Before I call upon the next speaker, I want to refer to an incident which took place last night during the discussion of the Coloured Affairs Vote when I sharply called the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) to order because I was under the impression that he was trying to indicate his disapproval of the action of the Chair by a facial expression. The non. member came to see me and assured me that that was not the position at all. I accept his assurance and I want to express my regret if I have done him an injustice.

Last night the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asked if I wanted all the police to be matriculated, and he said that there was nothing wrong with the present educational standard of the Police Force. Of course I never suggested that all the police should be matriculated, but surely it must be to the advantage of any department to get better educated men in the department, and I did not want to cast any reflection on the police as such to-day because they are not all matriculated: All I was pointing out was that the conditions in our service did not compare favourably with the more congenial conditions in other departments of the Government service, and I therefore suggested that the service should be made more attractive. But at any rate, I do not wish to continue on those lines. Other hon. members are going to deal with the conditions in the Police Force. I only wanted to make it clear what I intended to convey.

Now the hon. member for Heilbron also wanted to know what I suggested to reduce the crime rate, and he said that it was not the duty of the police to prevent crime. I am rather surprised to hear that. Surely, part of the duty of any Police Force must be to prevent crime. I said that there were social problems which might be responsible for a great deal of the crimes which are committed, but that happens in every other country. They all have their social problems. I only wanted to know what the Minister was doing as head of the Department, to see that the police were playing their full part in preventing crime, and I mentioned among other things a better system of beat service. I also asked the hon. the Minister to relieve the police of extraneous duties. I mentioned petty apartheid duties, which take up so much of their time, creating hostility from other race groups towards the Police Force. Sir, in connection with the extraneous duties, I would like to point out that the last police report for the year ending 30 June 1963 (the report of the Commissioner of the South African Police) mentions that in six months approximately 286,749 hours—that is about 24,000 24-hour working days—were devoted to extraneous duties, such as prosecuting . . . Sir, I have always contended that the police should not be prosecuting; they only do it in the smaller towns, and as far as possible they should be relieved of those duties, because it is wrong that the police should be prosecuting in their own case. Then the report mentions: “Excise, registration of citizens, protection duties of state deeds, taking of agricultural census, services in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, naturalization, tax, tracing of certain types of debtors and taxpayers”. You have a multitude of extraneous duties which I say do not properly belong to the Police Force, and therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to rid them of these duties and to civilianize the force as much as possible.

I was dealing with the system of legal aid which is given in Britain, when my time expired last night. I pointed out that in England a man who wishes to sue, or who is being sued, approaches a board and states his case. The board then decides whether he has a case or not to meet. If he has, he is sent to an expert who gives him a means test, and this expert decides what amount the man can pay towards his own costs, and this amount he pays either in a lump sum or in installments. The scheme there is open to everybody with a disposal income of less than £700 (Rl,400) or capital of less than £500 (R 1,000). So you will see that the assistance is given much more freely than is our legal aid or forma pauperis assistance given in this country. Sir, when the two bodies have dealt with the case, it then goes to a counsel and attorneys who charge normal fees for doing their work—they do not do their work for nothing as is the case in South Africa; the attorneys and the barrister then charge their normal fees, except for 15 per cent which goes to the legal aid fund. Mr. Justice Jennet, Sir, gave two reasons why this scheme should be considered in this country. The first was that it compels everybody who can to pay the amount he is able to pay towards having his case undertaken, and secondly, it prevents prejudice in that everybody has his cause undertaken. Yesterday I pointed out, Sir, that the great majority of the people were being prejudiced in South Africa in that they could not afford the cost of litigation, and it is only the very poor and the very rich who are able to take full advantage of our system of justice. Sir, under our system if in forma pauperis proceedings are on the borderline and the court fails to give leave to sue as a pauper, because the case is on the borderline, then because he is unable to pay the full fee, he is unable to have his cause undertaken. Naturally, the scheme cannot operate without State aid. In Britain, according to Mr. Jennet, the annual cost is £5,000,000. He estimates that in this country it would cost us Rl,000,000, or even less, and he suggested that the profession should give say 25 per cent of the fees towards the Legal Aid Fund, instead of the 15 per cent given in Britain. He did not suggest that the time was ripe to apply it to all criminal matters.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this scheme. I raised it when Mr. Erasmus, his predecessor, was in office and he was quite interested then, but took no steps to have an inquiry made as to whether it could be applied in this country. I know that the Van Winsen Commission was appointed to go into the question of the cost of litigation, to meet this very problem with which we are faced in South Africa, and with which they are faced in nearly every other country, but I suggest, Sir, that the Van Winsen recommendations have made no difference to the cost of litigation. In fact, in one instance by suggesting pre-trial conferences it has put up the cost slightly, because now the attorneys have to brief counsel before the pre-trial conference to ascertain what line should be taken. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the Van Winsen recommendations have made no appreciable difference to the cost of litigation, and in fact civil cases are not coming forward in any greater number than they did before. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission or a committee to inquire into the English system and to see if it cannot be applied here. It has this advantage too, Sir, that at present the lawyers have to do the work for nothing, whereas in England they are paid to do the work. They are not in any way reluctant here to do the work under legal aid. There are about 100 legal firms on the panel giving free legal aid where it is requested, but obviously, if they were paid there would be more incentive to do this work.

I want to deal with another matter. I say that the Minister’s duty is to see that crime is prevented and detected. The hon. Minister does not show the same enthusiasm, I submit, in dealing with ordinary crime as he does in tackling political crime or offences. Sir, this Minister has taken more and more powers unto himself. He got a lot of powers when he took office, he has taken more powers since then in dealing with subversive elements, and he has given notice to-day of Bills to amend the Communism Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, and I take it he is going to take further powers because he has warned us at the beginning of the Session . . . [Time limit.]

I am very pleased that the hon. the Opposition is adopting a different attitude towards the police. I came to that conclusion last night after having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). In the past members of the Opposition have made speeches in which they have attacked the police and reviled them . . .

Where? Give examples.

I can give many examples. I do not really want to refer to this but 14 days ago the police were attacked for not having used their discretion in granting bail to a certain person. I think of the Bultfontein case two years ago and how hon. members of the Opposition reviled the police in general. But last night, and throughout the Session, we have noticed a change in their attitude, not only towards the police but towards all officials. To-day they are pleading for increased salaries and improved conditions of employment. Why do they do that? Simply because there is a general election next year. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said last night that we should make friends of the police. Sir, we on this side of the House are the friends of the police. Why should we make them our enemies? We have always been their friends and the pleas of the Opposition, that the police must become their friends, will not at this stage meet with any success.

The hon. member said further that neither the Minister nor the police were doing anything in order to combat crime. That is another example of a direct grievance against the police. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron that it is not the duty of the police to combat crime. They are there to maintain order and when a person has committed an offence they have to see to it that he is brought to justice. It is the duty of every individual to prevent crime and the police are also members of the public. That is the duty of everyone of us. I do not want to go into the increase in the incidence of crime because throughout the world you find, unfortunately, that the incidence of crime has increased as never before. You have the youthful criminals in England. We know what is happening there and what they are doing: They smoke hemp and that sort of thing which causes them to become reckless and it is then that they commit crimes. It is not the fault of the Minister or of the Government that the incidence of crime has increased, as suggested by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories.

I also want to say a few words about the high cost of litigation to which the hon. member has referred. I am not sure whether he was only referring to civil cases or not because he did not make that clear. Has he in mind that people who have committed criminal offences and who cannot afford it should also be defended free of charge?

Yes.

How do you reconcile those two? On the one hand he accuses the Minister and the police of not doing anything to combat crime but on the other hand he wants those people who are brought to justice by the police to be defended free of charge so that they can be discharged and do the same thing.

But they are getting it at the moment.

In any case, the hon. member says that, in respect of civil cases, the majority of people cannot go to court because of the high costs involved. I differ from him. We in the Transvaal often appear pro Deo for people. We follow a certain procedure in the Transvaal. When somebody explains to the Registrar of the court that he cannot afford it the Registrar simply telephones an attorney and tells him to take such a person’s case. And he does so. Then you have the further procedure of in forma pauperis. I do not know whether that is also the position in the Cape Province but that is the position in the Transvaal in any case. It often happens that a person institutes a civil action but he has no money. In such a case he submits a petition to court in which he states that he has a good case and that he stands a reasonable chance of winning it. The case can then be conducted in forma pauperis in court, in other words, without the payment of any fees.

What is the means test?

There is no means test.

Of course there is.

They only have to prove that they do not have the necessary money. If the allegation were correct that the poor man cannot go to court, which I doubt very much, and that we should give him the chance of going to court, the courts would be heavily overburdened with work. I think of women who are neighbours. They have a fight, defamatory words are used and the next morning or within five minutes perhaps they are at the attorney and a summons is issued. That person is usually without money and makes a claim. If they were allowed to go to court with every case our courts would be swamped with work. I want to point out further that our courts—I am referring especially to the Transvaal—do not have a great deal of work as far as civil cases are concerned because I think about 90 per cent of the cases are settled.

Why?

Because the people understand . . .

Because they cannot afford it.

No, that is not correct. Even those people who can afford it are wise and they settle. You no longer find those long rolls to-day. I agree with the hon. member in one respect only and that is that certain duties which rest on the police should not rest on them. I do not agree with everything the hon. member has said. Recently, for example, within a distance of less than a mile there were three traffic accidents in Pretoria and at each of those accidents four policemen were taking measurements. In the one case a traffic policeman was busy, just on the other side of the street, writing out a parking ticket. I think that in municipalities where there are traffic constables they should be responsible for that work; they should take the measurements. As I have said, in this case 12 police constables were dealing with accidents within a distance of a mile. They could have been doing other important work, nor do I think they are sufficiently trained in that direction. It is the duty of the municipalities to see to that. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to this and if he would instruct the municipalities to attend to this sort of thing in future.

Recently I had occasion to go to the magistrate’s court here in Cape Town to see a magistrate. They say comparisons are odious but, when I compare this court with the one at Pretoria, I do not think what is happening here is any credit to the Department of Justice. There is general confusion and everybody uses the same witness box. You really do not see any evidence of our policy of apartheid. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to the local magistrate’s court. I spoke to the magistrate about it and he said they simply did not have the accommodation. It is such a mix-up that you do not know who is who. There are no separate witness boxes, and no benches for Whites and non-Whites. I should be grateful if the Minister would go into this.

Then I want to return to my constituency. A few years ago I asked the Minister for a police station in my constituency. I want to point out that Capitol Park is one of the suburbs of my constituency and there is no police station. The urban area has no police station. The nearest police station, the Gezina police station, is five miles away from the one corner.

Recently somebody who lived on the border wanted to make a complaint. He telephoned the police station next door but was informed that they could unfortunately not assist him; that he should get in touch with the Gezina police station. An hour elapsed before they could send a constable to investigate the complaint. A great deal can happen in an hour, Sir, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to erect a police station in the centre of Capitol Park. That will be of great assistance as far as crime in that area is concerned. [Time limit.]

May I claim the second half-hour? I have a number of matters to take up with the hon. the Minister, largely arising out of the statement which I made earlier this year, where I accused the hon. the Minister of abusing his powers, the powers he had taken under various Acts, and I wish now to substantiate my charge. I might say right away that the measures on the Statute Book are themselves of course an abuse of the rule of law.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on legislation.

Then I shall say that there are measures on the Statute Book which allow the Minister to detain people without trial, to ban people without trial, to detain them in prison after they have served their sentence, to put people under house arrest without ever bringing them to a court of law and duly having them tried and convicted. It is in terms of these laws that I wish to make certain comments.

I want to start off immediately by examining some of the powers the Minister has used to ban people under the Suppression of Communism Act, and I want to quote immediately the celebrated cases of the two university professors, Professors Roux and Simons. Both these men have been banned by the Minister and their bans encompass the widest possible restrictions. They are confined to magisterial districts. They are unable to enter university or educational institutions or factories; they may not attend social gatherings or political meetings and, worst of all, they may not even prepare for publication any work involving their own particular academic field. The widest possible bans have been inflicted on these two men without one iota of evidence being adduced by the Minister. The case of Professor Roux, I think, is known to everybody in this House. He was the Professor of Botany at the Witwatersrand University. He has been teaching there since 1946. He resigned from the Communist Party years before it was banned, in 1936, and he has never been a member of a political party since. He has devoted himself to his botany studies and the biggest scientific association in the country has in fact made public its intention to approach the hon. the Minister at least to release this man’s academic work for general use. I believe that the hon. the Minister has now generously released one such book. “Plant Physiology in S.A.” is not considered dangerous reading for the students in South Africa! South Africa has been deprived of the use of a man of science who was outstanding in his field. The university staff and students protested at his banning. The Minister has not given us any reason whatever as to why he has thought fit to impose this ban on Professor Roux, and one can only assume that it was because he used to edit a journal called The Rationalist. There is no apparent other reason why he was banned.

As far as Professor Simons is concerned, we have a little more evidence from the Minister because he gave us the benefit of his views in a newspaper interview. Professor Simons in fact was a member of the Communist Party right up to the time when the party was banned, in 1950. To the best of my knowledge, the Minister has had 15 years to bring this man before a court of law and to try him under the very wide definition of “Communism” given in that Act, but he has not been involved in any political activities of a subversive kind since that time. He is also a world renowned expert in his particular field. He has been teaching for 27 years at the University of Cape Town. The University Council, the principal, the staff and the students protested against his banning. He has now left the country because he was offered and has taken up an appointment at a large university in England in the field of African government, which is of course his particular study. He is now at Manchester University. The evidence brought by the Minister, or at least the evidence he has seen fit to publicize, has been that Professor Simons had some association with C.O.D. My information is that he had no such connection. Secondly, that he was a member of the Friends of the Soviet Union, but so were a lot of other people. It was perfectly legal to be a member of the Friends of the Soviet Union. I can think of renowned statesmen such as the late Mr. Hofmeyr who was a member of it. I understand that the other charge of the Minister is that Professor Simons had something to do with the Peace Union, which I know nothing about. I understand it is an organization for protection against nuclear warfare. But of course the real charge the Minister had was that this professor apparently had the impertinence to deliver a valedictory address in honour of a young man, who was a professed communist when he died, Mr. Lionel Forman. Apparently all this gave an overwhelming weight of evidence that Professor Simons should be banned. Some article was quoted by the Vaderland as proof of lectures given by Professor Simons to encourage revolution in this country. Well, I have read that whole lecture and as far as I can see it is simply an analysis of the power structure in South Africa, and if that is considered subversive material, all I can say is that any idea of academic freedom and the free exchange of political thoughts in this country is dead, if that sort of thing is considered as propaganda encouraging students to take part in subversive activities. I suppose the Minister will say that there were members of this man’s department who were subsequently found guilty of sabotage, but that is not this professor’s responsibility. He had no knowledge of their actions in this regard and indeed, he was one of the strongest and most public voices against the use of violence.

