish that Kgosana was in South Africa to-day so that one could hear what he has to say, but what he stated before he fled was stated in a sworn affidavit, and that is that he and his three supporters wanted to see the Minister to ask him to release the Native leaders who had been arrested. I should like hon. members to understand the circumstances that prevailed on that particular day. The Minister was not idle. It was very difficult for me to see this young Bantu. One of the newspapers said this morning that I had sent my secretary to see him. No, I sent the Secretary for Justice to go and hear what they wanted, and when he arrived there he was told that the colonel had informed these people that he would try to get hold of the Minister. The Secretary for Justice then told them that the Minister was not available; that he simply could not see them, and that he had come on behalf of the Minister to hear what the complaint was and what they wanted to see the Minister about. Every one of them then made a sworn affidavit in which they said that the only thing that they wanted to see the Minister about was the release of the leaders. I think hon. members would have been entitled to hold it against me if I had met a deputation of that kind in my capacity as Minister, because for days we had been saying that these people would not be released, that they would have to undergo their punishment. And I think they would have been entitled to condemn me. But what I cannot understand is that certain hon. members are now taking this person under their protection. I have been sitting here since yesterday waiting to hear a single word of condemnation of this person’s action in fleeing from South Africa and failing to appear before the Court. But we do not hear a single word of condemnation. Have we lost all sense of proportion in this country?

An HON. MEMBER:

They regard it as an act of heroism.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. members for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) and Salt River have also asked me whether I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). But after the exchange of words here between these two hon. members I am not so sure any more that the hon. member for Heilbron meant that remark in the way the hon. member for Salt River interpreted it. Mr. Chairman, hon. members of this House have freedom of speech. A speech which is permissible here cannot always be made outside. I do not think it was really the intention of the hon. member for Heilbron to apply this to the hon. member for Salt River, because I want to tell the hon. member for Salt River now that although I did not like his speech, it was not the sort of speech for which a person would be arrested under the Suppression of Communism Act. I think that what the hon. member for Heilbron meant was that generally speaking people say things here for which it would be possible to prosecute them under the Act if they said them outside. I think he said it in that spirit and I want to interpret it in that spirit.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. TUCKER:

In regard to telephone tapping, I would just like to put this to the hon. the Minister: I have looked carefully at the proposition I made to him. It is quite clear that what Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney-General of the United States, proposes is a complete ban on telephone-tapping, under very heavy penalties, except in circumstances where it is necessary in the public interest, namely in respect of charges where there is a death penalty, and in those circumstances only on something which is equivalent to a search warrent.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It is not their law at the moment.

Mr. TUCKER:

No, he is suggesting that he might change it some day, and I am putting that suggestion to the hon. the Minister for his own consideration.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Just before we allow this Vote to go through, I should like to touch upon a matter which I have also raised previously, namely the question of legal aid bureaux. Are other arrangements going to be made to replace them? The hon. the Minister is, of course, better acquainted with the history of this matter than I am. We had legal aid bureaux in the big cities of the Union. I am not sure whether this happened everywhere but here in the Cape at any rate the bureau was closed about two or three years ago.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I dealt with that matter yesterday.

*Dr. DE BEER:

In that case I apologize, and I shall look it up in Hansard.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22,—“ Prisons ”, R8,730,000,

Mr. TUCKER:

I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the case of the prisoner Wanka, who had been previously sentenced I understand to 12 years’ imprisonment. He subsequently was released after three years. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister on this Vote can make a statement about that. But he was subsequently condemned to death and was in the death cell, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he is in a position to make a statement. We have seen in the Press that the warder was a young man of 20 years of age, in charge of a man who is obviously an extremely dangerous criminal.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

Eighteen years.

Mr. TUCKER:

According to to-night’s paper he was 20 years of age. In an earlier report the age of 18 was mentioned. I do submit to the hon. the Minister that it is most undesirable that a person of that tender age should be put in charge of a prisoner of this sort. We have seen the story in the Press that the warder was sentenced, but as a result of the fact that an inexperienced young man was in charge, we might very easily have had two other deaths on the soul of this person who is about to be executed. I sincerely hope that steps will be taken to see to it that in respect of prisoners of this type only older and experienced warders will be put in charge.

I also would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he is satisfied that there can be no recurrence of the epidemic which we had at the Johannesburg Fort last year, which apparently has subsided.

Finally, I make another plea to the hon. the Minister and that is that he should make a name for himself by dealing with a matter which has been under discussion over a very long period of years, namely the evacuation of the Johannesburg Fort and the transfer of that site to the City Council of Johannesburg, particularly in the circumstances that Johannesburg is establishing a very fine civic centre which will be of great value, not only to the city, but to the arts. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to do something about this. It is generally agreed that the present site, which is a very valuable one, is not the right site for the prison in Johannesburg.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

There are two matters I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister under this Vote. The hon. member for Springs dealt with the conditions prevailing at the Fort. Sir, one also hears a good deal from those who are interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners, about the desirability of improvement in the conditions at the Roeland Street Prison in Cape Town, and also the Central Gaol in Durban. There are complaints about the unhygienic conditions that exist at these institutions and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give some indication as to whether he has any plans in mind for the improvement of the conditions existing at these three gaols. The other matter which I would like to raise is the question of the labour prisoners and the use that is made of their services and their remuneration. On Friday, 17 February, I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter of productivity and the utilization of the labour of long-term prisoners and also short-term prisoners, and the reply shows that White prisoners receive R1.50 per month and the Asiatic and Bantu and Coloured prisoners receive R1 per month. I feel that some effort should be made to bring about greater productivity in regard to the labour that is utilized at these prisons and that as an incentive the remuneration should be revised. The hon. Minister did not mention in his reply that certain submissions have been made for increases in pay, and I therefore would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could supply the Committee with further information in regard to these matters.

*Mr. H. T. VAN G. BEKKER:

I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the erection of prisons in rural areas. I do not think the platteland is over-endowed with gaols. There are certain areas, which although in the platteland, cannot really be regarded as rural areas; they must be regarded as semi-urban areas, and the Vaalhartz settlement is such an area. There we have a very thickly populated area where there is not a single prison. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some time ago, during the term of office of his predecessor, a large piece of land was made available by the Department at Vaalhartz for the purpose of building a prison there. There is so much ground there that it would enable the prisoners to meet their own needs as far as vegetables, etc. are concerned. They might also be able to grow a little wheat there and groundnuts. But unfortunately the Department has not yet seen its way clear to establish a gaol at Vaalhartz. I am aware of the fact that it is not the intention that prisoners should serve as a source of labour for farmers but it is nevertheless customary for farmers to employ prison labour upon the payment of certain fees. Vaalhartz is a very thickly populated area and the farmers there are handicapped by a shortage of labour. One of the guilty parties contributing to this shortage of labour is the Transvaal, because during the maize harvesting season they entice all the casual labourers of Vaalhartz to the Transvaal to harvest mealies, and they then come back with a huge quantity of food. The farmers at Vaalhartz therefore find it difficult to obtain labour. If a gaol is established at Vaalhartz, there would immediately be 1,200 settlers who would use prison labour if it is available, and they are willing to pay the fees charged for prison labour. But to-day there is no prison. I would like the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that if a gaol were established at a place like Vaalhartz, it would probably be possible to place a considerable number of prisoners there. It adjoins a Native reserve, and I know that the gaol at Kimberley is too small for the prisoners who have to be accommodated there. If this were done, it would be possible for the settlers of Vaalhartz to make use of this prison labour. It would also be advantageous to the Government, because the provision of labour to the settlers would mean that it would be possible to recoup part of the cost of maintaining the prison and of feeding the prisoners properly from the income that the Government would derive from this Native labour. As I have already said, this piece of ground is so big that in all probability it would never be necessary for the Department to supply or to purchase food there. It is big enough to produce enough food on the spot for the prison’s requirements. I might just mention that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor practically promised that a prison would be erected at Vaalhartz, and I think the time fixed by him within which a start was to be made with the building of this prison expired some considerable time ago. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now to soften his heart and to see that a prison is erected at Vaalhartz, where it is absolutely essential.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

How does one manage to soften the Treasury’s· heart?

*Mr. H. T. VAN G. BEKKER:

I am so convinced of the persuasive powers of the Minister of Justice that I have not the slightest doubt that, if he sets out to do so, he will succeed, and that the Minister of Finance will put the necessary funds at his disposal. I leave it to him with the greatest confidence to make provision for what is an absolute necessity as far as that area is concerned.