They all say that.

That is my one charge against the Minister, his abuse of the powers he has to ban people. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think he is also abusing his powers in regard to the banning of members of the Liberal Party against whom he has adduced not one iota of evidence, certainly in a court of law, and he has many powers under which these people could be charged with engaging in subversive activities. I cannot mention all the cases, but to the best of my knowledge, up to the present no fewer than 33 leading members of the Liberal Party have been placed under severe restrictions by the Minister, and he has given us no information as to why he has done this. I will mention just a few. [Interjection.] Why should he? Because this is a country supposedly following normal procedures of law, one would think, and one of the fundamental concepts is that a man shall not be found guilty unless he has been charged in a court of law.

Tell us about the 20 cents.

The hon. member for Heilbron, who professes to be trained in law, and the hon. professor of law over here, should not need to be told this by me because I am not trained in law. I was dealing with the members of the Liberal Party. I can name only a few in the limited time at my disposal. What, may I ask, has the Minister specifically got against David Craighead? To the best of my knowledge this man is a law-abiding citizen. He has in the past written many strenuous articles against Communism. When he used to write for the Catholic Journal he used to write long articles, of which the hon. the Minister would have been proud, I am sure, to acknowledge as his own, so lucidly condemnatory were they of Communism. Now this man is banned, ironically enough, under the Supression of Communism Act. I should like the Minister to tell us about other respectable citizens who have also fallen under this ban and who are well known to many people in this country, like Mr. Peter Brown, the Hainses of Pretoria, Mr. Zacken of Cape Town, Mr. Aitcheson of Durban. These are people who have all been banned by the Minister, and there are many others. It is impossible for me to mention all their names. The Minister tells us they are furthering the aims of Communism, but he does not tell us what they are doing and he does not have the courage to charge these people in the courts of law, so that an objective and independent court may examine the Minister’s opinion and see whether there is indeed anything in it that would hold water.

I want to know also about all the other intimidation that goes on, such as of NUSAS? All these big pronouncements by the Minister about NUSAS are purely intimidation. A handful of students were found guilty of being involved in sabotage and subversive activities, out of thousands upon thousands of members of NUSAS. Some of the persons who were found guilty were originally members of NUSAS. Three or four of them played a leading part in NUSAS. Does this condemn the entire organization? Why do the Minister and some of the hon. members opposite go around the country making these intimidating speeches against a students’ organization, which by and large behaves in a perfectly proper fashion? I call that blatant intimidation, and I call it an abuse of power by the Minister of Justice. I might mention that if some of these laws which have been made retrospective, had been made retrospective not to 1950 but to 1940, some of the Minister’s best friends might find themselves behind bars today, because we had students active during the war years, students from Pretoria University and Stellenbosch University and other universities, and we had organizations such as the Ossewa-Brandwag, which organized sabotage. [Interjections.] The Minister should have made his Act retrospective, since he has no objection to retrospective legislation, although I do as a matter of principle, to 1940, and he could have caught himself a larger bag, and some of them would have included his own best friends. What has the Minister done about an organization known as the K.R.A., The Kenya Refugees’ Association? This organization has been leaving its calling cards all over the place, shooting into houses, damaging motor cars, and in fact on some occasions the lives of people have been jeopardized by this organization. As far as I know, not one official step has been taken against that organization. Why is this vigilant Minister and his equally vigilant police not busy doing something about this organization against which charges have been laid? Just recently another car was damaged and a life might have been jeopardized as the result of it and nothing has been done by the police. But when it suits the Minister he is as busy as a bee. His Security Branch men will be found sitting in symphony concerts and at perfectly lawful political meetings and they will be found arriving at protest meetings, making themselves highly conspicuous, taking notes and names and the numbers of motor cars, but when charges are laid against organizations we hear nothing further. If charges are laid against the K.R.A. we hear nothing further about it. I should like a little vigilance to be shown in that direction because I cannot assume that the Minister approves of individuals taking the law into their own hands to punish other people with whose political views they do not happen to agree.

Now let me say something more about these banning orders. I have mentioned only the cases so far of the Liberal Party and Professors Roux and Simons. I do not know how many people in the Republic are at the moment subject to banning orders. I wonder whether the Minister knows exactly how many they are, because banning orders recently have been issued at such a rate that they are falling like the autumnal leaves. One newspaper said that there were 260 people banned as at the beginning of August last year, and banning orders were then being issued at the rate of about a dozen a month. The rate has been considerably stepped up since then, particularly since the courts have been acquitting people on security charges. Now this is another great abuse of power. Where the courts have tried and acquitted people of any guilt, the Minister steps in and imposes a ban. These are people who have actually been tried and acquitted, but the Minister then comes along and bans them. I will give him an example. There is the case of Loza, who was placed under house arrest. I have cases of many who have been placed under banning orders. There is a man who was placed under 24 hours’ house arrest after the courts had tried and acquitted him and after he had won his appeal. But the Minister stepped in the next day or the next week and placed him under 24 hours’ house arrest. So what the courts cannot do the Minister can do. He decides in his own mind that these people are guilty and places them under house arrest or he bans them.

Last year in January the Minister gave me an undertaking that he would produce a consolidated list of bannings, and he agreed with me then that it was necessary to have such a consolidated list, particularly as anything that banned people say may not be quoted by the Press or printed anywhere and therefore it was necessary to protect people against infringement of this restriction. Now the promised list which I discussed with the Minister in January last year finally appeared on 6 November 1964, and then it was consolidated only up to 30 April 1964. It therefore took the Minister’s Department six months to work out these bannings up to 30 April 1964, and he then told us that there would be no further consolidated lists because preparation of the notice had taken such a long time that he said he would not be prepared to encumber his Department again with such a task. I think that is an impertinence on the part of the Minister. He bans people and does not give us any list. We have to follow the newspapers religiously to find out who is banned. The Press has to be extremely careful because they cannot publish anything said by a banned person. Although these names were tabled and I could go and sit in the office of the Clerk of the Papers and rustle through these papers, I also have other things to do, and I should think it is the duty of the Minister to compile these lists and to make them available so that anybody can see them, because banning is not an insignificant matter at all. It condemns the recipient to a kind of twilight life where he is cut off from all normal life.

It serves them right.

“It serves them right,” says this professor of law, condemning a person who has never been tried and has never been convicted. [Interjections.]

Now let me say something about this question of house arrest. When house arrest was first imposed in this country, the Minister said he could not envisage any more drastic powers, but I do not think a year passed before he had to take more drastic powers, like 90 days’ detention; and while I am on the subject of 90 days’ detention I do not want to let this opportunity pass without again registering my profound disapproval of that law and the way it was implemented, those incessant and repetitive periods of solitary confinement, three months, six months and nine months. There are cases of people who were in solitary confinement for six months and more. It is mental torture, standing interrogations which are allegedly carried out, and in regard to which I can go no further at present since there are certain cases pending in the courts of law. I would like the Minister to tell us that he is satisfied that these standing interrogations did not take place under the 90 days’ law where a man is cut off from the world, cut off from the protection of the courts, is unable to see counsel, and in fact to all intents and purposes is incarcerated in solitary confinement.

Now let me come back to this question of house arrest. Again where the courts have discharged people the Minister has stepped in and has put them under house arrest. Prager was acquitted by the court, but the Minister put him under 24-hour house arrest. He was tried and acquitted. Loza, who was acquitted on appeal, is under 24-hour house arrest. He has recently been allowed 14 days in which to seek a job. I presume that if he finds a job, the Minister will consider then reducing his sentence from 24 hours to 12 hours, since otherwise how can he take up the job? The Minister gave an undertaking in a Press interview to the Sunday Express in which he promised that house arrest would not be used to deprive people of the opportunity of earning a living. Can the hon. member tell me how anybody under 24-hour house arrest can earn his livelihood? What is he to do? Does he stitch mailbags at home and sell them to the Post Office in competition with the Prisons Department? How can anybody under 24-hour house arrest earn a living? And there are several people who are under 24-hour house arrest. Now let me take the case of Helen Joseph. She is entering the third year now of her house arrest and has to spend every night of her life and every week-end and every public holiday in solitary confinement. She has been tried twice on political charges and on both occasions she was acquitted, but again the court’s findings are not good enough for the Minister and he has placed her under house arrest and she is now entering her third year. And she is of course confined under the Suppression of Communism Act, but interestingly enough, during the recent sabotage trial in Pretoria certain evidence was led concerning Mrs. Joseph. In the course of his evidence the famous Mr. Ludi read from a report made by him to the Security Branch in regard to a conversation between him and one of these people. I am reading from the court record. He said—

She. . .

That is somebody else, not Mrs. Joseph—

Under cross-examination Ludi was asked, “How would you interpret ‘very anti-family’?” To this he replied: “Very anti-communist.” To the question: “What did you find difficult to believe, that she is anti-communist?”, he replied: “No, that she is a pro-British imperialist.” In evidence one of the Minister’s own Security Branch men said that he believed that she was very anti-communist, yet she is still confined under house arrest, and I think it is high time that the Minister reviewed cases like this and started releasing people from the dreadful restrictions of house arrest, people who are detained without trial and some of whom have already been acquitted by the courts.

Where is Abraham Fischer?

Perhaps the Minister should ask the hon. member for Cradock. There are also other people who have been deprived of the opportunity to earn a living because they are under house arrest and I think this is an abuse of the powers the Minister took and it is an abuse in terms of the undertaking the Minister gave in an interview of 11 November 1962, shortly after the house arrest clause had come in. If the Minister reviews the imposition of having to report every single day, these people would be relieved, because it is really a great hardship to them. If they forget to report they can get a compulsory sentence, which is suspended, but it hangs over their heads, and I think this was not even something which was contemplated in the law when it was framed. I bring that to the Minister’s attention.

Now I come to the abuse of the powers allotted to the police by the Minister, who of course must take responsibility for everything. There is this question of people held for long periods and then being found not guilty and discharged. What can cause this delay? People are kept in gaol for six months or nine months, and in some cases for over a year, before they are finally brought to court, and then many of them are discharged. Now the Minister gave figures to me in this House in reply to questions concerning the numbers of people arrested, detained, and charged and subsequently found guilty or not guilty on charges under the security laws. I think the figures reveal a state of affairs which is without parallel in any other civilized country. For 1963 and 1964 a total of 3,605 people were arrested and held on security charges. Of these, 1,167 were released without trial because there was not sufficient evidence, evidently, on which even to base a charge. I am not talking about 90-day detainees, although of course some of them subsequently came into these figures because they were charged and then released, because the courts could not find any evidence against them. Of this 1,167 who were released without trial, 188 were held for longer than three months, 27 for more than six months, and two for more than nine months. In one of these cases, in fact, a man was held for 19 months. He was arrested in May 1963 and released without trial in December 1964, and he was in prison for 19 months while the Minister’s special police hunted for evidence on which to charge this man and failed to do so. This is the case of Tommy Charlieman, of Uitenhage. Of those who were finally brought to trial, many had been kept in prison for an inordinate length of time before being brought to trial, one man for 17 months. That is the case of Stanley Mabizela, of East London. Nine men have been held for 1(H months. That is the case tried at Goodwood last year, and one man was held for six days short of a year, the Loza case. Then there is the case of the nursing sister in Port Elizabeth, Sister Mpendu, who was arrested in March 1964 and was still in gaol in March 1965. I think she has now been brought to trial under the Suppression of Communism Act. Of those brought to trial, 65 were acquitted and were found not guilty, and I might say that the views expressed by some of the Judges who tried these cases should be brought to the attention of the Minister. Mr. Justice Bressler, in quashing the charges against eight men at the Rand Criminal Sessions, said that “the State should not go on fishing expeditions,” and Mr. Justice de Wet, in a sabotage trial in the Transvaal, said this—

and I hope the professor of law here and his junior counsel on the next bench will listen—

There are at least 31 cases where persons were released and then re-arrested. In 21 of these cases they served a further period of solitary confinement under the 90-day clause. In other words, persons were charged and they were released since no charges could in fact be proved against them, and then they were re-arrested by the Minister’s special police and put in solitary confinement. If this is not an abuse of power, then I do not understand the meaning of the words.

The Minister keeps telling us that the innocent have nothing to fear. Well, they have nothing to fear except being kept in prison for months on end while the police try to build up a case against them. That is all they have to fear, and as I say, when the courts have acquitted them, they still get re-arrested.

In the few minutes left to me I want to raise one other matter. I hope to be able to come back later to discuss the whole question of prisons regulations and political prisoners with the Minister, but that is a separate subject. It is not an abuse per se, so I did not bring it into this section, but I have a lot to say about the way in which people have been kept in prison and our prison regulations.

I again want to raise the case of Sobukwe. He has now entered the third year of his imprisonment on Robben Island. This man’s prison sentence expired over two years ago, but in terms of the General Laws Amendment Act the Minister kept him in detention. At one stage he considered giving him an exit permit when it was applied for, but then he denied him the right to leave the country. Sobukwe served three years for incitement—not for sabotage or for treason, or any of the major crimes of that nature, but for incitement. It is true that he was the head of the P.A.C., with whose political views, aims and objects I disagree entirely, but when the major trouble arose, the Poqo and other troubles which were identified with the P.A.C., Sobukwe had already been in gaol, and I presume that if a man is on Robben Island he cannot cook up Poqo plots and therefore he can in no way be held responsible for that. I daresay the Minister has received, as other people here might have received, a document from outside the country purporting to come from the P.A.C. and demanding his release. I am not interested in that. My request on behalf of Sobukwe is in the interests of ordinary justice, that no man should be held after he has served his sentence for the crime of which he was duly convicted, unless he commits a crime again. That is my way of looking at this matter and I think the Minister owes it to the country and to the people who care about justice to let us know why he is still detaining this man in gaol. I had a letter from his wife and she asked among other things whether I would inquire . . .

Why did she write to you?

Because I am a person who takes up these cases. If that hon. member were in any trouble with the Security Police, he might also think of approaching me. I am one of the few people who bother to go and see the Minister about these cases. It may be that I am being used by people, but I have to use my own judgment in these matters and my judgment is a simple one. When people have been convicted in the courts, I have nothing further to say, but I have a lot to say when the Minister goes outside the courts of law.

In this letter from Mrs. Veronica Sobukwe, she asked me to ask the Minister how long it is intended to keep him on the island, whether in view of his conduct and his health it would not be possible at least to transfer him to a place of detention on the mainland.

Why?

Because she lives in Johannesburg, at Moroka, and she works at a clinic to feed her children and herself. It is extremely expensive for her to come down here and go to Robben Island to see her husband. She has been here a couple of times at great cost. I am dead against the Minister keeping a man in gaol after he has served his sentence, because it is in conflict with all the normal principles of law, but he should at least make it possible for this woman to visit her husband at frequent intervals. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to-day literally bubbled over with grievances and I do not wish to follow her along those lines; in fact, I have not the time to do so. But what struck me is that she is so au fait with all these leftists. I am surprised that she does not know where Abraham Fischer is, and I wonder whether she does not know it, and will not be surprised if she keeps silent about it if she in fact knows it.

Order! The hon. member should be careful about what he says.

Thank you, Sir.

Sir, let us view this matter in the correct perspective. The hon. member delivered a plea here for all these leftists, of whom probably a large number were or are still communists. It is very easy for her to pretend that she lives on Olympus and from those heights tries to teach us a lesson and to lay down the norm to which the Minister and the rest of South Africa must conform. But she has not the least sense of duty in ensuring the maintenance of peace and safety in this country. It is a fact that when once one is a deserter one is always a deserter; that is well known in the army. There are also other Afrikaans adages which are much more descriptive. If once one slips out, one slips out often. This communist group is a devoted group. They have a religion, and their faith is to give this country a different form of Government from what it has now; that is their faith and the Minister of Justice is compelled to ensure, for the sake of maintaining law and order, that those people do not attain their objective. We know that when once one has belonged to the Communist Party there is only one reason why those people do not appear before the courts and that is because the police cannot discover that they are still busy with their nefarious activities. The police are convinced that they are still devotedly carrying on subversion, and it is one of the tragedies that those people who want to destroy this country rely on the freedoms offered by the country as it now exists.

And have mouthpieces to plead for it.

Yes, that is still the worst, that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has become a mouthpiece here for the communists. [Interjection.] Sir, I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I asked that the hon. member should not only withdraw what he has just said but that he should also apologize.

Sir, I have already withdrawn it. She is definitely the mouthpiece of people who are known . . .

On a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member is the mouthpiece of communists?

It was a slip of the tongue.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn it.

In any case, she delivered a plea here for people of whom it is known that they are at least the fellow travellers of people who want to subvert this State. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member and also to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) what our standpoint on this side is, and when I mention it. it is no new thing: it is as old as the hills. In our law and in our traditions there was a legal figure known as the infamia. Whenever somebody misbehaved himself to the extent that he became dangerous to the State or dangerous to the social order, he was besmirched with infamia and was disqualified from occupying posts; he was disqualified from exercising his civic rights; he was outlawed. In the British law they have the same concept; he becomes an outlaw; he is outside the law, and in English they call him a “wolf’s-hoof”. When somebody here joins the communists or becomes a fellow traveller of the communists, when we have reason for believing that he is somebody who wants to abuse the freedoms of this country to such an extent that he wants to subvert the authority of the State, he is besmirched with infamia, hence the house arrest and the detention to which he is condemned, because we do not believe that that person has the regrets he ought to have and that he will behave himself according to the rules of society; he is only half regretful; it is gallow’s regret which those people have, and we have had experience of it. We know that there are a number of recidivists, not only among the communists but also elsewhere, and for that reason, for the sake of law and order, so that the hon. member may sleep peacefully in her bed and get up to-morrow and find that her property is still as safe as it was the day before, and also the property of her relatives, these people are detained. That is the reason why the Minister does it, and now he becomes the object of the criticism of somebody who, shall I say, has more faith than judgment. Sir, I agree with her in this respect, that we are all sorry that these people who have been dealt with in this way placed themselves in a position where they had to be dealt with like that, but it was their choice and not that of the Minister. They misbehaved themselves; they made their beds, and it is not as if they did not know what the results would be. They made their beds and they must lie on them, and they cannot now use the hon. member for Houghton to plead for them here and then think that her plea will make any impression on us. But I am sure that if the hon. member for Houghton were to stand as security for one of these friends of hers and she guarantees to the Minister that she will see to it that not one of these people will make themselves guilty of any of these subversive activities, the Minister will certainly consider it. Has she ever done so; has she ever said “I will personally stand security for those people”. Has she ever said that she would see to it that this does not happen? For Helen Joseph, for example. Let us look at the reputation of these people. Roux has been a very well known man ever since the ’thirties. I do not know much about Simons. Helen Joseph was one of those who libelled us most overseas, and also Roux. They were the most energetic correspondents for the leftist press. Anyone who reads the report of the Press Commission will find it in that report.

And for that you are placed under house arrest.

Oh no. Take Nusas. Nusas is an organization which harbours a number of people who misled a number of young people. Does the hon. member for Houghton not understand that when one becomes a youth leader, one inspires a large number of youths and they contravene the law, to such an extent that the parents of those children have to go and ask the Minister of Justice to forgive them because they were misled.

That still does not condemn that organization.

The behaviour of those leaders condemns the organization they belong to.

Nonsense.

Let me further tell the hon. member this: Nusas was the phalanx, the greatest phalanx, of young people who besmirched South Africa abroad in the ten years following 1948.

Nonsense!

Sir, I know what I am talking about. I have seen their documents. I have seen the typescript of the head office of Nusas, with their coloured paper, attached to cables; it emanated directly from that stable. Those are the orgaizations for which she pleads here. They are the people who have continually attacked the existing order in South Africa.

That is no crime. [Time limit.]

It is obviously accepted that the Minister must deal with all acts of subversion, and he has been given certain powers to do so. But equally it is essential that members of the Opposition, and indeed Government members, should watch carefully to see that those powers are properly exercised, and where the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) does that, she is performing a service which every member of the Government and every member in the whole House should applaud. I say that where she discharges that duty, she is discharging a service to the country, and so does every member of the Opposition who does the same thing. Sir, I would like to remind hon. members of the poem of John Donne who said: “I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I not honour more.” And, therefore, where any member of this House draws the Minister’s attention to the need constantly to watch over the use of his powers, he is rendering a service to the country, and I am certain that he and his Department will appreciate it where proper cases are brought to their attention.

Sir, I want to get back to something that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) said. Sir, on this side of the House the police certainly have some of their best friends and they, in turn, are some of our best friends; but a really good friend is a person who at times can be candid. And so far as the two matters to which he referred are concerned, it was necessary in the interests of the police and the country that those matters should be touched upon, and that is why they were raised here.

Sir, I want to get on to something which I regard as a very serious state of affairs to-day and that is the ever-increasing incidence of crime. The situation has been serious for a long time; it has been festering in a most serious way. Ever since the war we have found that burglar-bars have been going up in houses in this country.

Only in South Africa?

Yes. I have not come across burglar-bars in any other country in the course of my travels, and if the hon. member over there bas, I shall be glad if he will say so. I cannot recall coming across burglar-bars anywhere else in the world.

Is crime only increasing in South Africa?

I will not say that; but what I will say is that I have not come across a country anywhere in my travels in Europe or America where there are burglar-bars in practically every house. While it may be true that crime has increased in other parts of the world, I think this is very sad evidence of the fact that crime has increased to a far greater extent in this country. I think it is a most distressing situation. I regard it as a standing rebuke . . .

You have no evidence for that statement that crime has increased to a greater extent here than in other countries.

My evidence is the fact that I do not know of any other country where there are burglar-bars in as many homes as in this country. There are burglar-bars in almost all the homes in the European areas of the Rand and in most of those in Pretoria.

Is that the only evidence you have?

If the hon. the Minister has more convincing evidence. I ask him to give it to me when he replies. Sir, who would want to live virtually in a cage? I think, the extent to which we have burglar-proofing in our homes is the clearest evidence one could want that there is more crime here than there should be; it is the very clearest evidence, and if the hon. the Minister can convince me that it is not, I shall be glad to hear what evidence he has for saying that. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am interested to see how touchy hon. members opposite are, because members of the police have been saying—and I can give hon. members opposite chapter and verse—that the situation on the Rand has reached the position that you have in America with Chicago-type robberies. Members of the police themselves are saying that we should become more crime-conscious and that the situation is most disturbing. I have a number of cuttings here which I could quote to hon. members opposite who are so upset by my statement. Let me refer them to Dagbreek and Sondagnuus of 25 April of this year, where Brigadier Louis Steyn had a lot to say about this matter. I say again that it is a standing rebuke to us that almost every European house on the Rand and many in Pretoria have burglar-bars. It is becoming the customary thing in more towns than I care to mention for burglar-bars to be installed automatically whenever houses are built. It is thoroughly bad for our people to grow up under those conditions. If Government members say that this is something that they take for granted, this side of the House will certainly not take it for granted. We shall not leave a stone unturned until burglar-bars start coming down in South Africa. This was certainly not the case in the days when the United Party Government was in power and this will not be the position after a United Party Government has had a chance to get to grips with this problem.

Sir, I realize that in many respects we are living in a revolutionary period in this country, and this definitely multiplies the difficulties of the Government. We know of the industrial revolution that is taking place and that is sucking an immense number of people into the urban areas. But what I do say is that the hon. the Minister is not displaying anything like sufficient energy in tackling this problem. He is allowing this to continue as if it is a satisfactory state of affairs. Judging by the reaction to my comment on burglar-bars, hon. members opposite seem to take it for granted that this position must continue. I suggest that much more could be done about it, and if I get an opportunity to speak again I will put forward certain suggestions; but since there has been some criticism I want to remind hon. members opposite of the serious position here. I have already referred to the comments of Brigadier Steyn about the Chicago-type robberies in Johannesburg. I should also like to mention that in the 48 days from the beginning of March, there have been 15 big attacks in which over R47.000 has been stolen. We have one of these Chicago-type robberies every three days on the Reef. In the past 18 months there have been over 1,600 robberies, that is to say, an average of over 200 per month, which is nearly 7 per day. No wonder the police said that they were very worried about it, and I wish hon. members opposite were more worried about this situation.

We have had the situation in Bonteheuwel explained to us. At a meeting which was called the other night to recruit police reservists, the chairman said that the only place where lawbreakers had not broken in was the police station. Sir, that is a shocking state of affairs. He says that assaults and housebreakings are -every-day occurrences. The hon. Mr. Justice Steyn said recently in a court case that there was no security or physical safety for law-abiding residents there. Sir, this is the most serious position. Here we have a community of 40,000 people living in a fine housing scheme. I regret deeply that when this scheme was being planned, the Minister apparently did not have the foresight to see that a police station was put there in time. An effort is now being made to establish a police station somewhere between Bishop Lavis and Bonteheuwel, but this is to cope with about 100,000 citizens. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that one police station to cope with 100,000 inhabitants is quite inadequate. Sir, these are not the only places where the situation is bad. The hon. member for Heilbron said by way of interjection that the position was only bad at these few places, but we heard from the hon. member for East London that that was incorrect; that the situation in East London was very bad. I am afraid that we have come to take the present situation too much for granted. Another thing that worries me about the present situation is this, and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what he is going to do about it: In proportion to the population the police are becoming fewer. The proportion of police to the population is lower to-day than at any time since 1957. In 1958 there were 1.9 policemen to every 1,000 of our population; to-day we have only 1.65 per 1,000 of the population. In other words, from nearly two per 1,000, the figure is now down to one and two-thirds. [Time limit.]

I raised the question of the salaries of Coloured policemen last year under the Justice Vote. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the Minister reacted immediately and announced that steps would shortly be taken to revise the salaries of Coloured policemen. I want to express my appreciation for what has been done but the question naturally arises as to whether what has been done is adequate in view of the circumstances under which these people live and in view of the high cost of living. Consideration is naturally given to the fact that a police constable, whether he be a Coloured or a White person, has to maintain a standard of living in conformity with the office he holds and his standing in the eyes of the public. Consideration is naturally also given to the fact that police constables and police sergeants have to maintain a proper standard of living and that they have to live in such a way that they will command the respect of the community they have to serve. When you take into account the cost of living and the fact that the cost of living of a Coloured man who occupies that position is no less than the cost of living of the White person I want to appeal to the Minister to revise the salaries of Coloured policemen still further. Time does not permit me to go into detail but the fact that there is still a shortage of Coloured policemen and the fact that the police cannot get sufficient recruits indicates that the salaries are inadequate. However, I really got up to raise something else. As I have said there is a shortage of Coloured policemen to-day because of the fact that the conditions of service are not sufficiently attractive. That is the reason why there is a shortage of recruits to-day and unless the conditions of service and salaries are improved the same difficulty will continue to be experienced in future. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). I do not want to repeat what he has said but it is a well-known fact that our magistrate’s courts at Bellville, Goodwood and Cape Town and the regional courts in the same areas as well as the Supreme Court at Cape Town are over-burdened with work because of all the murders, assaults, and other serious crimes, such as rape, committed, particularly in the developing Coloured townships. We have reached the stage where regional magistrates, magistrates and even Judges have recently expressed themselves very strongly on the state of affairs. In a recent judgment Judge Steyn pointed out that if a coat-of-arms had to be designed for Bonteheuwel it should bear a knife with the word “violence”. This is a fairly complicated matter. A place like Bonteheuwel which was a sandy wilderness four or five years ago has developed into such a big town to-day that they require 14 schools to accommodate all the children of school-going age. What has been done at Bonteheuwel in respect of the erection of schools is praisworthy. The erection of educational facilities has kept pace with the development of the town. There are many people in Bonteheuwel to-day who were previously housed in appalling conditions but we must also realize that there are other people in Bonteheuwel who did not formerly live in hovels; people who come from areas where they had lived as settled communities for years and from where they had had to move because of road construction development in the Peninsula, for example, and because of the proclamation of group areas. In other words, at Bonteheuwel we have a heterogeneous community of people of different stations in life, of different classes, people who have to live cheek-by-jowl with one another as the houses become available, irrespective of the circumstances in which the families concerned lived formerly, and irrespective of the nature of the area in which those families lived previously. It necessarily follows that you get an element there which is generally known in Cape Town as the “skolly” element. The position which has developed there is such that the people live in absolute fear. I can produce the necessary proof to the hon. the Minister. It does not fall within my constituency but representations have been made to me by those areas where they have the same problem which developing Coloured areas at places like East London and Port Elizabeth have. The people in these towns live in fear. The law-abiding element do not look forward to Fridays. The law-abiding Coloured does not know whether he will be assaulted before he reaches his home; he does not know whether he will arrive home with his pay-packet in his pocket. The position is even worse at East London because Parkside and Buffalo Flats are surrounded by thick bush and just beyond the bushy ravines there is a Native location which will be moved in future but which is, nevertheless, still there at the moment. The position is so bad there that people’s furniture is stolen from their homes at night and carried away. If the owner of the house wakes up he is knocked down and whoever comes to his assistance is knocked down and his furniture is carried out of his house. All these things are on record and if the hon. the Minister wants the information he can get it from the police at East London. I want to put it this way, Mr. Chairman: I think there is one defect as far as the establishment of these Coloured townships is concerned and that is that the necessary police stations are not erected timeously. I admit that it has been appreciated that the necessary educational facilities should be there. Even before Coloured Affairs took over Coloured Education last year the necessary schools were built there in consultation with the Provincial Administration. The provision of school facilities has kept pace with the development of the towns but the provision of police protection has not kept pace with that development. It is generally known that in residential areas like Bonteheuwel, Galvindale at Port Elizabeth and other developing Coloured towns, the police protection which is accorded to-day in the form of motor van patrols is not the most effective protection. It is a well-known fact that the most effective police protection in such an area is the ordinary policeman on his beat. It is impossible, of course, to accord police protection of this nature if the nearest police station is perhaps at Bellville or Athlone, as it is in the case of Bonteheuwel. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to give the necessary protection to the inhabitants of these Coloured towns as soon as possible so that they can have peace of mind. The acts of violence which are committed and the dangers to which the inhabitants are exposed detract from the praiseworthy programme of development under which thousands and thousands of houses are provided to people some of whom had previously lived in the most appalling circumstances. The position has become so bad that a meeting was held last Tuesday evening at Bonteheuwel in the presence of police officers. This meeting was held at the initiative of the inhabitants and more than 50 police reservists were recruited. It is obvious, however, that the police reservists cannot patrol the town in motor patrol vans; they shall have to go on foot here and there because that is the most effective form of police protection and the reservists will have to operate under the guidance of trained police officials in the execution of their duties as reservists. [Time limit.]