Mr. BOWKER:

I rise to bring to the hon. Minister’s notice the unhygienic and badly situated gaol that we have in Grahamstown. The hon. Minister’s predecessor did negotiate with the municipality and decided on a site outside the precincts of the town, but since then nothing has developed. The present gaol is in the centre of the town. It is undoubtedly in an area which the Government will require for future development, for offices and for the extension of the Supreme Court, which is suffering from congestion to-day. I think if a new gaol were built it would simplify the position for the Government as regards the availability of a property in a convenient part of Grahamstown. It seems quite wrong that we should have a gaol right in the centre of the town, with prisoners in evidence, especially as Grahamstown is an educational centre. I would urge the hon. Minister to kindly give this matter his special attention. I have no doubt that a new gaol in Grahamstown is low on the list of new buildings, but perhaps the hon. Minister could use his influence to have it moved up to a higher stage.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Many municipalities prefer to have these public buildings in the centre of the town.

Mr. BOWKER:

Not a gaol. This gaol is of a type that one would relegate to the middle ages. I imagine that it must be one of the early type gaols, with its cells badly ventilated. It is actually a dreadful place, and it is a disgrace that there is a gaol like that in the country. I hope the hon. Minister will visit Grahamstown. There is much we should like to show him, and he would find much of interest there as regards developments which are necessary in respect of his particular Department.

*Mr. VISSE:

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has mentioned the case of Wanka here. I fully agree with him that a youthful person of 20 should not be placed in command of the death cell. I feel, however, that a few words should be said here by way of tribute to the two warders who re-arrested the condemned man and, in the process, nearly lost their lives. I think we are all grateful to them for the fact that the condemned Wanka was re-arrested before he could commit more murders. This leads me to the thought that these two warders must have been extremely fit, and I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister, since the necessary sports facilities are available at the Central Prison in Pretoria, that such sports facilities should also be made available elsewhere in the Transvaal and in the rest of the Union where they do not exist to-day. I am thinking of tennis courts. In one case, where there was a tennis court at a prison—a prison outside the town—it was not always possible for the warders to play tennis in town. Instructions then came from the Director of Prisons or from the Department of Public Works that that tennis court must be demolished. My personal opinion is that the warders need this relaxation, and they should also be enabled to remain fit. What happened in Pretoria was due entirely to the fitness of these warders. But for their fitness they would not have been able to re-arrest the prisoner, particularly after one of them had been shot through his shoulder. I should also like to ask the Minister whether the execution of condemned persons cannot be arranged sooner. In this particular case, the person concerned was sentenced to death as far back as last year; it is April now, and he is still in the death cell. One is inclined to say: “ Why prolong the agony? ” He knows that at some time or other he is going to be executed, and it takes months before the sentence is put into effect. I am thinking of cases in England, where persons who were condemned to death after Wanka, have been executed long ago. These executions are delayed too long in South Africa, and it only imposes an unnecessary hardship on persons awaiting execution to remain in the death cell for such a long time.

*Mr. G. S. P. LE ROUX:

Just a word or two about our farm prisons in the Western Province. I am not pleading for additional gaols, but I know that new ones will, of course, have to be erected from time to time. But, however attractive the layout of some of these new prisons may be, there is one thing that rather disturbs me. Perhaps attention has not been drawn to this matter pertinently, but in the Western Province, with its beautiful scenery, one cannot ride in any direction without passing some prison or other along the road. Has the time not come, when planning new prisons, to site them a little further away from the main road? Of course, it makes it easy to transport the prisoners if the gaols are right next to the road. What does a traveller riding through this beautiful Western Province of ours see? In whichever direction he travels, he comes across at least four or five prisons right next to the road. They are nicely laid out, but the fact remains that one can still see that they are gaols. I think this gives an exaggerated impression to people travelling through our country that we are locking up people unnecessarily. As it is, we have not got a very good reputation, and, although I may be under the wrong impression, I feel that that is the impression that may be created in the minds of travellers. If it is possible to do so, I shall be glad if prisons can be sited some little distance from the road in the future instead of right next to the main road.

*Mr. PELSER:

I think I would be failing in my duty if I allowed this Vote to be passed without expressing my appreciation to the Minister as well as to the Director of Prisons of the enlightened approach that is evident in the Department in connection with the detention and particularly the upliftment of prisoners. I am not an expert as far as punitive measures are concerned, but I think the elementary principle, after all, is that there must be a measure of retribution, and I think that principle is being observed; secondly, the punishment must have a deterrent effect, and that principle is also being observed; thirdly, there must be a certain amount of upliftment work, and that is also being done. It is perfectly clear to me that in recent years the accent has been placed on upliftment. I want to say, particularly in view of the hon. the Minister’s statement in respect of the upliftment of the youth, that this is a step in the right direction, and that we welcome it. I think that is where the emphasis should be placed. The hon. the Minister and the Director can be assured of the support of the whole House if that is the approach in detaining prisoners. In the case of women prisoners, however, I feel that there is one matter to which insufficient attention is being given. There are ladies amongst them. Such a case has come to my notice, and I am not so sure that the Department has succeeded in differentiating in those cases and ensuring that decent women, who happen to have overstepped the mark or who have made themselves guilty of a contravention for which they have been punished, do not come into contact in prison with hardened criminals. I am not convinced that the necessary facilities exist to segregate such women so that they will not come into contact with hardened women criminals. I should like to know what the Minister’s policy is in this connection and I shall be gratified to learn that in that case too, just as in the case of youthful offenders, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that decent women who succumb to temptation and make themselves guilty of contraventions do not find themselves in the company of the most hardened criminals.

Then there is another matter of local interest to my constituency, Klerksdorp, which is expanding very rapidly, and that is that the prison facilities there are very inadequate. I think the records of the hon. the Minister’s Department will show that the number of detainees are far in excess of the capacity of the gaol. Negotiations have been in progress for quite a number of years in connection with the acquisition of land and the building of a new prison, but it does not look as though any progress has been made up to the present moment. I want to ask the Department to give this matter its serious attention. I believe that the right site can be found by getting in touch with the right people. I realize that when a prison is planned in an area such as that, more than one factor must be taken into consideration. There is the consideration that the children of the prison staff must be within easy reach of schools; there is the problem of the availability of water; there is the question of transport facilities, electricity, sanitation, and this sort of problem becomes all the more difficult in a rapidly developing area such as Klerksdorp. I would urge upon the hon. the Minister therefore that steps be taken as soon as possible to purchase the necessary and the right sites in Klerksdorp before we reach a position where it becomes completely impossible to acquire a site for the Department in a suitable area, a site that will meet with all the requirements.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Chairman, in recent years a great deal of very necessary attention has been given to the question of penal reform, and the Penal Reform Association has done a great deal to bring to the notice of the Government matters which required the attention of the Prisons Department. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, and to the Minister himself, for the fact that that basic fact is realized by those who are responsible for the Prison Administration at the present time; and I should like to include in my tribute the name of the Commissioner of Prisons. We have made great strides in improving our general approach towards prisons and reformative treatment in South Africa. That is why I am very sad to-night to think that a man who has done a great deal to stimulate public opinion in favour of penal reform, namely, the Rev. Junod, has now found it necessary to resign his position as Prison Chaplain, and to leave this country. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why that has become necessary. The Rev. Junod, Sir, is a very saintly man, who has done an incalculable amount of good in our prisons, who has been a source of solace to condemned prisoners for years past. He has now found it necessary, because of some sort of departmental red-tape, to resign his position and leave the country. I should like the Minister, if he can, to give us some reassurance that that decision on the part of the Rev. Junod was not due to stupid red-tape and unnecessary difficulties.

That brings me to another matter, the question of amnesties, what I might call, a republican amnesty. It has always been appropriate and traditional on special occasions in the history of the country, to give amnesties to prisoners. On the occasion of the Royal Visit in 1947, all prisoners were given a special remission of one-quarter of their sentences. Last year on the 50th anniversary of Union only prisoners with sentences up to three years received some remission. The hon. the Minister in answer to a question I put to him the other day has told me that there will be certain remissions in connection with the establishment of the republic, but that the following types of offenders are excluded from the provisions of the proposed amnesties, namely, (a) those who are released on parole before 31 May 1961; (b) those who escaped from custody; (c) those convicted for the contravention of the Immorality, Dagga Control, Public Safety, Stock Theft and Riotous Assemblies Acts, as also the proclamations issued in terms of those Acts; and (d) all those serving sentences exceeding three years. Apparently the proposed amnesty will be limited to prisoners serving sentences up to three years. Those serving sentences up to three months, before 31 May, will be released unconditionally; all prisoners serving up to two years are to receive one-quarter remission in addition to the normal remission (there is a normal remission for good conduct, and I understand it is still one-quarter of a sentence); thirdly, only first offenders serving between two and three years will receive one-quarter remission, in addition to the normal remission.