I just want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). The only proof the hon. member for Pinelands could advance that crime was increasing in South Africa was the fact that the houses had burglar proofing. That was the only proof he adduced. He was asked across the floor of the House to produce proof and that was the only proof he could advance. Burglar proofing is no proof that crime has increased in South Africa.

Read the reports of the Commissioner.

The argument is that it is only in this country that it has increased. It is not limited to South Africa; you get it in every other part of the world as a result of socio-economic circumstances. That is the reason.

The speech made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was really an apology on behalf of the saboteurs in South Africa. She spoke about a great many things but it was noticeable that she never mentioned the names of those people who were actually found guilty of acts of sabotage. She said nothing about Harris who was a murderer. She expressed no sympathy to those people who had suffered as a result of his actions. She simply acted as the advocate of certain elements. She referred to Sobukwe. He was the leader of the P.A.C. which was established in 1959 according to the report of Judge Snyman. That was a brand new movement which was established under his leadership. He is a dangerous man to let loose. That was the reason why the Minister and the Government decided to detain him. You find that on page 3 of the report of Judge Snyman, Sir. Take the case of Edward Roux. We know him. He has a long communist history. In the twenties he was a communist here in South Africa. It is ridiculous to think that he would suddenly have become a non-communist after the Suppression of Communism Act came into operation in 1950. It is only a few years ago that Edward Roux became a professor. He used to be a lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Take the case of Dr. Simons. The hon. member admits that he was a communist. Why should Dr. Simons suddenly have changed and become a non-communist after the Suppression of Communism Act came into operation? A leopard never changes its spots. Reference has also been made to Nusas and it was said that the entire organization could not be condemned because a few people who had been members of Nusas had been convicted. But most of those people were leaders of Nusas. Leftwich was a leader of Nusas. So I can mention their names. The members of Nusas appointed those people. They appointed people with those characteristics to that position. There must, therefore, be something wrong with Nusas.

Reference has been made to the fact that so many of the members of the Liberal Party have been banned, people like Peter Brown; there is Randolph Vigne, a member of the Progressive Party. Why did Randolph Vigne flee from South Africa? He fled because he had been a party to undermining activities. That was disclosed in the evidence given by Leftwich here in Cape Town. In that case Randolph Vigne was referred to time and again as “Bill”. That was the pseudonym under which Randolph Vigne went.

Does that make other people guilty?

We already have sufficient proof about members of the Liberal Party who have indulged in subversive activities in South Africa. Randolph Vigne is not the only one. The hon. member can go and read the evidence given by Leftwich. Then there is the evidence of Stephanie Kemp and van der Riet. They all knew Randolph Vigne as “Bill”. He was the leader of the whole group.

I never mentioned the name of Randolph Vigne.

No, of course the hon. member will not mention the name of Randolph Vigne. I am mentioning his name to show that he was a member of the Liberal Party. He was known as “Bill” in the sabotage trial and he fled from this country. It is easy for the hon. member to talk. But for the action taken by this Government she would not have been sitting here to-day. But for the fact that this Government made this country safe not one of those hon. members opposite, who always have such a great deal to say when any action is taken, would have been sitting here to-day. Then South Africa would not have been what it is to-day. Then Sobukwe would have been Prime Minister of South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton laughs. It is easy for her to laugh but she knows what has happened in the rest of Africa where no steps were taken. Those people came into power there. She, who had acted as the advocate of those people here to-day, does not think about the safety of the State. This Government and this Minister will look after the safety of the State.

Perhaps I should reply at this stage to certain points which have been made so far by hon. members. I want to reply in particular to the points made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He will pardon me, however, if I leave the matter there for the moment and come back to him later on because I want to deal first with the matters raised here by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I do so for a very specific reason.

The hon. member for Houghton had the temerity to accuse me, amongst other things, of not having any courage. Sir, I do not think there is a single member in this House who will not agree with me because I am going to call the whole House as my witness—when I say that the hon. member for Houghton is the last person who can accuse me of lack of courage. I call this House as my witness that on 8 April of this year, nearly two months ago, when we debated a certain Bill here, the Official Secrets Amendment Bill, the hon. member for Houghton accused me, by way of interjection, of always abusing every power which I ask Parliament to give me. Hon. members will recall that. They will also recall that I then challenged the hon. member to bring those cases of misuse of powers to the notice of the House when my Vote came under discussion. Hon. members will recall that she accepted that invitation with much ado. They will also recall that I said to the hon. member—and hon. members will concede that this was a very fair request—that all I wanted to ask her was to let me have the names of the persons concerned timeously so that I could have the files brought down from Pretoria to enable me to reply to her charges. I said that I dealt with hundreds of cases and that I could naturally not remember the details of every case. Hon. members will agree with me that nothing could be fairer than that. Not a single member of the Opposition would have refused that request. As honourable people they would have furnished me with the names after having said across the floor of the House that they would do so, and indeed this was done by the hon. member for Houghton. Hon. members will recall that she accepted the challenge and that the said with much ado that she would take the necessary steps in this connection. Mr. Chairman, this happened on 8 April, that is to say, nearly two months ago. The hon. member now comes along and accuses me of lack of courage! What has happened? I have been waiting since 8 April for the hon. member to give me the names, as she had indicated at the top of her voice across the floor of the House she would do.

I had other things to do.

Sir, the Cabinet, as hon. members are aware, meets on Wednesdays. Yesterday afternoon, when I left the Cabinet meeting, I received a letter which the hon. member wrote to me well-knowing that my Vote was about to come under discussion; this debate started yesterday evening already.

How was I to know?

Yesterday afternoon I received the following letter from this brave hon. member. It was dated 2 June. I received this letter yesterday and my Vote came under discussion last night. I had warned her that the files of the cases that she wanted to discuss were in Pretoria. I have been waiting for two months for the hon. member to give me the names, but the brave hon. member does not do so. Yesterday afternoon, well-knowing that at that stage I could do nothing about the matter, the hon. member sent me the following letter—

This happened on 8 April.

I had other things to do. [Laughter.]

It took the hon. member from 8 April until yesterday afternoon to write this letter to me which I received yesterday afternoon—

She gives me a whole list of names well-knowing that there is no time left at all for me to get the files from Pretoria, well-knowing that she can make any propaganda she likes, well-knowing that I am not in a position to give her the relevant facts because the files happen to be in Pretoria. In other words, the hon. member is not concerned about obtaining information; she is not in the least concerned about that; what she wants to do is to make as much propaganda as possible out of these cases. Sir, what I find unforgivable in the conduct of the hon. member is that no hon. member treats another hon. member in this way; no hon. member makes an accusation of the kind made by the hon. member, gives an undertaking of the kind given by her across the floor of the House and then fails to carry it out. One asks oneself why the hon. member makes herself guilty of conduct in this connection which one cannot describe as honourable.

Nonsense.

The hon. member knew on 8 April which cases she wanted to raise, because she said so across the floor of the House. The hon. member has no excuse at all for having waited from 8 April up to the present moment to furnish me with this information. The hon. member will understand perfectly well, therefore, why I intend, in the nature of things, to ignore her when she seeks to discuss these matters.

Do you know nothing about Sobukwe or Roux or Simons?

I am going to let the hon. member know what I do know about these friends of hers. She was good enough to refer to my friends. Let me tell the hon. member perfectly clearly that I very much prefer my friends to the friends she gathers around her. On whose behalf does the hon. member plead here? In the first place, according to her letter, she raised the cases of Roux and Simons. Let me state this general proposition in perfectly clear terms: The attitude of this Government is that no communist—and both of these persons are communists; the hon. member knows that . . .

Roux has not been a communist since 1946.

I will come to that. The Government’s attitude is that no communist should be allowed on the staff of any university or educational institution. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that if there are any other communists, they will also be excluded from time to time, as and when it becomes necessary. What is the position in connection with Roux in the first instance? The hon. member and other liberals who think as she does proudly boast that Roux is allegedly no longer a communist. I say that not only was Roux a communist but that many years ago, in the ’thirties, he was one of two communists who violated the privilege of this House by throwing down of communist pamphlets from the visitors’ gallery on to the floor of this House. The hon. member apparently regards it as a joke that one of ther friends acted in this way.

It is a joke; it happened 30 years ago.

He then supposedly left the communist party. Sir, he left the communist party just as Sachs supposedly left the communist party. Sir, it is the customary technique of the communists to push out certain people from time to time so that they can make even better use of them. They seemingly sever all connections with the communist party and they are then much more dangerous than ever before. The hon. member wants to know what proof I have that Roux retained his affiliations with the communist party. Except for the hon. member for Houghton, there is not a single member in this House—we have debated this matter here very often and we understand each other —who is not convinced that the Congress of Democrats was pre-eminently the front organization of the communist party. When this Congress of Democrats was established its executive committee consisted exclusively of acknowledged communists, with the exception of two persons, one of whom was Edward Roux. This is the person who was kicked out and who severed his connections with the communists in the ’thirties! Not only has he continually held meetings in private since that time with acknowledged communists such as Fischer and Arenstein and others—I have ample evidence to prove it—but when the Congress of Democrats was established in the ’fifties he was one of the leading figures on the executive committee, together with these other communists, although we all know, and the communists themselves admit, that the Congress of Democrats was the front organization through which they worked. The other person who sat there together with them is the pious Helen Joseph.

Not Helen Suzman?

No, the “Helen” is quite fortuitous; one can draw no inference from it. Helen Joseph is a person who was connected with communists from time to time; she is the person who, on behalf of the communists, looked after the front organization, the Federation of South African Women, which was the women’s organization of the A.N.C. Sir, there is not a single member here who does not know that the A.N.C. was led and inspired by communists. That fact has been proved repeatedly in our courts; it is not even necessary for me to argue the matter. It is not necessary for me to prove or to enlarge upon all the things that she and Robert Resha, who is serving in London at the moment, did on behalf of the A.N.C. I have reason to believe that the hon. member for Houghton knows this history as well as I do, I have reason to believe that, and in spite of that, this is the type of person for whom she steps into the breach here.

Bring them before the courts.

I come now to Professor Simons, the professor at the University of Cape Town who joined the Communist Party under the false name of J. Morkel. He was a member of that party during all these years under the false name of J. Morkel. He is married to a woman who was also an acknowledged communist. He is a person who, throughout the years, never concealed his communistic affiliations and who never hesitated, when the opportunity presented itself, to say where his sympathies lay in this connection. Sir, this is the person whom the hon. member wants to be placed in a position where he can instruct youthful students. One asks oneself whether it is purely coincidental that the Cape students, who got into trouble because they were connected with the African Resistance Movement, were practically all former students of Simons’.

He taught 3,000 students.

Is it purely coincidental that the leaders of this organization all studied under him and that some of them were members of his staff? I leave it at that.

Let us analyse the position further. Hon. members will recall that more than two years ago I afforded the opportunity for the first time to people who were on the list of communists, people whose names had been placed on the list by the liquidator in terms of the 1950 Act, to advance reasons as to why their names should be removed from the list. Hon. members are aware of the fact that many people availed themselves of that opportunity. Many of them applied and where there was justification for it I removed their names from the list. In all fairness I sometimes felt that I was perhaps going too far in removing from the list the names of people whose names should perhaps not have been removed, but I wanted to be fair to these people. There are certain prominent persons, who are known to hon. members, whose names were on the list and whose names I subsequently removed. Roux and Simons did not even bother to apply to have their names removed from the list. It was only after I had announced that it was my intention to prevent these people from teaching at our universities—after I had given them two years within which to apply—that something happened. They did not take the trouble even then to apply for their names to be removed from the list. No, they left it to the rectors of their respective universities to submit representations to me. They came to see me and asked whether I would consider it if they applied at this late stage to have their names removed from the list. I said that I would consider it. It was only then that they applied. On that occasion there were three university lecturers who had been listed by the liquidator in 1950. I removed the name of one of them from the list after I had gone into the representations at that late stage, but I did not remove the names of Roux and Simons because I was convinced not only that they were communists formerly but that their activities over the yars had been such that they were still communists and that they could not be trusted at the university. I want to make it perfectly clear that I acted very reasonably in assisting these people and that I gave them every opportunity in the world.

In conclusion I want to repeat that it is the Government’s firm policy not to allow communists to lecture at any university or educational institution.

Why did you not charge them?

I come now to other names mentioned by the hon. member. Sir, in the nature of things I cannot remember all the details and I do not want to give the House incomplete information. Hon. members must remember that I received the list from the hon. member only yesterday. I come now to Mr. and Mrs. Hain. Sir, I should have thought that with the information at the hon. member’s disposal, these would have been the last names she would have mentioned. She is aware of the fact that Mrs. Hain was a supporter of Mandela’s. She is aware of the fact that during the Mandela trial Mrs. Hain regularly attended the trial; that she joined Mandela in court in shouting out the A.N.C. slogan and that she fully associated herself with him. Let us see for what type of person the hon. member pleads here. Perhaps the hon. member knows or perhaps she does not know that it was in fact in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Hain that Harris was recruited for the African Resistance Movement at one of the mixed parties that was held there. I do not want to suggest for a single moment that they were aware of it . . .

Precisely!

... or that they knew about it; at this stage I have no evidence in that regard. I make no such allegation therefore, but that is the type of party that was held there and that is what finally happens to this type of person.

I remember the case of Elijah Loza. Sir, this man is the henchman—and he was throughout all these years—of the communist Brian Bunting and of the communist Fred Carneson. The hon. member is aware of that fact. He is the person who did their dirty work here in the Cape Peninsula. He is the person who, amongst others, organized a demonstration at the American Embassy on the occasion of the Cuban incident. Sir, this is the innocent Loza who organizes a demonstration in front of the American Embassy because the Americans are not friendly enough towards the communists of Cuba! That is the type of person for whom the hon. member pleads. Does it surprise the hon. member in the circumstances that I am not going to take the trouble to deal with the other incidents to which she referred here?

I come now to the other points that were raised here. I propose to leave some of them in abeyance because I realize that there are other members who want to discuss those cases further. I want to refer to a few matters which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) dealt with here in a very reasonable way. I am afraid that here and there the hon. member’s figures were unreliable as I propose to show in the course of my reply. Sir, one must not always rely on Press reports because very often they are incomplete.

This comes from the police reports.

I am talking about Press reports now. The hon. member referred, for example, to what was said by the hon. Judge President Beyers in respect of criminal and civil cases. Of course, the Judge President of the Western Cape has his own characteristic way of expressing things, but one must not rely on Press reports of speeches. Let me give the hon. member proof of that.

I heard him speak; I was there.

Then the hon. member either heard incorrectly or something else went wrong. In any event what the hon. member has said here is in conflict with the facts. The hon. member has told us that civil cases are practically no longer being heard in the Cape court whereas the number of criminal cases has soared sky-high. I asked the Registrar and the Attorney-General for the statistics this morning and received them from 1960 to the end of 1964. I am now giving the facts as set out in the reports of the Attorney-General and of the Registrar.

In 1960 there were 187 civil trials and there were 2,705 Chamber and motion court matters. In 1961 the number of trials rose to 198 and the number of motions to 2,848; in 1962 the number of civil trials rose to 299. In other words, from 187 to 1960 the number rose to 299 in 1962; and the number of Chamber court cases in 1962 was 2,618.

Does that include divorces?

I am referring now to trial cases, civil trial cases, as distinct from motions.

Does that include divorces?

If they were trial cases, yes, but not if they were undefended divorce cases.

Every divorce case comes before the court.

But if it is unopposed it falls under Chamber court cases. I am referring now to opposed trials. In 1963 the number of trials was 422 and there were 2,899 motions. In 1964 there were 440 trials and 3,436 Chamber court cases. In other words, far from having decreased the number of civil trials rose from 187 in 1960 to 440 in 1964. I think the hon. member misheard what was said at Beaufort West.

But let us look at the position with regard to criminal cases, according to the information furnished to me by the Attorney-General. Is it true that the position has got out of hand as far as criminal cases are concerned? The figures which I am about to give the Committee refer to cases heard at the Criminal Sessions here in Cape Town as well as by the Circuit Court. In 1960 474 criminal cases were heard before the Supreme Court, 462 in 1961, and 454 in 1962. In 1963 the number rose to 506, but there were good reasons for it. The hon. member will recall that a great many sabotage cases were heard that year. In 1964 the number dropped to 385, the lowest figure since 1960.

What about the statements he made?

I am giving the Committee the facts as furnished to me by the Attorney-General; these are the official figures. One cannot argue with facts and figures. One simply has to accept them; I think that is all one can do, but what did happen was the following, and this explains why the criminal rolls were so overcrowded: The hon. member is aware of the fact that some of these sabotage cases took months and months to dispose of. One case kept a Judge occupied for months on end. Surely the hon. member knows that the hon. Mr. Justice Theron, I think, has been hearing one case over the past six months. This is due to the fact that the leftist elements of defence and aid leave no stone unturned not only to waste as much time as they can in connection with these cases, but they do everything they possibly can to obstruct the smooth functioning of our administration of justice. This applied not only to sabotage cases but the hon. member is also aware of the fact that in the Johannesburg Criminal Court in particular, some of these fraud cases occupied a tremendous amount of time. Mr. Justice Hill, for example, was on the Bench every week for more than 14 months in connection with one case only, a fraud case in which the accused, an ex-attorney, defended himself. It goes without saying that this sort of thing naturally upsets the entire roll because one does not normally expect a Judge to be occupied for 14 months on one case only. It speaks volumes for our administration of justice that a Judge is willing to sit on one case for more than 14 months without ever showing signs of impatience or without in any way interfering with the right of the accused to a free and unobstructed trial. So much with regard to that aspect of the matter.

The hon. member referred to the Legal Aid cases. I want to go so far as to say that we have placed this matter on a very sound footing. The hon. member is aware of the fact that there are committees in every large city and town. The magistrate in Cape Town, for example, is the chairman of the committee, and there are representatives of other interested Government Departments as well as representatives of the Bar and the Side-Bar on that committee. They lay down their own rules and regulations in respect of means tests, etc., and the system functions very smoothly. It varies from place to place and the aid given depends on the circumstances of the case. Let me give the Committee just a few figures in connection with the Supreme Court in Cape Town. In 1963—I am now referring to in forma pauperis cases—there were 1,821 applications which were referred by the Registrar to various attorneys. Sir, I want to express my thanks to the attorneys’ profession for the way in which they co-operate in this connection and I can tell the hon. member—I think he mentioned a different figure—that there are more than 500 attorneys firms which offer their services, and gladly do so, in connection with these cases, and I want to express my thanks to them for doing so. In 1963 there were 1,821 cases and in 1964 there were 775 cases which were referred to various attorneys. I might just mention that since this system has come into operation, so I am informed by the Secretary of the Department, no complaints have reached the Department with regard to persons who have not been able to obtain assistance. I make bold to say, therefore, that wherever people have needed assistance they have in fact been assisted. It is anticipated that eventually, once this system has completed its trial period, a national council will be established to deal with this matter, that will be done as and when it appears to be necessary. I might also say that I am informed by the chief magistrate of Cape Town that if a person’s income exceeds the amount laid down by the committee, his case is nevertheless investigated ad hoc to see whether they can assist him or whether they cannot assist him. This is what the magistrate says—

We do not simply turn these people away. They are treated very sympathetically in each case and whatever can be done for them in the circumstances is in fact done for them.

The hon. member then went on to refer to women clerks in the police service. The hon. member will recall that I have told hon. members from time to time that wherever it is possible to do so we make use of the services of women to do certain work in the police service so as to release the police for more active duties. That policy is consistently being followed and I can only say to the hon. member that whereas in the financial year 1947-8 there were only 32 women in the service of the police, there are no less than 803 women in the employ of the South African Police in the present financial year. We do not, therefore adopt an indifferent attitude as far as this matter is concerned. We engage the services of women where it is possible to do so and at the present moment there is scarcely a single post which can be occupied by a woman where the incumbent is not a woman.

The hon. member went on to talk about crime. Sir, it is perfectly true that the incidence of crime in this country has increased. I want to go so far as to say that the incidence of crime in this country since the last world war has doubled. This is a matter that gives one cause for concern, and in the nature of things we are all perturbed about it—the Minister, the heads of Departments and everybody else. But, Sir, in spite of this doubling of crime we have much reason to be grateful for the fact that the incidence of crime in this country has not increased to the same extent as it has in other countries of the world. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) in all courtesy that he does not know what he is talking about when he makes the bald statement here that crime in this country has got out of hand and that the incidence of crime has increased here in comparison with the position in other countries. The opposite is true. It is nonsensical to make the allegation that the fact that people are putting up burglar-proofing in their homes is a sign that crime is more rampant here than in any other country of the world. I want to tell the hon. member that any person who refuses to put up burglar-proofing in his home is a fool who closes his eyes to the realities of the situation. The man who does not have burglar-proofing put up in his home has no reason to boast about it.

If he cannot afford it or if he does not do it for some other reason, then I can understand it and then I sympathize with him; but the fact that people protect their homes by means of burglar-proofing does not give one the right to infer that there is more crime in this country than in other countries of the world. I will prove it to the hon. member by means of statistics. We must accept the fact that the incidence of crime in this country has increased, just as it has increased throughout the world, but I want to say too that we can be very grateful for the fact that in this country, in spite of the composition of our population, which is a very important factor, crime has nevertheless not increased as much as in certain countries which have a homogeneous population or virtually a homogeneous population. But another fact for which we can be very grateful is that the percentage of unsolved crimes in this country is much smaller than in most other countries of the world. This is something that we can also be very pleased about and in connection with which we can be very grateful to the police. Let me give a few examples in this connection. I am referring here to the monthly returns of crime submitted by the police. Take the case of robbery.

In the month of February—this is the latest information I have in this connection and I am now giving the figures for the whole of the Republic—there were 199 cases of robbery with aggravating circumstances. But what is particularly gratifying in this connection is that notwithstanding the fact that many if not most of these robberies are committed towards the end of the month and notwithstanding the fact that it is very difficult to trace people of this, kind because their crimes are very carefully planned and well organized, no less than 42.35 per cent of these cases where robberies were committed during the month of February were brought before the courts in the same month. I go so far as to say that I have every reason to believe that at least 85 per cent to 90 per cent of these serious cases of robbery are eventually cleared up. In the nature of things, these crimes cannot all be solved in the same month, but the fact that in the same month during which these crimes were committed 42.35 per cent of these cases were brought before the courts, shows how wide awake our police are and what effective steps they take in that connection.

But I want to give the hon. member some further statistics in this connection. These statistics which I have just given him are in respect of robberies with aggravating circumstances.

Before the hon. the Minister proceeds to the next point, will he give the Committee an explanation? He mentioned the figure of 199. Does this figure refer to the total number of crimes reported or the total number of crimes in respect of which charges were laid?

I said perfectly clearly that in February, throughout the whole of the Republic, there were 199 cases of robbery with aggravating circumstances, and of those 199 cases 42.35 per cent were brought before the courts during the same month.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories painted a certain picture to us here in connection with murder and he mentioned certain statistics. Let me give the correct picture in this connection. In 1941 69 Whites were murdered in South Africa. This number gradually increased in the post-war years until in 1948, when hon. members on the other side were still in power, the number of Whites murdered in South Africa increased to 113. In spite of everything that has happened in the meantime and notwithstanding the doubling of our population and all the other circumstances of which hon. members are aware, we find that whereas the figure in 1948 was 113 it had increased to only 122 by 1963-4. In other words, there were only nine more murder cases in 1963-4 than in 1948. It is true that there was an increase of nine, but the position is not as disturbing as the hon. member wishes to suggest. There has been an increase in the number of murders amongst the non-Whites. The number has increased alarmingly but it has increased because of the reasons given to us by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Let me give the Committee the figures: In 1941 the figure was 1,076 and it gradually increased to 1,450 in 1947; ten years later, by 1957, it had doubled, and at the moment it stands at 4,590. But what do the figures reveal further? From 1940 to 1941 the percentage increase in respect of Whites was 11.59. In 1964, in comparison with the previous year, there was an increase of only 8.52 per cent. The hon. member will see therefore that although one has cause for concern, the position is definitely not as disturbing as it has been represented here. But let me also give the hon. member certain other figures in that connection. Take the case of robbery with aggravating circumstances and robbery without aggravating circumstances. In 1941 the number was 3,342 and over the next five years the figure increased to 7,508 in 1947. In other words, over that short period after the war the figure doubled. From 1947 until 1957, the next ten-year period (twice as long as the previous period), the figure doubled again to 15,020, and in the next eight years the figure did not double as it had during the previous ten-year period and the preceding five-year period but it increased by only 6,000 to 21,000 over the whole of the Republic. It is a matter for concern, but one must view the position in its correct perspective against the background of the prevailing circumstances. Sir, I could go on giving hon. members further statistics in this connection. But I told hon. members that I was going to give them the statistics in respect of all crimes for the whole of the year. I made the statement, which I want to prove just briefly, that the number of contraventions —all crimes and contraventions—had increased from 1941 to 1964. Sir, when I refer to “all contraventions” I mean literally all contraventions from murder to contraventions of parking regulations. In 1941 the number of contraventions was 979,512, nearly 1,000,000. This includes all crimes and all contraventions reported in 1941. In 1964 the number was 2,189,000; in other words, slightly more than twice as much as in 1941. In this connection, however, one must remember that in 1941 traffic contraventions did not constitute even 3 per cent of the total number of contraventions, whereas in 1964 the position was that traffic or motoring offences constituted 26 per cent of all statutory, common law, criminal or other offences committed in South Africa. I do not think that that is a position that we can tolerate; the position is one which gives one cause for grave concern, but when we compare this figure of 2,000,000 with the figure of nearly 1,000,000 in 1941 we must bear in mind that motoring offences alone account for 26 per cent of these 2,000,000 cases. When we exclude motoring offences we get a picture which is entirely different and which is even more in South Africa’s favour.

Sir, I told the hon. member that I would give him the figures in respect of other countries. According to the figures which I have just given the hon. member, the incidence of crime in this country over the past year has increased by 3.15 per cent. This includes all contraventions. According to the F.B.I. report the incidence of crime in the United States over the last year alone has increased by 13 per cent as against only 3 per cent in this country, in spite of the composition of our population. But let us look at a neighbouring Bantu territory to see what the position is there. According to the report of the Commissioner of Bechuanaland, an adjacent territory, the incidence of crime increased by 33 per cent in Bechuanaland last year. The position therefore is that in Bechuanaland it has increased by 33 per cent, in America by 13 per cent and in this country by 3 per cent.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Will the hon. the Minister give us the figures in respect of the total number of comparable crimes in America and South Africa so that we can judge whether crime is more rampant here than in America.

Surely it goes without saying that I am not in possession of the figures which the hon. member has just asked me to give him. I have given the percentage increase in this country and the percentage increase in America.

Percentages can be very misleadidng.

It is only on the basis of percentages that one can judge.

No, we must judge according to the total figures.