There are two particular categories which are excluded from the remissions. First of all, there is to be no remission for prisoners who have been convicted in terms of matters arising out of the emergency of last year. Why? Why should that not be done? Why should there be special discrimination against those who have been convicted under the Immorality Act or the Stock Theft Act? Does the Minister now seek to have gradations of crime, or the extent of crime, by making these distinctions?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

My information is that these exceptions have always been made.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am not able to say, Sir, whether that is so in respect of all these cases. But quite obviously it cannot apply to cases under the Emergency Act. When I was Minister of Justice I did not have to administer the Immorality Act. I did not have an Emergency Act when I was Minister of Justice and when I was responsible for remissions at the time of the visit of His Majesty the King in 1947. So I ask the hon. the Minister why these distinctions are made. In the first place there is the distinction in respect of those serving sentences arising from offences connected with the emergency. Secondly, you have the case of persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more. Why that? The Minister is prepared to open the doors of the prisons to all those who have been sentenced to a term of up to three months, and we know what happens so often. You open the doors and many of these short-term prisoners come back. But what is the purpose of imprisonment? The main purpose is that one hopes to rehabilitate these people, one hopes that a person with a long term of imprisonment will learn his lesson. I think it is the experience—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that—I think it is the experience of prison officials and administrators that, for the most part, prisoners with a long term of imprisonment do not normally come back. The recidivists are not to be found usually in cases of first offenders with a long term of imprisonment. I have had a letter from the wife of a man who has had a sentence imposed on him of more than three years, in which she says—

Why must some get this remission twice, at the Union Festival and now, and others not even a day? The whole business seems to be simply an excuse to release all short-term prisoners so that the excess of the prison population can be reduced. I do plead with you to do something for those who are first offenders. Anyone can get in prison a first time, so why hit them simply because they are in prison for longer than three years?

I must say Mr. Chairman, that having listened to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) this afternoon, I am beginning to feel that anyone can get into prison a first time.

Seriously, I do now plead with the hon. the Minister to reconsider this system of remissions and to have some regard to those who have been sentenced to long terms, particular first offenders who have to serve over three years. I ask him to consider whether it would not be in the interests of justice, and in the interest of the rehabilitation of those persons, to give them some sort of concession at the present time. [Time limit.]

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I do not wish to reply to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) because one does not know when he is serious and when he is not. But there is a matter of far greater importance that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with the prison building at Germiston. The prison building in Germiston is situated in the Germiston (District) constituency but there are four constituencies situated around Germiston, namely, Germiston itself, Germiston (District), Alberton and Edenvale. Four-fifths of the Edenvale constituency falls within the Germiston municipal area and the majority of my constituents therefore live in the city of Germiston. In view of that fact I consider it to be my duty to raise a case which for 40 years has been worrying the residents of Germiston, and that is that the prison buildings are situated in one of the most select areas of Germiston, between the Lake, the Delville and the suburbs Germiston (South). This is one of the best sites in Germiston. It consists of several morgen of land on which gardens are laid out. The complaint of many people there is that the prisoners employed on gardening watch their movements so as to establish exactly when these people are away from home with a view to robbery and other crimes when they are subsequently released from prison. That is a matter of minor importance, but what I really want to plead for is this, and here the hon. the Minister may tell me to refer the matter to the Department of Public Works or the Department of Education. Representations have been made in those quarters and I feel I must raise the matter here and ask the hon. the Minister for assistance. For that reason I raise it under this Vote. I want to urge that the prison be moved to another site where ground has been offered for this purpose, very near to Germiston. It is well situated, so a decent prison could be erected there at a reasonable cost. Gardening and other activities could also be practiced there. The ground at present occupied by the prison building could then be used for some other purpose such as a technical college for Germiston. Sport fields and other facilities could be provided there. I will not go into that now because that aspect falls under another Department. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister this. For 40 years now this prison building has been standing in the centre of Germiston, in the heart of one of the best residential suburbs. It is absolutely a sore in the eye of the entire city. Because Germiston is the fifth largest city in the Union I feel that this matter should definitely be tackled by the Government. If the Department of Prisons is prepared to move the gaol then I am convinced that the Department of Public Works will agree to it and that the Department of Education will gladly take over the ground.

Then there is a further matter. The mortuary is situated in this building. Its entrance is in one of the main thoroughfares to one of those suburbs. There are two schools there, On the one side there is the English-medium school and on the other side there is an Afrikaans-medium school to which small children go. When accidents occur and bodies are brought to the mortuary the small children who happen to be passing stand there staring open-mouthed. I have seen it with my own eyes. About six months ago there was the case of a person who committed suicide with a knife. While the hearse which brought the body to the mortuary was being washed out about 20 small children stood there watching the horrible process. I feel that the mortuary should also be moved from there. It is situated right in the midst of the most thickly populated area in the best suburbs of Germiston and it is in full view of the residents. That site could be put to far better use. I feel that the residents of Germiston, of all four constituencies, would be most grateful to the Government and in particular to the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Education if they would do something about this matter. We know that the prison has been there for more than 40 years. At the time of the planning of the prison Germiston was still a very small town, and the centre of the town and the residential areas were about a mile away from the spot where the prison stands to-day. But to-day it is surrounded by some of the most beautiful suburbs of Germiston. There are Delville and Germiston (South). To the west there is the Lake. Only the train line lies between. There is the beautiful Victoria Lake Club, one of the best yacht clubs in South Africa. Hundeds of people come there annually from all over the world, from Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and all over the place to compete against the local yacht club. They are accommodated all over Germiston and they gather at the club. When they look out of the club premises they look on to the prison. I think it is an eye-sore that should be removed. The Germiston pleasure resort is adjacent to the Lake. Thousands of people frequent it. It is a very bad advertisement for Germiston as a city. We have this pleasure resort and this beautiful club there. On the other side are the houses and in the midst of it all stands this eye-sore. I therefore make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister. He will be doing a great service to the inhabitants of Germiston and of the four constituencies of, in collaboration with the two other departments, we can remove the gaol from the present site.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

There are two small matters that I should like to deal with here this evening. The first is this. We in the rural areas are in this position to-day that when our servants are arrested and found guilty in a place like Porterville, for example, which forms part of the constituency of the hon. the Minister, those prisoners, because there are no prison facilities at Porterville, are sent through to Paarl. The local farmers are then in a position to hire these prisoners at a reasonably low rate. The result is that the fruitgrowers in the Porterville district find during the busy season that there is an increase in the number of arrests of Coloured labourers, who are then engaged in Paarl and in the neighbouring area. I understand that the same thing occurs in the main town of the Minister’s constituency, namely Moorreesburg.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely you would not suggest that they are deliberately arrested?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

No, I simply say that when there is a shortage of labour in those wine-growing districts, our Coloured labourers are arrested for drunkenness, and then they go and work in those districts to make more wine. That is the truth. I wonder whether, on behalf of the Moorreesburg constituency, which the hon. the Minister has the privilege to represent. I cannot put forward a plea to him that he should also give us prisons in those towns so that we will be able to hire back our own Coloured labourers.

*Mr. VAN RENSBURG:

Talk about Sea Point.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

In Sea Point we have no criminals and therefore no prisoners either. Then there is a second point I should like to raise. Unfortunately I cannot discuss the question of policy at the moment but there is one small matter here which rather disturbs me. Under Vote 22 we have Head F, (Supplies and Services), which is being increased by R319,200. That is a great deal of money. Last year we had an exceptional year; it was a year of uprisings and trouble. Huge numbers of people were thrown into prison and naturally the expenses were high. I should like the Minister to tell me what the reason is for this increase this year. What does he expect? Does he expect a big increase in the number of prisoners this year, or is the cost per unit going up? At the moment it looks very bad. When we talk about an increase of R319.000 for services and supplies, it looks as though the Minister is expecting something to happen. Surely he is not going to give the prisoners more food this year than last year. There must be another reason therefore, and I think the hon. the Minister should tell us why this increase is expected this year. What does he expect to happen during this year of peace and love—the first year of the republic? Moreover, the Minister has stated that he is going to release certain prisoners, with the result that there will be a decrease in the prison population. He is going to reduce the numbers but the costs are going up. Is he going to provide better rations to these people in this first year of the republic or does the Government expect to have more prisoners in the gaols in spite of the release of so many prisoners, as indicated by the Minister? Let me say at once that the hon. the Minister will get every support from this side of the House in imprisoning criminals if it is necessary to throw them into gaol. I say this in all seriousness but I think the Minister should explain the reasons for this increase under this subhead.

*Dr. JURGENS:

It has come to my notice that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst the older warders. They feel that the new method by which promotion is determined excludes them altogether because promotions are now being made on academic qualifications only. They feel that in years gone by they did not have the opportunity to qualify academically, and to-day, after having had 15 or 20 years’ experience in the service, young men who have the necessary academic qualifications but perhaps not the experience are promoted over their heads. I am informed that some of these young men are promoted over their heads after only 18 months’ or two years’ service. They have had no experience of office routine or administration, and they then expect the older men to come to their rescue. I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible also to take these older men into consideration for promotion on the strength of their experience and efficiency? If that cannot be done, I want to ask that these young men, without proper office experience, should not be appointed to responsible positions over the heads of these older men in the service because it leads to friction and dissatisfaction on the part of the older men.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister some questions about the conditions of detainees during the emergency last year. I want to say at the outset that what I am about to say is no reflection whatever on the Director of Prisons. Throughout the emergency period the Director of Prisons was accessible and helpful and did everything within his power to assist when matters were brought to his attention and required remedial measures. I therefore repeat that anything I now say is no reflection on that gentleman or on his senior officials, many of whom, I am sure, were unaware of the conditions obtaining in the gaols during the emergency period. I want to say, too, that the senior officials themselves were in many cases placed in an impossible position because at a moment’s notice they found themselves faced with the necessity of accommodating thousands of political prisoners who, of course, fall into a category of prisoners not generally dealt with by the Prisons Department.

I would also like to say that I personally was permitted to visit the White detainees in the Pretoria Gaol, and the conditions that I found there were generally very favourable indeed. On the general conditions, however, I do want to make some criticisms and observations.

First of all, the places that were used to accommodate these people who were detained during the emergency were, in many cases, highly unsuitable. Some of the gaols were at least 50 years old and quite unsuitable for accommodating large numbers of prisoners. Of course, the conditions of European detainees generally, were very much better than the conditions that were to be found for the detainees who were Africans, Indians, or Coloureds. The Fort itself is, of course, an appalling old prison. Everybody has long been aware of the fact that this prison should have been razed to the ground. Not only is it in a highly unsuitable position right in the centre of Johannesburg, but it is very old and very insanitary. All of us know that there was a dangerous outbreak of typhoid last year at the Fort, and conditions certainly need rectifying in that particular prison.

Generally speaking, over-crowding was the complaint as far as the detainees were concerned, among the non-Whites. For instance, at the Newlands Prison in Johannesburg, 38 Africans were accommodated in a cell 24 ft. by 14 ft. In Boksburg there were 16 Africans in a cell 18 ft. by 14 ft. In Pretoria there were six Africans in a cell 17 ft. by 14 ft. Generally speaking, the bedding provided for the prisoners, as far as the non-Whites were concerned, was inadequate; thin sleeping mats were provided for the concrete floors. And sanitary conditions were most unsatisfactory. A bucket system was in use throughout these gaols, and the buckets in the cells were apparently alongside the drinking water containers and, in some gaols, the persons who handled the sanitary buckets also handled and served food to the prisoners. There also seemed to be no routine in these prisons for washing by prisoners handling these buckets.

African detainees in Pretoria were apparently provided with three small sanitation buckets in their cell, which were emptied three times a day. During the period from 3 p.m. to 6.30 a.m., when detainees were locked in their cells, they were unable to empty these buckets. Morning and evening meals were eaten in the cells, and since supplementary food purchases were delivered only once a week, food in open containers was in close proximity to sanitation buckets for long periods. There were also many complaints about the washing facilities that were provided in the cells, and in many cases only the lids of the water buckets were provided as washing facilities. There was no hot water and no towels were provided for the Africans in any of the prisons certainly not in the commencing stages of the emergency. African prisoners apparently had to dry themselves by jumping up and down on the concrete floors after having taken showers. At a later stage of the emergency towels were provided for these prisoners.

I want to point out that this emergency period took place during the commencement of winter and went on right through the midwinter period in the Transvaal. And incidentally, the comments I am making apply to the Transvaal gaols where these detainees were accommodated. And the Transvaal winter, as you know, Sir, is very severe indeed.

Apparently in the Pretoria Gaol, as far as African detainees were concerned, 30 persons had to use three sinks for washing at one time; two cold showers and only two water borne sewerages are available. No toilet paper was at first supplied to the non-Europeans, later it was. Clothes had to be washed in the showers because there were no facilities for the washing of clothes in the Pretoria Gaol for the non-Whites.

There were particular complaints as far as medical attention for the detainees was concerned. Despite Sections 6 (1) and (2) of the Prisons Act of 1959, and Section 93 of the Prisons Regulations, which lay down certain conditions, it appears that there was no adequate medical, dental or ophthalmic screening on admission to the prisons. Detainees complain that during the period of detention they were permitted to see the prison doctor in his office, but only in the most exceptional cases were they examined and treated and visited by the prison doctor. Non-European detainees alleged that in the Pretoria Gaol, no matter how seriously ill they were, the doctor would not visit them in their cells nor, despite frequent requests, did he examine the unhygienic conditions of their detention. Nor, unless the prisoners were admitted to the prison hospital, did they receive any special diet. Among the non-European detainees in Boksburg and Pretoria it appears there were sufferers from open tuberculosis who were not isolated from the other prisoners; there were diabetics, chronic asthma and ulcer sufferers to be found among the detainees. I personally received a pathetic letter from the wife of one of the detainees who complained that her husband was a chronic asthma sufferer, and despite repeated appeals he had been unable to obtain any medical attention in the gaol.

As far as the food was concerned, all the detainees complained about the quality of the food, the unpalatable way in which it was cooked and the manner in which it was served. Apparently the Johannesburg Fort was particularly bad. The food was served in galvanized iron containers by filthy prisoners who were given no opportunity to wash themselves. It was dished into chipped enamel bowls which afterwards had to be washed in still water as there was no running water provided for the washing of these bowls; without soap and close to the sanitation buckets. Apparently the times of the serving of meals was also a particular complaint of the detainees. Lunch was served at 11.30 a.m. on Sundays and public holidays, and supper at 2.30 p.m., after which time no food or liquid, other than mugs of water, was provided, until the following morning when breakfast was served.

Now these are uncommitted detainees. I referred to them as prisoners but I should have called them detainees all the way through because not one of the persons had been committed or even charged. And certainly, the few who ultimately were charged were never convicted. These were simply detainees who, in many cases, were under conditions very much worse than awaiting trial prisoners. The non-Europeans complained that they were not even provided, originally, with spoons with which to eat their food. Later they were. They say that until the middle of May in Pretoria the food was particularly bad, but it improved after that.

I mentioned earlier, when we were discussing the Justice Vote, the question of the Modder B Gaol at which prisoners were confined under Section 4bis of the Emergency Regulations. I mentioned that the conditions at Modder B were particularly bad. It appears that the cells were greatly over-crowded and that the prisoners slept on tiers of concrete bunks; that there were not enough blankets to go around, no warm clothes, cold showers and no towels. And, as I mentioned before, this was in a period of mid-winter. We know that during last winter while the detainees were at Modder B, 18 pneumonia deaths occurred. I want to mention that in these days of penicillin and antibiotics it is very unusual indeed to find people dying of pneumonia. Modder B is a very old mine compound which was simply converted into a prison to house the thousands of detainees who were arrested under Section 4bis of the Emergency Regulations. Apart from that, these detainees were allowed no privileges during the first four months of their detention. They were not allowed visits by relatives, they were not allowed extra food, cigarettes or any of the other privileges that were allowed the other detainees. Allegations were made that their relatives were not notified when their menfolk were picked up under these regulations and taken off to Modder B. [Time limit.]

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I should just like to reply to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) referred to the question of the policy of de-centralizing penal institutions, especially in the Rand area. I can say that de-centralization has been carried out to a large extent. New buildings have been completed at Vereeniging and others are under construction at Heidelberg and Sasolburg. All short term prisoners are now housed at Modder B and provision is being made at Stoffberg, some 12 miles outside Vereeniging, for 2,000 male non-White prisoners. Sentenced prisoners of all classes are transferred from the Fort as soon as this can possibly be arranged in order to avoid over-crowding. Plans for the separation of awaiting trial prisoners in respect of the various groups will be commenced as soon as possible and it will eventually be possible to surrender the Fort for penal purposes in terms of the undertaking given to the Johannesburg Municipality. But it must be realized that a considerable time will elapse before all this can be finalized.

The hon. member also asked me certain questions about the escape of this prisoner Wanka. Because the old condemned section situated within the Central Prison was overcrowded and lacked adequate facilities for visits by relatives and legal representatives, as also for religious services, a temporary building was erected adjoining the main prison building. Even though this did not provide the same security measures, those condemned to death were transferred there, largely on humanitarian grounds. The facts about the Wanka case are the following. On 25 March this year Wanka shot and seriously wounded Warder Crous, 19 years of age who was on duty in his section. After gaining possession of the keys he made good his escape outside the institution. The alarm was sounded and Wanka was challenged by Captain Fourie whilst running past his house. Despite the fact that Captain Fourie was off duty and totally unarmed, he persisted in his pursuit when fired on at close quarters by Wanka, and ultimately overpowered and arrested him. During the course of the struggle Fourie was unfortunately shot in the shoulder. This officer deserves special mention for his bravery and devotion to duty. Emergency operations were performed on both Crous and Fourie, and I am pleased to say both are now out of danger.