I want to deal now with the position in Britain. I would recommend to hon. members that they read a particularly revealing article which appeared in the latest edition of a magazine of high standing. The American Bar Association Journal, in which there is an article written by Lord Shawcross. Hon. members will recall that Lord Shawcross is the man who prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trial and who later became Attorney-General of Britain and who was a very prominent lawyer in Britain. Let me quote just a few sentences from this article to hon. members. I shall gladly make it available to hon. members on the other side if they cannot get it elsewhere. Inter alia, he makes this allegation in respect of Britain—

Sir, that is the position in a country with a homogenous population; there they have gone up by 250 per cent. Then he goes on to say—

They have gone up by 500 per cent in Britain, whereas in this country there has been an increase of 200 per cent in all offences, 26 per cent of which constitute motoring offences. In a country like Britain burglaries have increased by 250 per cent and crimes of violence by 500 per cent. But this revealing article goes on to deal with the question of solving crimes. In this country the position is that four out of every five crimes reported are solved, and that figure has been more or less constant for years. That is the position not only to-day but it was also the position during the years when hon. members opposite were in power. Our police have always had a particularly good reputation in this connection. What is the position in Britain according to Lord Shawcross?—

Out of every four crimes committed the police could only clear up one of them. In this country the percentage throughout the years has always been four out of five. Hon. members opposite will be able to draw their own inference in this connection. Sir, the reason why I recommend this article to hon. members is that there are many people, amongst others Judge Hiemstra and people who think as he does, who feel that the time has come when we should take a very serious look at our whole criminal system and our law of evidence. Britain is practically the only country—and to a certain extent America—where we find the system that we have in this country. It is a surprising fact—this is also the attitude of Lord Shawcross—that in the European countries where our system does not apply, we do not find the problems that we have in this country. Moreover, there has not been such a great increase in crime in those countries as there has been in Britain. Lord Shawcross says very clearly that the time has come when our criminal law in this connection should be very carefully reviewed and he poses the following question—

Many of the opinions expressed by Lord Shawcross in this article are opinions which we might well examine more closely with fruitful and advantageous results for all of us. When we talk about crime, therefore, it is true that crimes in this country have increased by a little more than 200 per cent in this country since the war. We have reason to be concerned about it. I do not want to enlarge upon this, but hon. members are aware of the fact that we are doing everything that can possibly be done to combat crime as effectively as possible. Take the question of robberies on the Witwatersrand. An energetic young police officer, Brigadier Steyn, is in charge of this section. He does everything that can possibly be expected of him to combat crime, but I want to make this submission: It is true that the main task of the police is to trace criminals, but they also have another duty and that is to try, as far as one can carry it out in practice, to obviate crime to the best of their ability, and that is precisely what they do. I go so far as to say that they do it very effectively but the question of crime and law and order is not only a matter for the police. Not only does it concern every member of the public, but every member of the public has a positive duty in this connection, and I submit that in that connection the public is sadly neglecting its duty. We often read in the newspapers about people who snatch women’s handbags. I am not referring now to armed robberies where people are afraid to intervene. I am talking about cases where people snatch women’s handbags in Eloff Street for example, and where nobody takes any notice of it. There are cynical people who say that if you want to commit a crime without running the risk of the public lifting a finger to stop you, the best place to commit that crime is Eloff Street because the public will take no notice of it. Look at the reckless way in which people handle money. There are many people who convey their money to or from the bank in such a way that it is an open invitation to crooks and robbers to snatch the money. They fail to take precautionary measures. Let us take an elementary case. A business firm sends two people to the bank to deposit its money. The one has to carry the money and the other has to protect him. But what happens? One often sees two people, on their way to the bank, or on their way back, walking side by side chatting. Surely the man who is supposed to protect the man carrying the money should not walk alongside him; surely he should walk a few paces behind him. Take our banks. We have been begging them for some considerable time to have an inexpensive alarm system installed just below the counter where the teller stands so that if anything goes wrong at the bank, all the teller has to do in order to set the alarm bells ringing outside is to trigger off the alarm system with his foot, without running any risk of giving away what he is doing, but banks simply do not do this. If they were to install such a system the alarm would at least be given immediately and people outside would then be able to take the number of the car or give a description of it. But, Sir, do you know why these people are not worried? They say that they are insured. They do not go out of their way to protect their property; they simply claim against their insurance company. One can understand that where people are so reckless they are practically extending an open invitation to crooks, whose numbers have grown with the increasing urbanization of our population and with all the influences of city life. It is not necessary for me to give a lecture on this subject because hon. members are aware of the situation. One can understand how this situation has developed.

Finally, the hon. member referred to stock thefts on the Basutoland border. I am in very close touch, and so are the police, with the farmers’ associations and others concerned with this matter. There are many hon. members in this House who are personally aware of this. When this thing started assuming greater proportions—because we have always had these stock thefts—we did not hesitate for a moment to look for new methods. We established a special stock theft unit, a unit which has done very excellent work, to the satisfaction of the farmers in the Free State, who have expressed their satisfaction publicly as well as to me personally.

Then we come to the question of the association whose representatives were here the other day and who were the first people to admit this. The position there is that one is faced with mountainous territory which is practically impassable and where one can hardly move. Stock thefts are being committed there and they have been committed there for years. Our considered opinion is that this has been happening on a larger scale recently because of the drought and suffering across the border. I should not be surprised if it is also due in some measure to incitement. But we have taken the necessary measures in that connection to the satisfaction of the people concerned. We have made representations to the authorities in Basutoland. The hon. member wants to know what I said in that connection, and I should like to repeat it here. As far as Basutoland is concerned, we find ourselves in a very difficult position at the moment, and the hon. member knows that as well as do. The Britishers are on the point of withdrawing from Basutoland, but as far as negotiations are concerned Britain is still the authority with whom we have to negotiate. Britain is in the process of withdrawing from Basutoland; the Black Government is vested with a certain amount of authority but it has not yet taken over fully and it is still not vested with full responsibility as far as these matters are concerned. It is true that we are getting excellent co-operation, for which I want to express my thanks, from many officials in Basutoland who go out of their way to be friendly and helpful. That is not always the case, alas, but I do not want to talk about that at this stage. The hon. member realizes what our problem is. My own conviction, a conviction which is shared by the farmers who came to see me and who know the Basuto and the circumstances there, is that as far as these matters are concerned we will make much better headway when the Basutos themselves have to accept full responsibility in this connection. I do not want to say anything more in this regard except this—we are all aware of this fact —that with all its problems, with the attitude that it adopts and with its Commonwealth, the Government of Britain is particularly sensitive and particularly concerned not to give offence to Black people, particularly when it comes to South Africa. Many of our problems in this connection stem from that fact. I think the hon. member understands what I mean and it is not necessary for me to say more except that the police are co-operating very closely with the farmers’ associations and that good results have been achieved.

Has any consideration been given to the question of erecting a fence along the border?

That is a matter which does not rest with me. It is a matter, however, which is being taken up with other governmental authorities. I cannot say to what extent it is a feasible proposition but attention is being given to it.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Before lunch the hon. the Minister was explaining to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) about the stock thefts along the Basutoland border. I have no knowledge of that portion of the Cape Province, but I have firsthand knowledge of that portion of Natal which borders on Basutoland. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that the hon. the Minister sent somebody to interview the people at Underberg in regard to it and that he has promised to see what he can do about it, but I want to tell the Minister, in view of the fact that he has told the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that he does not know whether a fence will be erected along the Basutoland border, I do not think it is necessary as regards Natal, but as regards Natal there are a number of illegal passes which could be closed up by charges of dynamite, and if that were done it would simplify the duties of the police very much because then there would be only the one official pass, the Sani Pass.

We are considering that at the moment.

I am glad about that. This is a matter which was raised a long time ago in this House and either by the Minister’s predecessor or by himself. I was promised a couple of extra police posts along that border, which have not materialized. I can well understand why they have not materialized and I will give the reason later in the course of my speech.

Now the Minister, in speaking about the increased incidence of crime, said that we must be thankful in South Africa because it is not as high as in other countries and he says that if our population grouping in South Africa is considered, we should be very thankful indeed. Sir, I am not interested in what happens in other countries. I am interested in what, happens in South Africa. I am interested in the safety of the women and the children the lonely farmers and the old people in South Africa, and those people who have to take money from one point to another. When the Minister himself says that there were 199 cases of robbery with violence in February this year, this is seven a day. I am deeply disturbed because of the women in this country and the people on the lonely farms, and I am deeply disturbed because of the fact that while at present we have 1.65 police per 1,000 of the population and, as the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has pointed out, that is less than we had four years ago, that is not the full picture. The Minister himself painted the full picture. He said that 26 per cent of the crimes investigated were motoring offences. If you take into consideration that in 1941 our population was 10,500,000 and that we then had 2 06 policemen per 1,000 of the population, and that in 1962, which is the last figure I have here, the population was 17,200,000 and the police were 1.65 per 1,000, and if I think of the increased duties of the police, I must say that we do not have enough police to see to the safety of the people. I was glad indeed that the Minister did not take up the attitude of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), who said that the prevention of crime was not the duty of the police- One of the primary duties of the police is the prevention of crime, in my own opinion. I have said that the duties of the police have increased tremendously. I at random took the newspaper of the night before last and found the following in it: “Police Chief replies on Institute Raid”. That refers to the raid on the Rev. C. D. Beyers Naude. That is one of the duties the police have these days, which they did not have before. There was another heading: “Sabotage: Two in Court”. The police have to handle that to-day, whereas they did not have to do it before. There were three people on a brothel charge, something which the police also have to investigate. Then there was a report that the Cape Town City Council asked for the Oudekraal squatters to be investigated, and the police had to handle that as well. There was a report made to the police about a widow and a girl killed at a crossing. As the Minister rightly said, many of these are motoring offences. There was an air crash to which the police were called. If I consider all these extra duties of the police and I take the number of police per 1,000 of the population, I say there are not enough policemen, and the incidence of crime is disturbing. Also at random I took two newspapers from which I took cuttings. The one was the Burger of 24 May and this is what it says: “Twee Blanke Vroue en ’n Blanke boer is in die naweek op drie Kaaplandse dorpe deur inbrekers aangeval.” The particulars are harrowing. People were stabbed and throttled and dragged about and were left lying in pools of blood. Two of them were widows living alone and one was a man of 70 years. I took another newspaper from Natal dated 2 June and find that an African woman was axed to death near a private hotel. A bullet was fired through a passing car by thugs. A woman was stabbed with a screw-driver, and doctors are still trying to save her life. This is just taken at random from one newspaper in the Cape and one in Natal. This is what I want to say to the Minister: there should be more police. The staff should be bigger and the pay should be better, and we should attract more and better men. I have no fault to find with the Police Force. I have the greatest admiration for them. How they do all these jobs I have been recounting, in addition to what the Minister has told us, that in February there were 199 robberies and 42 per cent of them have already been brought to justice, I do not know. I have the greatest admiration for them, but you can only ask so much of a human being, and I say to the Minister that he is asking too much. I want to plead with him to use his influence. After all, the safety of the individual means a great deal, and the South African Police play a unique role. They are engaged in an extremely hazardous occupation. Death and violence in many forms are their working companions. I think it is only right that we should ask that this beautiful South Africa of ours should be a safe place for all its inhabitants. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken will pardon me if I do not follow up what she said. I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I should like to point out that there is an old police regulation which in practice amounts to the fact that a policeman and his family can receive free medical services and, under certain circumstances, specialist services and hospital services as well. This is all well and good but there is a snag and that is that when a woman is going to have a baby, she has, strangely enough, to make her own arrangements. She has to help herself and her husband has to bear all the expense, even in serious cases where hospitalization is necessary. I must add in this regard that her husband can apply for an allowance which is RIO in each case, and in extraordinary circumstances application for assistance in regard to hospitalization can be made to the Secretary for Health. My experience has been that it is so difficult to convince the Department that the circumstances are extraordinary that as a rule the official does not apply for the allowance in respect of hospitalization in extraordinary circumstances. You will see that what I am saying is correct if you look at the Estimates where provision is made for an amount of Rl,600,000 for medical services, and where provision is made for the small amount of R 12,000 for maternity services. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this regulation which I consider to be quite obsolete is applied very strictly. It is quite ridiculous but it is nevertheless true that no compensation is paid in respect of any service unless the district medical officer certifies that the service is necessary but that it has nothing to do with pregnancy. If an officer has to have a tooth removed the district medical officer has to certify that that tooth had to be removed and that it had nothing to do with pregnancy. It is just as ridiculous but nevertheless true that the State bears all the expense if the mother has to be sterilized, but when she is to have a baby, the State withdraws to the extent of 99 per cent. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will give this matter very sympathetic consideration. I am sure that it is a position which has developed over the course of years and it may perhaps not have been brought sufficiently strongly to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I take the liberty of appealing for a review of this regulation.

The other matter I wish to raise is similar to the first. When a man retires on pension, his pension is of course not as high as his salary was and, moreover, he loses his right to free medical treatment. We find that when he retires, at a stage when he and his wife may perhaps require more medical attention than was the case in the past, he himself has to pay for those services. I think that we will all accept the fact that if we want happy and contented officials we must not always think in terms of salaries. These additional services which indicate sympathy on the part of the authorities sometimes help far more to make people happy and contented than high salaries do. I want therefore to bring these two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and express the hope that they will receive his sympathetic attention.

I intend no discourtesy to the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) if I do not follow him on the subject of pregnancy of a policeman’s wife. For one thing, I do not feel qualified to deal with the matter, and for another we had been dealing with the incidence of crime in South Africa which, as the hon. the Minister has admitted, is disturbing—but which he says is not as serious as we on this side of the House have made it out to be. Sir, in order to establish that point of view the hon. the Minister, and so did other hon. members on his side, quoted a mass of statistics and comparative analyses of the growth of crime in this country and other countries, in order to show that, on the average, our position is not as bad as it might appear to be. Sir, I think many people in Johannesburg will react to this statistical analyses of the position in much the same way as I do, which is that you can use statistics easily enough to establish an average; for example, if you were to take a man and put his head in a furnace and his feet in a refrigerator, you could say, that, on the average, he is enjoying a comfortable temperature! Sir, that is the position in Johannesburg, because these statistics, unfortunately, are completely disjointed as far as the larger cities in South Africa are concerned, as I think the hon. the Minister knows perfectly well. We have improved the position this year, as far as I am concerned, because whereas last year and the year before the hon. the Minister was inclined to pooh-pooh the suggestion that crime in Johannesburg was as serious as I made it out to be, he has at least admitted this year, by way of an answer to a question—or at least has not denied—that it is serious, but has given an explanation of it. Sir, it is very important to consider the figures which the hon. the Minister advanced this morning in relation to Johannesburg, where, as he told the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) earlier this year, there were 25,794 cases of theft in the municipal area during that year, during the period of 12 months up to the date when he was able to give these figures; there were 8,144 cases of common assault, 7,281 cases of assult with intent and 502 of resisting, obstructing or assaulting police—and he then gave a breakdown of the figures as they affected the various population groups. Sir, when he told the Committee, as he did this morning, that there were 199 robberies in February of this year in South Africa, he also said that 42 per cent of these 199 robberies .had already been cleared up as a result of evidence obtained through investigation, but he did not say that, according to the gentleman whom he mentioned himself this morning, Brig. Joubert, who is associated with the brigadier of whom the Minister spoke so highly, there had been 689 robberies in Johannesburg in eight months! Using the Minister’s statistical approach, this means that we have had 86 robberies per month on the Rand during the past eight months, out of 199 throughout South Africa! That proves beyond any doubt that as far as the incidence of crime in South Africa is concerned, it is Johannesburg, unfortunately, that has to bear the brunt of the statistical pattern, because, completely out of proportion to the population of that city, the majority of crimes are committed in and around Johannesburg.