Investigations were immediately instituted by the police and are still being undertaken, and a departmental inquiry was instituted. I sincerely regret to report that one White warder of 18 years of age was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, of which 18 months was suspended, for providing Wanka with a revolver and cartridges.

Dr. FISHER:

How does a young man like that come to be in charge of a death cell?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

A second White warder of 20 has since been arrested and charged with conveying letters written by Wanka, and supplying him with ammunition. He will be tried on 19 April. Since then a Malay woman and her brother have also been arrested as alleged accomplices in the smuggling of the revolver and the ammunition. Because these cases are pending it is not considered advisable to disclose the findings of the departmental inquiry at this stage. All possible steps have been taken to prevent further escapes by prisoners awaiting execution. The employment of young warders is one of the subjects of the inquiry by this committee. The necessary assurance can be given that more senior men will be employed in future, I think that that covers the points made by the hon. members in that particular case.

In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo). (Mr. Oldfield) let me say this. He has asked me whether the remuneration or gratuities for prisoners cannot be increased. All I can say is that our rate of gratuities and remuneration compares very favourably with the rates paid overseas. We must riot forget that these prisoners are undergoing punishment and cannot be paid anything approximating the normal wages.

The hon. member also asked me about the removal of the Roeland Street Gaol. Here, too, the department has embarked upon a policy of de-centralization, as I mentioned in connection with the Witwatersrand. New buildings conforming with all modern standards have been completed at George, Worcester, Robertson, Bien Donne and at 14 outposts. New institutions are now in the planning stage for Pollsmoor and Westlake. They will serve the Wynberg and Simonstown Courts. As soon as suitable building sites are acquired separate institutions will be planned for the Bellville, Somerset West and Strand Courts. On completion of these new awaiting trial institutions, all sentenced prisoners will be transferred to outside stations. Only then will it be possible to demolish the existing Roeland Street buildings.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has put a question to me with regard to a prison at Vaalhartz. He says that there are 1,200 settlers who would use these prisoners if a gaol were erected there. But Vaalhartz is such a peaceful place that I do not know whether the hon. member’s prophecy would prove correct. I can tell him—and he knows this himself—that the Department has given particular attention to the erection of this prison. It is on the list, as he knows, and the matter is being considered. I cannot take the matter further at this stage because there are many circumstances which have to be borne in mind in connection with the erection of a prison. As I have said to the hon. member before, the question of a gaol at Vaalhartz is receiving attention.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has pleaded for a better prison building than the old one which exists in Grahamstown at the moment. At Grahamstown the difficulty is the same as at most of these places where we have these old prison buildings. There is not really a large number of criminals in these places but nevertheless the local people feel that the question of these old prison buildings should be reviewed. I am sorry to have to say this to the hon. member, but the Department informs me that Grahamstown is not one of the places that will receive immediate attention as far as a new gaol is concerned. The position may change later on perhaps, when they produce more criminals, which they would not like to do, of course. But at the present moment I think the hon. member will agree with me that in areas where there is particularly great industrial development, as in the northern Free State, the Government is being inundated with requests to provide accommodation for prisoners. We cannot keep pace with the demand.

I just want to come back for a moment to Vaalhartz. One of the difficulties in connection with a prison there is the question of water for domestic consumption. That is a difficulty which the Department still has to overcome there. How it is to be overcome, we still do not know.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I ask a question which may save time perhaps? Can the hon. the Minister tell us something about the Roeland Street Gaol in Cape Town?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have already explained the position. The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) has pleaded for the gaol in Germiston to be shifted. He complains that the gaol is within full view of the public because it is situated near the centre of the city. I wonder whether that is an adequate reason. I shall ask my Department to go into his request but I wonder whether that reason is an adequate one. I want to repeat what I said a little while ago by way of interjection, and that is that people are under the impression that when a prison is erected, it should be as far removed from the town as possible. But with the fine prison buildings which have been erected in recent times we find that it is not necessary for gaols to be situated far away from the towns. As far as Germiston is concerned I think the complaint that it is within full view of the public is not one which will tip the scale in favour of the erection of a new prison. I just want to tell the hon. member that this matter is receiving attention, but he must remember that if the prison is shifted, the police morgue will also have to be shifted.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Does the Minister not think, since this prison is being used mainly for Natives and there is such a small percentage of Whites there, that I am entitled to ask for this? Secondly, since there are hospital facilities there, I should like to hear whether the police morgue cannot be situated at the hospital.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member must appreciate that my Department is being inundated with requests from people who say that the local prison building is old and that it ought to be changed. It is perfectly natural for such requests to be put forward, but we shall have to exercise patience. The hon. member says that this prison should be erected elsewhere; practically every other town says the same thing. The hon. member says that his town is the fifth largest city in the Union. I can quite understand that they want this, but I do not know where the money is to come from to erect these buildings for which the various towns are asking. However, I shall give my attention to this matter. A few years ago I saw an advertisement which said that within a few years people would no longer say that Germiston is close to Johannesburg but that Johannesburg is close to Germiston. When that time comes the hon. member will probably get his gaol.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) for his friendly words. It is a great encouragement to me and my Department. As far as prisons for women are concerned, I can re-assure the hon. member that the Department has adequate modern prisons for women and that rehabilitative training is also being provided there—at George and Nylstroom for example. I agree that the Klerksdorp prison does not comply with modern requirements, and as soon as the necessary site can be acquired, the question of the erection of a gaol there will be favourably considered.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has raised a few points, the most important of which is that executions should be expedited. My reply is this. I agree. I wish we could expedite capital cases and arrange for executions to take place sooner. It is not human to allow people to sit and wait, frequently for months, for the death penalty to be put into effect. But there are a great many practical difficulties. One of the difficulties which the public often does not bear in mind when they hear of a great delay, is that the condemned person has appealed to the Appellate Division and that his case has to be placed on the roll and heard. The hon. member will realize that this is a matter of considerable difficulty, although not in every case. I shall again ask my Department to see whether it cannot be expedited in some way. Once the case comes to my Department, there is no delay really. But I shall give my attention to this matter because I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member.

Then I come to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux). I did not follow the hon. member very clearly. He wants us to shift these fine prisons that we have built in the Western Province to sites away from the road.

*Mr. G. S. P. LE ROUX:

Those to be built in the future.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This suggestion can be conveyed to the Department but the hon. member knows what the position is in the Western Province in certain centres. These are the places where the local people congregate to take part in sport and to have a game on the tennis court. They become a sort of community centre and I do not know whether that is such a bad thing. If the hon. member’s request were acceded to, it would mean that in the future we would have to build these prisons far away from the roads, and this two-fold object would then not be achieved. Quite a number of officials have to live there; they have their houses there and they have sports facilities there. What happens to-day in that members of the local public come along and take part in sport there. It might not be such a good idea therefore to hide these places by shifting them away from the road. As a matter of fact, the prison buildings at Bien Donne and these other places are so attractive that one is reluctant to hide them. We prefer to let the outside world see how well South Africa treats her prisoners.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has put a question to me in connection with the position at Porterville, where the police apparently have to transfer their prisoners to Paarl, where they are then hired by the local farmers. He would prefer to see such a prison in the neighbourhood of Porterville. But just a short distance from Poterville, as the hon. member knows, there is a farm gaol at Riebeeck. I do not know whether it will be possible—it will have to be investigated—to build an additional gaol at Porterville also because these two places are in such close proximity. The hon. member said by way of interjection that there were no criminals in the Moorreesburg constituency— not as many as in Sea Point. I want to put a question mark behind the comparison made by the hon. member between my constituency and his. He wants to know what the reason is for the increase under sub-head 11 of my Vote. I should like to give him the information. This increase is accounted for by the increased price of commodities, the cost of improved medical services, clothing, equipment and machinery for the rehabilitation centres. It has nothing to do with the conclusions drawn by the hon. member in connection with his own constituency.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) has also raised the question of younger persons who are promoted over the heads of older warders. Let me say that this is a matter which must be viewed, of course, in the light of what is happening in other departments. It is true that the older warders are unable to pass the prescribed examinations. The younger ones pass the examinations and they are then promoted. I have asked my Department to give serious consideration to the question as to whether a percentage of the older warders who have discharged their duties satisfactorily and who do not find it easy to pass the examinations, cannot be promoted every year in spite of not having passed the examination.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has asked a number of questions and make certain observations with regard to the position in the gaols. She mentioned the Fort as an example and said that the treatment there was so bad. She referred particularly to the people who were detained there under the emergency regulations. Well, we must remember that no gaol in the world is a first-class hotel. I want to read out to the hon. member a statement with regard to investigations which were instituted in connection with some of these prisons and the improvements effected there; perhaps it will interest her—

The major portion of Cradock Prison is being utilized for the treatment and care of chronically sick prisoners, especially those suffering from chest ailments. A large portion of the T.B. Hospital at Zonderwater, which is administered by the Department of Health, has been allocated to the Department of Prisons for treatment of prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. At Modder B a large hospital building which can accommodate 250 beds has been equipped to suit modern requirements. This came into use last month. In establishing new prisons, hospital accommodation with modern equipment is included. Existing hospital accommodation at larger institutions such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, Barberton, Baviaanspoort, Zonderwater, Pretoria and Leeukop has recently been equipped on a more modern basis. More than 2.000 prisoners, however, who are seriously ill and in need of special treatment are annually transferred to private and public hospitals. The number of deaths of prisoners, inclusive of those in private and public hospitals, is minimal if it is taken into account that the daily average number of prisoners in custody in the Union’s prisons amount to approximately 54,000. Against this the percentage of deaths amounted to .0019 per cent per day. Special attention has also been given to the general health requirements at several of the older prisons. Waterborne sewerage has been installed at 16 prisons and more are receiving attention. Included in this category are the Fort at Johannesburg and the prisons at Pietermaritzburg, Durban and Durban Point. Washing and bath facilities have been modernized, air conditioning and lighting has been improved, as also cooking facilities. Recreational facilities have been expanded. Eating utensils of prisoners have been improved and great progress has been made with better clothing of all types, classes and races. Other experiments are still in process of completion.
Mr. LAWRENCE:

Is not the difficulty today that a large number of people had to be detained during the emergency regulations, for whom they were not able to make adequate provision?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That may be so, but these improvements will of course help to accommodate more of them—

Unfortunately there have been farfetched Press reports as regards alleged unfavourable conditions in South African prisons during the last year. Malicious and false accusations regarding health conditions and medical services in South African prisons were sent to all conceivable organizations in South Africa and overseas. So distorted and exaggerated were these exaggerations that the Department offered full facilities to a number of organizations to visit the prisons and to satisfy themselves to what extent these reports were true or exaggerated. This offer had the following results:
The Health Committee of the Johannesburg Municipality visited the Fort. All assistance was given to this Committee to have access to any part of the prison. The Committee expressed its satisfaction to find the Fort in such a neat and clean state, in contrast to the exaggerated accusations that had been made. A sub-committee of the Medical Association of South Africa, on invitation, visited the prisons at Johannesburg, Leeukop, Zonderwater (including the T.B. Hospital), Baviaanspoort and Nyl-stroom. They were also invited to visit prisons in the Cape Province. After its visit the committee expressed its pleasure in a report at the excellent medical facilities available to sick prisoners, the quality of food and the high standard of hygiene control maintained. But the Anti-Slavery Society has launched an unbridled attack against “ slavery ” in South African prisons and have come forward with accusations of brutal treatment which has even led to the death of certain prisoners. The Chief Regional Health Officer of the Department of Health in Johannesburg has carried out, on the request of my Department, a thorough inspection of the conditions in the Fort in Johannesburg, with special regard to the fact that this is an old prison in the heart of a very old city where a considerable number of prisoners are detained. He has made certain recommendations to which the Department of Prisons is giving immediate attention. With the establishment of new prison institutions, special care is being taken to maintain the modern standards desired in regard to hygiene and health requirements. The Department is also doing its best to improve conditions in the old prisons by means of alterations and modernization, and where possible, to replace old prisons with new ones. The requirements of the South African Department of Prisons are being fulfilled as far as possible. In any case, a comparison with overseas prisons is more than favourable.

I think that is the reply to the hon. member for Houghton who created the impression that conditions were very bad.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I would like to ask the Minister when the inspections took place by the Medical Association and the other bodies.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

At the end of last year and the beginning of this year.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

May I point out that I referred to conditions during the emergency last year.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The conditions were inspected at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. That was after that period. It may be that the hon. member found conditions worse at that time. I do not know. But I am glad to be able to inform the House about the conditions prevailing there at present.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23—“ Police ”, R38,396,000,

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

It is a great pleasure for me to express appreciation on behalf of this side of the House of the way in which the South African Police have performed their duties under very difficult circumstances during the past year. In the nature of things we have a number of young men in the Police Force to-day whose qualifications are fairly low and whose training was of short duration and it is only to be expected that many of those young men will overstep the mark in certain cases. They are not adults; in many cases they are still mere children. One can understand that there are also black sheep among the police and I do not think one need be unduly worried about it. These persons are properly punished, departmentally and in the circumstances the public is quite satisfied. We must not take too much notice of it therefore.

As I have said before, we can be very proud of the way in which the police act under these difficult conditions in this multiracial country, where they are sometimes in very great danger and provoked. We can be glad that more serious incidents do not occur. But having said that, it does not mean that we have no criticism of the police.

I want to refer to the great reorganization which took place last year. I am not in a position to criticize that reorganization because I am not a policeman, but I cannot help thinking of all the reorganization which the hon. the Minister did in his previous Department. Hardly a year passed without his having organized and reorganized, and he always said that this reorganization was aimed at bringing about greater efficiency, greater striking power and greater mobility. I must say in all honesty that much of this reorganization that took place was like the reorganization that we saw a little while ago in the Broadcasting Corporation … [Interjections.] Much of the reorganization in his previous Department was of such a nature that good men were kicked out of their posts and posts were created for others, and that is something that we cannot tolerate in the police to-day. We are living in difficult and dangerous times and we must make sure that our police organization is of the best quality so that the police will be able to cope with every situation. I hope the hon. the Minister learned his lesson with all the fruitless reorganization in his previous Department and that his reorganization of the police is more efficient.

Then I should like to say a few words about the hon. the Minister’s private secretary as a major in the Police Force. I am the last person who would want to harm or prejudice the hon. the Minister’s private secretary, neither do I wish to cast any reflection on his capabilities, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes what such an appointment means to other police officers.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely this is no new phenomenon.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I shall come to that. A person who has reached the rank of major in the Police Force has had years of service and he is fully acquainted with police duties. I think every person who has reached the rank of major in the police is jealous of that rank. Here we find that the hon. the Minister appoints his private secretary as a major in the Police Force, and he says that the reason for that appointment is that this person is very capable, which we do not doubt; that he had attained senior rank in the Public Service, and that the hon. the Minister could not hold him back by retaining him as his private secretary. We fully agree with that, but is it not a waste of manpower to keep such a senior man in that post? Are there no younger men in the Public Service who can fill that post and thus release this capable senior man for the Public Service? It does not seem to me that it is necessary to have such a senior and capable official occupying the post of private secretary.

The hon. the Minister says that this is not the first time that this has happened, and in reply to a question some time ago he mentioned the name of Major-General de Villiers, who was appointed in General Hertzog’s days. That is quite correct, but we must remember that at that time General Hertzog decided that new blood should be introduced into the Police Force, and whom did he appoint? He appointed a person who had rendered excellent service as a soldier in the war and a person of outstanding personality as well as a lawyer. There is no doubt that this person made a great success of his post as Commissioner. I do not think it is quite fair, therefore, to compare that appointment with that of the hon. the Minister’s private secretary.

Then the hon. the Minister also referred to previous appointments and mentioned the names of Messrs. Kelly-Patterson, Murdock, Lovemore and Meintjies. Well, we all know that at that time the public was becoming perturbed about the large number of motor-car accidents, and there were not many people with the necessary technical background to investigate these cases, and it was for that reason that these men were appointed. They were all people with military experience and with a technical background. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can rely on those appointments to justify this particular appointment.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Will you tell us what the private secretary’s rank was previously?

*Brig. BADENHORST:

I do not know what his rank was.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It is set out in the reply to the question which you have before you. Would it not be fair to disclose that to the Committee?

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I have already said that I believe there are many other capable young men in the Public Service who can hold down this position and that it should not be occupied by such a senior person. [Interjections.] I did not say that this man was not capable.

But there is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the promotion of officers in the Police Force. In reply to a question some time ago the hon. the Minister stated that since June 1960 30 majors had been promoted to the rank of commandant. He went on to say that these 30 had superseded 35 other majors. I cannot imagine that there are 35 majors in the Police Force who deserve to be treated in this fashion. Does the hon. the Minister realize that in promoting these 30 majors he made 35 majors in the force dissatisfied? Can the police afford to make those men, who all occupy very responsible posts, dissatisfied?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Is that unknown in the history of the police?

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

By way of excuse the hon. the Minister tells us that of the 35 who were superseded, 15 were promoted to Lieutenant just after the war without having written the promotion examination. [Time limit.]