Are you a member of the police reserve?

Yes, Sir; I do not know what the police reserve has to do with this, except that I understand from what has been said here this morning and last night, that the Government side is determined to try to turn this very serious position to some political advantage, and it does so by the simple method of accusing the United Party, the Official Opposition, when we raise this matter, of criticizing the S.A. Police.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Sir, it was this hon. gentleman who started the hare running last night. You know, he plays it by ear; he sucks a theory out of his thumb to suit the argument of the moment. He said to us last night that it was not the function of the police to combat crime. I challenge him to come outside of this House right now, and we will stop the first person walking down Parliament Street—White or Brown, Yellow or Black— and ask this person what is the function of the policeman; and if that person does not give the hon. member the kind of answer which any sensible, sane individual would give, which is that the function of the police is to combat crime, then I will apologize to him immediately. But his is the kind of arrant nonsense that we have been obliged to listen to in this debate. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister is this: He knows from my own representations to him that the position is that the central portion of Johannesburg, which includes my constituency of Hospital and that of Von Brandis, around Noord Street particularly, suffers from an incidence of crime out of all proportion to the population of this area. The hon. the Minister has admitted that that is the position. When I asked him the question on 5 February this year: whether his attention had been drawn to reports of frequent assaults, robberies and other crimes committed in the Noord Street-Wanderers Street area of Johannesburg, he did not, as in previous years, say that these reports were exaggerated; he said that his attention had been drawn to it. I asked him whether he would make a statement in regard to this matter and he replied: “Because of a number of bus and taxi termini in this locality, large numbers of Bantu congregate and several serious crimes have been committed.” Several, Mr. Chairman! Hundreds of crimes, Sir, not “several”. He went on to say: “The police have adopted the necessary measures to combat these crimes.” Sir, it is not a question of criticizing the police. Other hon. members have pointed out that we share the admiration of most citizens for our police force. We do not criticize the quality of the service they deliver.

That was not your story last year.

Sir, will the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) tell this Committee that because a man wears a police uniform he becomes a perfect individual?

Last year they were the worst in the world.

If the hon. member for Standerton shows the same understanding of the business of film distribution as he does of law and order, I prophesy disaster for his shareholders! I leave it there. I was dealing with the position in the Noord Street area. The hon. the Minister is well aware of the seriousness of the position. In fact, he admitted it in his answer. The question arises how this evil can at least be alleviated, if not eliminated. I would like to commend to the hon. the Minister the simple proposition that where there are policemen to be seen, whether on patrol or in cars, that is where the incidence of crime dries up immediately. The hon. the Minister surely knows from his own reports that in a city like Chicago—I have seen this for myself—you cannot walk down any street without seeing a blue and white police vehicle, with the light whirling on the roof of the car, Sir, the effect of that is quite remarkable. The traffic parts for this car; everybody gives it the right of way, and according to the police authorities in Chicago, this had had a salutary effect on crime in that criminal-riddden city. I want to ask the hon. The Minister why, in this time of prosperity, we cannot afford to have more squad cars or patrol cars in a city like Johannesburg. He knows very well that the driver of the vehicle does not have to be an experienced policeman —most youngsters of 17 can handle a vehicle these days. If you have a driver and one experienced policeman in that vehicle, you will find that in a city like Johannesburg, and particularly in the Noord-Wanderers Street area, where there are thousands of Bantu swarming through t!he area all day long, and especially at peak traffic hours, the presence of a police vehicle would make a change overnight that would startle the hon. the Minister. I am not for a moment suggesting that because of the shortage of manpower this is an experiment that should be embarked upon haphazardly, but I would like to tell the hon. the Minister, who referred to Eloff Street in Johannesburg and said that the most certain way of getting away with the commission of a crime is to commit it in Eloff Street, that that is mainly due to the fact that you cannot find a policeman in Eloff Street at any material time. There are simply not enough of them, and I know what I am talking about, because I happen to have an office in Eloff Street. I know from my own observations that you can walk from the intersection of Fox Street to the station, to De Villiers Street, that you can do that at peak traffic hours, and you will see scarcely a single policeman on patrol. This is not the fault of the South African Police. [Time limit.]

We have had another opportunity of listening to the Opposition. On this occasion the debate is not in regard to the poor conditions in which the farmers and other sectors of our economy find themselves but it deals with the police and the negligence of the hon. the Minister. I want to say immediately that as far as the last speaker is concerned, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), we have no objection to his bringing conditions in Johannesburg to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is probably necessary for him to do so; it is part of his duty, but then he must not create the impression, as all the other Opposition speakers have done, that the police and the hon. the Minister are responsible for the wave of crime in South Africa. That is a very inconsistent attitude. It does not impress this House nor will it pass muster on any platform. The hon. the Minister and the police are doing everything in their power to combat this crime wave. Hon. members of the Opposition must not attack the hon. the Minister and the polio-and berate them for this state of affairs. That is what the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition amount to. They hold the hon. the Minister and the police responsible for this crime wave. I make bold to say that I am speaking on behalf of my constituency when I say that if the actions of the hon. the Minister and the police are not appreciated and acknowledge then there is no longer such a thing as gratitude on the part of humanity. We had this morning to listen to accusations of cruelty and tyrrany, that things were going wrong here and there. But if it were not for the actions of the police I wonder what the position in South Africa would have been today. Murder and mayhem would have been the order of the day. I want on behalf of our entire nation to express appreciation to the Government for the steps it has taken during these unsafe years to maintain law and order in South Africa and to combat crime. If we as citizens want to be just and honest towards ourselves we must admit that the police have done excellent work. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the whole country appreciates his action and in this I include the police who have done their share in protecting our citizens.

I rise actually in order to bring a few matters in regard to police stations to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I want in the first place to mention the Hartebeesfontein police station in my constituency. I have been a member of this House for 13 years and in my first year here I received representations from farmers’ associations and from the health committee—there is no town council there as yet—for the replacement of the police station. It is an old zinc building which is nearly as old as the mountains or the hills around Hartebeesfontein. Windows and doors in this building have already had to be replaced. I merely mention this. I do so unwillingly but I decided to raise this matter here to-day because on numerous occasions I have been taken to task in this regard by public bodies. I made representations to two former Commissioners of Police. They said that they would do their best and that this building would be placed on the building programme. I just want to say for the hon. the Minister’s information that the position is still the same to-day. The police station there is not only unworthy of the Police Force but of the whole community. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give his personal attention to this matter.

I want to discuss another matter. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that two years ago I visited him personally in his office at Pretoria in order to discuss the buildings at Lichtenburg and the question of houses for members of the force. The result was that provision was made on the Estimates for a large project of administrative offices plus homes or a block of flats for eight or ten families. It was envisaged that provision would be made for these buildings on the Estimates this year and that they would be built next year. I have learnt now that these buildings cannot be built next year. The building of this complex may have to be postponed for a year or so as a result of the necessity for applying building control but I want to say that the building of a block of flats or houses for eight or ten families must not be delayed. The position there is critical. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it merits earnest attention. I discussed a petition from the wives of members of the force with the hon. the Minister in his office at Pretoria and I want to add that a few days ago I also discussed this matter with the Commissioner of Police. I want to express the hope that they will use every influence in order to ensure that these dwellings are built as soon as possible.

Before I resume my seat I should like to express my appreciation on behalf of the whole community of that pretty rural town. Ottosdal, for the wonderful magisterial building that has been built there. It is really an attractive building. I have been asked to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for that building.

Before calling upon the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie), I want to refer to the speech made this morning by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). I warned him to be careful. I have now had the opportunity of studying his speech more closely. I feel that he went too far in part of it. He said: “I am surprised that she (the hon. member for Houghton) does not know where Abraham Fisher is. I wonder whether she does not know, and it will not surprise me if she keeps it quiet if she does know. I feel that in this last portion of his speech the hon. member has accused the hon. member for Houghton of unseemly conduct and I think that he must withdraw it.

I should not like to do anybody an injustice, and I should like to withdraw that remark, but to my mind her company is very pink.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unreservedly.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, will it not be possible to have those remarks expunged from the record?

Order!

I should like to revert to this serious question of the increase in crimes of violence in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has admitted that there has been an increase in crimes of violence, but he has said that everything is being done that can possibly be done by himself and by the police to combat this situation. He has said that in any event the increase in South Africa is not as great as in some other countries. Sir, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) it is no consolation whatsoever to the law-abiding public to know that although there has been an increase in crimes of violence, it is not as great as in some other parts of the world. It is certainly of no consolation to any law-abiding member of the public who happens to be the victim of such a crime.

Sir, before I go on I want to refer to something that-was said by the hon. member for Lichtenbtrrg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk). He and, I think, some other hon. members on the Government benches, have suggested that we on this side of the House are blaming the Minister and the police for the fact that these crimes have increased. We do not blame the Minister and the police for the fact that there are crimes; the Minister and the police are not responsible for committing these crimes, but what we do say is that it is the duty of the hon. the Minister and it is the duty of the police to do everything reasonably possible to protect the public against crimes of violence. I would suggest to the Minister that everything reasonably possible is not being done. First of all, if one walks in the streets of the main cities of South Africa— Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban and so on, how many policemen does one see on foot patrol?

That is a stupid remark.

I hope that the hon. member for Lichtenburg will go to his constituents and say that it is stupid to expect foot patrols in these cities where crimes of violence are taking place.

Surely you do not expect them to be all over the place?

How many policemen does one see going about the streets on motorbikes? As was pointed out by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) if there were more police in patrol cars patrolling the streets, that sort of thing would have a deterrent effect on persons who wish to commit crimes. Sir, while on this subject I should like to deal with something which the hon. the Minister dealt with in his address a moment ago. [Interjections.] Sir, if hon. members will give me a chance to speak they might perhaps understand the points I wish to make, particularly the hon. members for Cradock and Lichtenburg.

On a point of order, it is quite impossible even for me sitting here to hear the hon. member with all the noise going on at the bottom of this Chamber.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

The hon. the Minister made the point that it was not up to the police only to combat crime; that it was the duty of members of the public as well. With that general principle I have no quarrel, but I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he can seriously expect members of the public to come to the assistance of someone, for example, who is being robbed by a robber who is either armed with a revolver or with a knife or some other lethal weapon, particularly when members of the public know that there is no hope of seeing a policeman because they patrol the streets in such few numbers that it almost amounts to ineffective police patrolling. In saying this I want to emphasize what other speakers on this side of the House have said, namely that one is not criticizing the police. They are doing all they can with the shortage of staff that they have. In the light of the duties imposed upon them by the hon. the Minister and the Government they are doing the best they can. That is why the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and other speakers on this side of the House said that what was necessary was that the police should be free from many of the petty duties which had been imposed upon them. I would ask the hon. the Minister, in the light of the shortage of staff that there is in the police force, how is it that he agreed to a change which was made by the Government this year in this House to the Group Areas Act in terms of which the police were made inspectors under that Act? It is those sort of things which take up the time of the police unnecessarily when they could be relieved for more patrol work, when they could be relieved for the protection of the public against these crimes of violence. There are such things as pass inspections and attending concerts to see whether there are non-Whites whose names have to be taken and so on. All that sort of thing ought not to be done by the police. If they were relieved of these petty duties more of them would be able to do the work of protecting the public, which is necessary.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention but in the short time available to me I shall have to deal with it very cursorily. That is the matter of escapes from prison. There is no doubt that of late escapes from prisons, and even from maximum security prisons, have increased alarmingly. One frequently hears of criminals breaking out from gaols thoughout the country, very often they are the worst types of criminal who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, and who, because they are in that position, can be expected to be in a desperate frame of mind not caring what they do in order to ensure that they remain at large. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps are to be taken to see to it that the criminals who have been sentenced to Drison are guarded properly so that they will not break out and be a danger to the public as has been happening of late.

Finally there is one further matter that I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention and that is that no progress has yet been made with the building of the new magistrates’ courts in Durban. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister year after year ever since 1962. He knows the conditions as well as I do; he himself in 1962 described the conditions there as scandalous. They are very little better now. Although this is a matter which more properly falls under the Minister of Public Works, whose responsibility it is to build these buildings. I would like to know what the hon. the Minister of Justice is doing to ensure that the delays which have been taking place in the construction of the new magistrate’s court buildings should be put to an end and the building commenced as soon as possible. [Time limit.]

During the course of the debate we have heard how the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was the advocate for the people who were, with malice aforethought, threatening the safety of the State. The hon. the Minister dealt adequately with her and I do not want to devote any more time to this matter. What has been noticeable to my mind is the fact that when this side of the House expressed its displeasure, it was the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), the official speaker of the United Speaker on Justice matters, who hastened to the assistance of the hon. member for Houghton. Therefore we are entitled to conclude that the United Party associate themselves with the fact that the hon. member for Houghton is acting as the advocate for the liberalists and the followers of the communists. [Interjections.] It is not nonsense; these are the facts which have been revealed.

That is not all. During the course of this session the United Party has from time to time by way of questions which they have placed on the Order Paper, tried to place the police under a magnifying glass in order to see whether suspicion cannot in some or other way be cast upon the conduct of a police official or a group of policemen entrusted with a certain task. Hon. members of the United Party are continually trying to break down the police force in order by so doing to indoctrinate public opinion against the police. [Interjections.] That is the truth. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is becoming a little worried. Because we are living in difficult times to-day and because the task of the police becomes more difficult by the day in view of the fact that they have to deal with people who are experts in the sphere of crime, I think it is the duty of everyone in this House to encourage respect for the police as much as possible so that their task can be facilitated when they act in the interests of the general public. When one looks at the Question Paper, Mr. Chairman, one sees how many questions have recently appeared upon it, questions which are only aimed at bringing complaints against the police in regard to certain alleged irregularities on the part of the police.

Can you answer one of those questions?