*Mr. P. W. DU PLESSIS:

I should like to pay a tribute to our Police Force for the excellent work that they have done particularly in the past year under very difficult circumstances. I would like this evening to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister as well as to the notice of this House.

I want to confine myself to the East Rand and say that the police there are performing a duty which would seem to be almost impossible to the man in the street who is acquainted with the circumstances. I can assure you that the public of the East Rand very greatly appreciate what the police are doing there. But we continually receive complaints, particularly from the Chambers of Commerce, that there is insufficient police protection, particularly against the ever-increasing number of armed robberies which are taking place even in broad daylight on the Witwatersrand, as well as against the type of burglary which is known as “ smash and grab ”. I made careful inquiries on the East Rand and I discovered that it was practically impossible for the Police Force, with the men at their disposal, to cover the whole of the area. However, I want to express my appreciation to the present Minister and those responsible for the administration of the Police Force of the improved conditions which have been created as far as pay and other privileges are concerned. But I want to point out with all due respect that while there has been enormous industrial progress on the East Rand since the last world war, the Police Department has not been able to keep pace with that development as far as police stations and personnel are concerned. During this period huge Native townships have come into existence on the East Rand. I have in mind one on the East Rand, for example, which serves Springs, Brakpan and other towns, namely Kwatema which houses approximately 90,000 to 100,000 Natives. I also have in mind Daveyton, the model Native township in South Africa, which houses thousands upon thousands of Natives. Mr. Chairman, this unparalled progress in the industrial sphere, this huge influx of Natives into those Native townships, has increased the work of the police, and we find to-day that there are some police stations which are understaffed to the extent of 20, 30 and sometimes even more men. They cannot cope with all the work. The police on the East Rand are working themselves almost to a standstill. Although a great deal has been done for the police—I and all those who are interested in them appreciate this—there are two factors which have greatly disturbed me lately. The first is that we continually see advertisements in the newspapers, in which the Rhodesias ask for young men to serve as policemen and in which they offer very attractive rates of pay. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the recruiting which is taking place to-day by the Rhodesias. I am wondering whether they are not going to make the rates of pay that they offer so attractive that we are going to have an even greater shortage of staff in our Police Force. The last point that I want to raise and that I find very disturbing, as someone who has something to do with the administration of justice, is the fact that on the Witwatersrand one finds an unduly large number of names of policemen in the monthly list of civil judgments, which is available to lawyers and business men. I made inquiries and found that policemen on the Witwatersrand who are married and who have a few children are struggling to-day to keep body and soul together. These are not people who are living royally; they are not people who are spending money unnecessarily, but I respectfully submit that with the abnormally high cost of living, which is constantly rising, the police on the Witwatersrand are practically unable to make ends meet on their salaries. I want to plead in particular for the police in the urban areas like the Witwatersrand and the big cities where the cost of living is almost abnormally high. Consideration should be given in the near future to the question as to whether further assistance cannot be given to those people. In the first place it is not a good thing for the policeman and his family that he has to appear almost regularly in a civil court; this sort of thing does not command the respect of people like traders and other businessmen whose properties he has to protect. Mr. Chairman, I do not raise this matter by way of criticism. I have gone into it personally; I have spoken to officers in charge and in most cases they have told me that the policemen who are in financial difficulties are people who are well known to them, but it is simply impossible for those men, humanly speaking, with the food and the clothing that they have to buy for their families, to stay out of the civil court. Their names appear in Dunn’s Gazette and in the list of civil judgments. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and those who are in control of the police very much for what has already been done to improve their position and to make it possible for them to be able to live better, but I say that they are discharging such an important task in South Africa to-day and they are of such vital importance to us as ordinary citizens, that we cannot simply sit back and say that a great deal has already been done for them and that we can leave it at that.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

When my time expired I was referring to the 35 majors over whose heads other people were promoted. I do not know whether the Minister realizes what a serious matter it is to pass over such senior and efficient officers. I cannot believe that there are 35 majors in the police who deserve that. I wonder whether it is not another case such as we have previously had in the Defence Force, where another Minister in future will have to remedy this matter. The Minister gave the excuse that 15 of these 35 majors who were passed over were men who were given commissioned rank and promoted to lieutenants just after the last war. I am sure they are men who rendered good service, but why should they now be penalized 15 years later? Surely that is not right. Is this not just a method by which the Minister wants to squeeze out the Smuts men? [Interjection.] This same Minister who now objects to the fact that at that time 15 men were given commissioned rank without passing examinations is the same man who promoted men in the Defence Force who passed no examinations, and now after 15 years these men are to be penalized. That seems quite wrong to me.

I want to come back to the announcement we saw in the Press a little while ago to the effect that recruits who join the Police Force in future must have a higher standard of education and that their period of training will be longer. I think that is a move in the right direction and an improvement. I think it will result in us getting a better class of recruit than in the past, and that consequently we will have less difficulty in connection with the younger police officials. The fact that the training is extended will also have sound results.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This is one good bit of reorganization?

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I am very glad to be able to say that it is a good improvement. It is what we all looked forward to. We want to give credit where credit is due.

*Mr. HORAK:

We always do that.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I have already said that the police have a very difficult task to perform and I would like to associate myself with what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), and also express my appreciation for the appointment of the new Commissioner. That is another feather in the cap of the Minister. As far as we can see, that Commissioner is bringing about big improvements in the Police Force, and it seems as if he will acquit himself of his task very well. We just hope that the Minister will leave him alone so that he will do his work on his own, and then we will be able to expect good results.

*Mr. GROBLER:

With reference to what has just been said by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) when he referred to the officers who were passed over and eliminated because they were Smuts men, I just want to know from him what sort of man he is,—a Smuts man or a Graaff de Villiers man, and whether those men are still Smuts men or whether they are Graaff de Villiers men. It is very interesting to learn that the hon. the Minister is still passing over Smuts men instead of men who are followers of the new leader of the party. However, I just mention that in passing. The hon. member should tell us whether he is still a Smuts man or a de Villiers Graaff man.

With reference to the reply given by the Minister yesterday to a question which was put to him in regard to the better protection of the borders of Basutoland against stock theft, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to another border. The Minister said that the possible extension of police stations along the relevant borders would be investigated. The long border between my constituency and the Bechuanaland Protectorate also requires close attention. That border stretches from Ramatlabama in the west to the constituency of Waterberg, right to the Matlabas River, almost 200 miles further north. I would like to know from the Minister to what extent he has already devoted attention to the better protection of that important border. There it is not merely a question of stock theft, but also a matter of cattle which are continually crossing and recrossing the border, constituting the threat of spreading foot and mouth disease. We know that the borders are guarded when control measures are applied during an outbreak of this disease. However, that is not enough. An increase in the number of police posts along this border would greatly reduce this threat. Thirdly, we also know how undesirable persons can enter the Union from the Protectorates by crossing this border. We also know that undesirable persons who get into trouble in the Union flee across the borders of Bechuanaland and then find their way to Europe, where they get into the limelight and are regarded as great heroes and then they attack the Union from there. We have had the case of Segal, Reeves, Tambo and others. Better control of that border will therefore have threefold importance, viz. better control of stock theft, better control of foot and mouth disease and better control in order to stop these undesirable persons who slip across the border. I realize that it is practically impossible to guard this border thoroughly because it is bushy and very difficult terrain, but in view of the fact that the enemy is watching us from the north and that the hopes of subversive organizations in the Union are directed towards receiving assistance from the north, it is our duty to guard these borders more vigilantly.

I also want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for North-East Rand in his first speech to-night. I am sorry he is not here now. He said that he had the greatest respect for the Police Force and that they were doing their duty very well. Now I just want to know from him and from hon. members opposite how they reconcile that with what was said by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) yesterday, when he said, inter alia, as it appeared in the Burger

*The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. FAURIE):

Order! The hon. member may not refer to a newspaper report of a speech made during this Session.

*Mr. GROBLER:

Then I shall refer to what he said without quoting the newspaper report. The hon. member for Sea Point said that the police under Col. Terblanche had arrested Kgosana under false pretences. That was a direct accusation against Col. Terblanche, and he considered it to be so serious that he compared it with the incident when Dingaan lured people into a trap under false pretences and murdered them. [Interjections.] The rules prohibit me from quoting his words from the newspaper, but you can refer to Hansard and you will see that he referred to Col. Terblanche and used those very words. He also quoted from the Huisgenoot, from a description given by Col. Terblanche. He directly accused Col. Terblanche and also said that he hoped that the Minister was not a party to that action. It is a direct accusation against the police officials in charge. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) made the same accusation against the Minister, so much so that it is painful to have to listen to the details the Minister had to give to explain that the police had already looked for Kgosana that morning, and that he, as the Minister, had given no instructions, but that he would find out who had given the instructions. How can the hon. member for North-East Rand now tell us that they have confidence in the police? The police have to show the country that we can have confidence in them in such crises as we had on 30 March last year. If doubt is cast on that, it proves that there is no confidence in them. And if veiled attacks are made on the Minister and on high-ranking officers, it proves that there is no confidence in them because a police officer must prove on a day such as that that he can act tactfully and that he is worth his salt.

In so far as I am concerned, Sir, I believe that no questions should be put in regard to how and why and when and the manner in which a person was arrested. When we received a caning at school as children, we dared not complain to our father. He simply did not listen to us. My father said that the teacher had enough intelligence to know why he punished us. I think in that attitude adopted by my father towards us as children lies a lesson to be learnt by the Opposition in regard to the higher officers of the Police Force. We must have confidence and not ask in this House: Why was Kghosana arrested at that very moment and under those circumstances, and we should definitely not compare it with the treachery of Dingaan towards the Voortrekkers. It is a serious insult to the police, who on that day really handled that mass of people tactfully. The fact that they arrested Kgosana that day perhaps obviated further trouble. If they had not done so he would have gone back to Langa and we could have expected further developments. He could have made himself scarce and he could have given further orders from a distance. His motives were serious and he was arrested at the right moment. [Time limit.]

Mr. HUGHES:

The last speaker has once again referred to the Kgosana case and the allegations made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). The case made by the hon. member for Sea Point was simply this that on this particular day when about 20,000 Bantu had come to Cape Town led by Kgosana when there was a state of crisis in the town, the head of the Security Branch was in a quandary as to what he had to do. He himself said in the article which he wrote in the Huisgenoot that he had gone on his knees and prayed for guidance. That proves how dangerous the position was. Somebody then told him that there was a young Bantu, Kgosana, whom he thought would be able to control the crowds. Colonel Terblanche then sent for Kgosana. He came in and was asked what he wanted. His reply was that he wanted to see the Minister. Colonel Terblanche told him that he could not see the Minister with 20,000 people and asked him what he wanted to see the Minister about. According to the Minister and according to Colonel Terblanche he wanted the release of certain prisoners who had been gaoled. Colonel Terblanche then said: All right you take your people home and I will see if I can arrange a meeting. You come back at 5 o’clock with three or four people and I will see what I can do. Kgosana then took his people home. When Kgosana returned that afternoon at 5 o’clock he was told that he could not see the Minister, and the Minister has told us why, but apparently he saw the Secretary for Justice. According to the Minister he told the Secretary the same story as to why he wanted to see the Minister. He was then arrested.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. HUGHES:

He was arrested that afternoon when he came to see Colonel Terblanche.

An HON. MEMBER:

What is wrong with that?

Mr. HUGHES:

What is wrong with that! The whole point is this. The Minister excused the arrest, if I understood him correctly, by saying that he (Kgosana) was never promised that he could see the Minister. All the police officer said was that he would try to arrange a meeting. The point simply is this that he was asked to take the 20,000 people home—you can call them a bodyguard—and he took them home. He was told to come back. The Minister says that the police were in any case looking for him in order to arrest him but that they did not know where to find him. They wanted to arrest him on some charge or other. What we complain about is this, that the police should either have arrested him straight away, if they wanted to arrest him as the Minister said they wanted to, or waited for an appropriate occasion. When they did find him they should have arrested him straight away.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They had been looking for him that morning.

Mr. HUGHES:

The Minister said that they did not arrest him because they could not find him.

Mr. GREYLING:

They could have arrested him that day.

Mr. HUGHES:

That would have been a dangerous thing to do, Sir, and very wisely they did not arrest him. But then they should not have got him to come in without his supporters, thinking that he was going to see the Minister or some other official, and then arrested him. That is the gravamen of the charge against the Minister as to what happened on that day. They arrested this man when he came to Cape Town without his followers, thinking he was coming on a peaceful mission. Had they wanted to arrest him they could have gone out and arrested him where he was. But they should not have used that occasion to arrest him. The Minister says he was not responsible. The Minister says he did not order the arrest. I accept that, but somebody else did. Then it must be a senior police officer, nobody else could have done it. We want to know who ordered the arrest. The hon. member for Sea Point quite rightly contended that it was a breach of faith to do a thing like that, to arrest a man when he had come to Cape Town in the hope that he would see some high official to air his grievances and to ask for the release of those people in gaol. I do not accept the excuse which the Minister has given, namely that they wanted to arrest him in any event. They would not have dared to arrest him when he was there with all those people, that crowd of 20,000. Quite rightly so, had they done so they would have been looking for trouble. But then they should not have got him to come back in the hope that he would see the Minister. That was what the hon. member for Sea Point complained about, not that the Minister did not see him on a promise to see him. The Minister said no promise was given to see him. Colonel Terblanche also says that no promise was given. We do not know what Kgosana says; he is not here at the moment. The accusation at the time was that he had understood that he was going to see the Minister.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

As far as South Africa is concerned Kgosana’s case is sub judice.

Mr. HUGHES:

I accept that, and I have said that I accept the facts as set out by the hon. the Minister. But even accepting those facts it was a blunder to arrest that man under those circumstances, and none of the interjections from that side of the House have helped the case at all. Not one hon. member opposite has justified the arrest under those particular circumstances. We must realize what damage has been done to race relations. [Interjections.] It is no good shouting. Damage has been done. Kgosana and the other Bantu leaders have told their people that they cannot accept the word of the White man. They come to parley and they are arrested. That was the complaint of the hon. member for Sea Point that damage had been done in this particular instance. As much as members opposite may shout and as much as they may interject they cannot get away from the fact that damage has been done. There is a distrust now on the part of the Bantu of the White man, and unfortunately senior police officers are involved in it. The Bantu must at all costs be kept on friendly terms with the police force.

Mr. GREYLING:

At all costs?

Mr. HUGHES:

Don’t you agree? Surely, Sir, the Government and the police must do all they can to see that they are kept on friendly terms with the Bantu. Actions of this type will not create confidence amongst the Bantu in the White man; certainly not. [Time limit.]

*Mr. M. J. H. BEKKER:

With reference to what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has just said, I want to ask him how he suggests Kgosana should be arrested? Should he, according to the hon. member, be notified in some way that the police want to arrest him, thereby giving him a chance to escape? Should he have been given more time in which to do what he has now done, namely, to flee the country and go overseas? If Kgosana had committed no crime there would have been no reason for him to flee the country and go overseas. I just want to state that the Minister has effectively replied in regard to the Kgosana case, and it is quite clear that the Opposition does not want to accept his explanation. Therefore I do not see the necessity for clarifying the position, any further. I will leave the matter there.

With reference to the example given this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), I want to say that it is also my duty, in the same way in which he protected the language closest to his heart, to protect the language closest to mine, hence the fact that I want to come back to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). This hon. member referred to how the senior members of the Police Force should set an example to the younger members. It is therefore quite clear to me why that hon. member feels so uneasy as far as the hon. the Minister and the Department of Defence are concerned, because when he was a junior officer in the army instead of setting an example to the younger men, he did just the opposite.

Sneering and reproachful reference was made to the reorganization with which the Minister is busy in this Department and the greater efficiency which would result from it. I want to prove that the necessary measures have been adopted by the hon. the Minister and that there is indeed greater efficiency at present than there was in the Police Force before under the United Party Government. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1948, there was 1.73 policemen for every 1,000 inhabitants of the country, and on the other hand there were 92 convictions per 1,000 inhabitants. At the moment, according to the 1959 report, it is 1.74, only .01 more police per 1,000 inhabitants and there are 118 prosecutions per 1,000 inhabitants—an increase of 26 convictions per 1,000. That is ample proof that the South African Police Force has been more effectively used in the interest of South Africa, and its people and that can only be done by way of better methods and reorganization of the Department, as envisaged by the Minister.

The hon. member also referred to the appointment of Maj. Barnard, the private secretary of the hon. the Minister. He mentioned the four persons who in the early days were transferred to the police and insinuated that that was done because at that time there were not men in the Police Force capable of performing that particular duty. I want to say, with respect, that the hon. member’s information is not accurate. It was for other reasons because there are still some of those persons who serve in the Police Force to-day, by performing ordinary police duties and not in regard to accidents as alleged by the hon. member. Now he talks about Smuts men, to wit, 30 majors who were overlooked in the recent promotions. He knows as well as any hon. member of this hon. House does that members of the Police Force in those ranks are mainly promoted on merit, and nobody in this House or in the country would like to see a weak member of the force being promoted solely on seniority whilst somebody who is better equipped than him is not promoted. We must respect the merit system and it must be carefully extended further and in this more effective organization of the Minister which we welcome, the best brains must be utilized for the benefit of the force and in the interest of South Africa.

At 10.25 p.m. the Temporary Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 21 April.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.