The hon. member for Durban (North) made a special request the other day. He asked the Speaker for permission to raise an urgent matter in this House when it was alleged, according to the Press, that people in Sea Point were unlawfully arrested and charged with contempt of court. This is something which one only does when there is a matter of national importance which has to be laid before this House. But the hon. member for Durban (North) considered it necessary to raise a minor matter in which the police acted on the authority of a warrant which was issued in accordance with our existing laws. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister explained the position very clearly, the Opposition tried to drag the police through the mud. The hon. members for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and Durban (North) placed questions on the Question Paper last week in connection with Mr. Beyers Naude’s Christian Institute. They are always trying to see whether they cannot find fault with the actions of the police. Surely it is clear that when the police deal with those subversive elements they have to take certain steps which they deem fit under specific conditions? We disapprove—the police themselves disapprove of it—of certain members of the police force acting in a way which is not worthy of the force. But let us assist those people in the carrying out of their duties rather than to make things as difficult as possible for them. This is the method adopted by the United Party—and they have achieved a large amount of success in this regard—to cast suspicion upon the police outside this House.

Let us have a more positive approach to the police as a Department. We should like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) who asked for certain services to the force to be improved. Because the principle of the provision of free medical services, under specific circumstances, already exists, we should like to associate ourselves with the two matters which he mentioned here—the extension of free medical services to include maternity cases. In the second place we should also like to associate ourselves with his remarks in connection with the men who retire on pension. We think here particularly of the men who because of particular circumstances were not fortunate enough to occupy a high rank which would have assured them of a reasonable pension. After all the hard knocks which that man has received during his 30 or 40 years of service it is quite probable that they will have an effect upon that man in the evening of his life. There are many cases in which retired policemen have to utilize a large portion of their pension for medical services for themselves and their wives who are then at an advanced age. They no longer have the expense of children. By that time the children are usually self-supporting. I ask that the free medical services which such a man has received during his period of service be made available to him right up to his death. We have the same principle, if we take it a little further, in regard to dental services. We are aware that dental services can only be made available to a limited extent to the member of the force himself; the benefits do not cover the full cost of the service. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to give that member financial assistance in this case as well and to extend the scheme to include his family. As the hon. member for Odendaalsrus said, we believe that we shall in this way be assured of having contented members of our police force. We feel that those services for which we are appealing may probably mean more to the police than a normal salary increase. We believe that this will be viewed as meeting a particular need which has been felt by members of the force over the years.

We are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister has given considerable assistance to the members of the force during the short period in which he has had the Department under his control. But we believe that the services which we have just mentioned may perhaps not have been brought as pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister as they should have been.

In conclusion, we also think of the men who work on the platteland. They have a very difficult task. They work long hours. In many cases the staff is inadequate. Just as we are experiencing an accompanying shortage of housing as far as expansion in our urban complexes is concerned, so we are experiencing it on the platteland. We have cases throughout the Republic where men have to live as far as 14 miles from the police station. Houses are not available. I think of the case of Marble Hall. A married man had to stay in single quarters for a long time because there was no house available for him. I am not blaming the Minister in this regard. Development has taken place which nobody could have foreseen. We have a situation there where the court has to assemble every week in a small room 10 feet by 12 feet, a room which usually serves as the office of the station commander. We believe that the proper administration of justice, as we should like to see it administered, cannot take place under these conditions. There was a suggestion in regard to a temporary building but no effect has as yet been given to this suggestion. In the case of Marble Hall which is particularly difficult, we want to ask that the building project which is already in motion be accelerated. We know that an amount has already been voted on the Estimates and we are grateful that attention is being given to this matter.

We have a similar case, perhaps a less serious one, at Tuinplaas. We have just as many problems there. There is no town there; there is no accommodation for members of the force. Where accommodation can be obtained, it is far away. It is difficult for the man to get to work but it is just as difficult for the public to contact those men in time of need. We are aware of the fact that attention is being given lo all these matters. We believe that progressive thought is being devoted to the question of the expansion of the force. But we want to ask the hon. the Minister please to accelerate the completion of those projects which we believe are extremely deserving ones.

Time does not permit me to deal with any points raised by the previous speaker. I want to raise two or three points with the hon. the Minister in the ten minutes at my disposal. Firstly, I want to say that sufficient has been said about Bonteheuwel for me to say any more except to express my appreciation publicly to the Coloured people of Bonteheuwel for their desire to maintain law and order and also to the police for the assistance they are prepared to give to the people of Bonteheuwel according to the Press. We appreciate much the fact that there was this meeting. Lt. Smit seems to have been very successful and I think the Minister can rely on the people of Bonteheuwel to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order.

But there are many more Bonteheuwels in my area. The hon. Minister knows that a new complex has come into being as a result of group areas. You have Bonteheuwel, Athlone, Bellville South, Elsies River, Tiervlei and Bishop Lavis Estate. It is a tremendous area. One man in Elsies River told me that there was at least one murder per night. These people have to have law and order maintained. I am merely asking the hon. the Minister to let us try to come together and see what can be done. I have one or two suggestions to make to the hon. Minister. During the war we had a voluntary corps of Coloured people in the civil protection services. They were put in uniform and trained. They did wonderful service. They were commended during the war for the wonderful service they had rendered. It is not a question of the lure of the uniform. These people realize that it is their own families who have to be protected. I am asking the Minister to consider the reintroduction of the civil protection service in the whole of that area. That might even fit in with the pamphlet the hon. the Minister has already issued in regard to national planning. I put that suggestion forward, Sir, because it has become a very serious problem. The safety of the people in these large areas, areas which have come into being as a result of the shifting of the population, is involved. I believe this is a request these people are entitled to make. Although I realize the difficulties of the Minister I do want him to start thinking about the matters I have raised.

We have the police reservists and if we want more police I think we must make the pay attractive. The Minister has indicated that of all the summonses issued 26 per cent were for traffic contraventions. I think the time has arrived for traffic courts to be established throughout the Republic. The Minister will tell me that there is in fact a traffic court but it is completely connected with the whole court. In Cape Town the control of the traffic falls under the municipality of Cape Town. An attempt was made some years ago to establish a municipal traffic court and I do think the Minister should think about establishing traffic courts with its special magistrates and prosecutors. All the other work that has to be done can be done by traffic policemen. That would relieve the courts themselves and it would release many policemen who are to-day doing this particular work. I think 26 per cent is a very high proportion. I do think that traffic courts should be established. It would pay the hon. the Minister to subsidize the municipalities in the establishment of traffic courts. I ask the Minister to consider that very seriously.

What difference do you think would that make?

It would make this difference, Sir, that the policemen who are busy in the courts issuing warrants and so forth would be relieved of that work. It must be a completely municipal traffic court.

They serve their own summonses.

Yes, I know but I do not think the Minister must easily dismiss this suggestion. This was seriously thought of a few years ago but we could not come to terms as to the salaries to be paid to the public prosecutor. I think the hon. the Minister will find a lot of merit in the suggestion of traffic courts divorced entirely from the criminal courts.

I would like to ask the Minister how far he has progressed with the training of young Coloured men in the service of the Department of Justice for the eventual work they would have to take over in Coloured areas.

I am still waiting for you to give me the recruits.

If you want to talk to me, Mr. Minister, about that I shall do so at any time. If the Minister wants me to become a recruiting agent I shall gladly do so. I see the Minister of Information has recruiting agents all over the world. If the Government is sincere about this separate development of the Coloured people, if they have to manage their own courts and so forth, they should be trained in that regard. If the Minister was serious with that interjection of his I shall do something about it. But the Minister should also see to it that Coloured men have an opportunity of being articled to become lawyers. We must try to overcome this prejudice against Coloured lawyers. Perhaps the Minister can think of some way or other, if they cannot be articled, where they can get legal training. They could perhaps be taken in at the law courts, or take a course at university because we must train Coloured men in the law so that they can fill the positions they eventually have to fill.

I merely want to say that statistics can be misleading. Overseas papers make quite a play of our number of prisoners. I have a cutting from an American newspaper which appeared in 1963 when I was there. This was what they said—

When the Americans read this they asked me: “What goes on in your country? Here, where we have all the gangsters, we only have one out of every 880 in prison while you have one out of every 226 in prison.” What I did not like about the report was the fact that it said “either on political or criminal charges”. I merely raise this to show that newspapers overseas, who are not very well disposed towards us, will use statistics to show that we in this country lock persons up in gaol for political crimes without giving the true facts. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has just told us that the Americans ask what is happening in South Africa. We know how statistics can be used. One uses them to achieve a specific effect. We have again had that type of tactic here this morning and it does not surprise us. What does surprise one is that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has said that we must realize that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has rendered a great service—I cannot remember whether he said to the country or to this House.

I said in that she was trying to assist the hon. the Minister in exercising his powers properly.

I see no difference. He said that we must accept the fact that the hon. member for Houghton has done the hon. the Minister a service. It is a very striking thing to my mind that he should have said this in pursuance of the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. What the hon. member for Pinelands did not say was that we must realize the great service which the police and particularly the security police, are doing the country. He did not express his gratitude and his appreciation to them but he asked us to show gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for Houghton.

I said that they were our best friends.

I have just told the hon. member for Pinelands what this is all about and he can listen further if he wants to. I say that in the particular circumstances of this morning, when the hon. member for Houghton used half-truths with the deliberate intention of giving the outside world a wrong impression of the police and of South Africa, . . .

(Mr. Vosloo): Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I did not intend saying anything which was not permissible. I withdraw it. I say that the hon. member for Houghton used half-truths and the effect of those half-truths is to create a wrong impression of South Africa in the outside world.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “half-truth”.

Then I must call it an untruth, Mr. Chairman, and that is not what I mean. If I may not use the term, I withdraw the word “half-truth”, but then I must use the expression “untruth” and that is not what I mean.

The hon. member may proceed. I do not want to hear what he does not want to say.

What I mean is this: The hon. member for Houghton referred to the case of Edward Roux. She said that he left the Communist Party in 1936. I do not have official information in this regard; I am going simply by what I have seen in public documents. What she said was precisely what was said by every English medium newspaper. There is the Daily Mail, the Star and the Sunday Times. They all say that Edward Roux left the Communist Party in 1936. That is very clear. The Star calls him a liberal; the Daily Mail also calls him a liberal, not a communist. But there are public documents. There is a book written by Edward Munger entitled “African Field Reports” which appeared in 1961. I should like to quote passages from this book to She hon. member for Houghton. These “African Field Reports” were sent to America. I should like to quote to her what appears in the book under the heading “Congress of Democrats”—

The present time was 8 June 1958. It goes on to say—

It states categorically that the Congress of Democrats was founded as a result of the need for a communist cover group. It was founded in 1952. 16 years after 1936. The book goes on to say—

What about it?

This book appeared in 1961. Did Edward Roux institute a libel action against Munger because Munger said that he was no longer a hard-core communist? If I were to say publicly to the hon. member for Houghton that she was no longer a hard-core communist, would she let me get away with it? Would she not institute a libel action against me? Would she let me get away with it if I were to say of her in public: “She is no longer a hard-core communist”?

He was originally a member of the party and did not deny it.

The hon. member for Houghton must not try to tell me that because Edward Roux is no longer officially a member of the Communist Party he never was one and is still not one to-day. If he was or is not a communist, he would have objected to what I have just quoted, just as he would have applied to the hon. the Minister to have his name removed from the list.

But you are quoting from a private report.

No, here is the book. One can buy it. It is in the library for anyone to read. If Edward Roux is not a communist, Munger and the publisher of this book were guilty of libel.

Supposing he never read the book?

I can assure the hon. member that anyone reading this book will realize that Edward Roux was in personal contact with the compilers. There are many personal details recorded in this book in regard to Edward Roux and in regard to communists in South Africa which could only have been obtained from them personally.

But take the other case of Simons. The hon. member said that Simons was one of the strongest voices against violence. I wonder how strong his voice was? Whom did he actually reach with that strong voice of his? The people who were closest to him, his fellow-lecturers in the department of Comparative African Government and Law at the University of Cape Town, Neville Rubin, Adrian Leftwich, Alan Brookes, were the ones who were accused of violence in South Africa. These were not only his fellow-lecturers but people who had been trained by him. And then the hon. member says that his was one of the strongest voices against violence! Why did those people not hear him? Or did they not understand him correctly? No, if that small circle around him could not even hear his strong voice against violence, could not even feel his influence, but, on the contrary, felt an influence which moved them to sabotage and violence, then the hon. member must not expect us to accept the fact that what she has told us is the truth. That then is a half-truth, as I said just now. One knows what she is seeking to achieve thereby.

The same thing held good in connection with Nusas. We have been told that the handful of people among the members of Nusas who have been found guilty of sabotage and violence . . .

How many of them?

Let the hon. member tell me how many of the people who have recently been found guilty or who have come into conflict with the law as far as the 90-day detention provisions are concerned were members of Nusas. A man like Hepple, a communist who was caught with the Rivonia crowd, was one of the chief executive officials of Nusas; Neville Rubin who was detained here in South Africa and who was mentioned as one of the leaders of sabotage in South Africa, is a former president; Leftwich and Driver as well. De Keller was on the executive of Nusas last year and while he was on the executive he was accused of violence.

So what?

The hon. member continues to ask “So what?” But last year, when in pursuance of the document read at Botha’s Hill by the then President of Nusas we indicated the direction being taken by these matters, mentioned the use of the word “revolution” and the fact that they had said that it was a word used not only to describe “violent revolution”, that they had said that they were part of the “liberation movement” in South Africa . . . [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) tried to indicate in his speech that the Congress of Democrats was apparently a front for the Communist Party, and I think that he did make out a case in this regard. I do not want to follow up his remarks in this regard any further. I want to object to the speech made by the hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) in which he attacked members of all three Opposition groups or parties in this House because we had dared to bring alleged or actual wrongs to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Let me tell the hen. member that any member of the Opposition and any member of the Government has the right to bring any matter in which he thinks that a law is being broken or in which he thinks that injustice is being done, to the attention of this House and the country. We have the right to do that and must do it if we wish to do our duty by the public and the country.

I want to raise another matter here, a disturbing case. This is the case of the raid carried out by the security police on the Christian Institute in the house of its director, the Reverend Beyers Naudé. We refrained from commenting in this regard until the hon. the Minister had given us further information in the replies which he recently gave to certain of our questions. Unfortunately, the replies were not as detailed as we had hoped, but we are able to conclude the following from them: Firstly, the raid was carried out between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon of 11 March of this year; secondly, that the purpose of the raid was to make an investigation under the Suppression of Communism Act, Section 3 (a) (iv) specifically, which forbids any person participating in any activity of an unlawful organization. The Reverend Naudé was also searched personally. He had to experience the humiliation of physical handling.

The next thing that was done was that two publications were removed during that raid. The first one was A New Course in South Africa and the second was an issue of Pro Veritate. I discovered later that it was the February issue. Those were the only items of an incriminating nature which could be found during that raid. As far as I can ascertain, these were the only things taken.

The first question which rises to my mind is this: Why was the publication A New Course in South Africa removed? I have made inquiries and I find that it has been in circulation since 1963 and that the publication is obtainable through Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. It may quite possibly be here in the Parliamentary Library—they are still looking for it. I also telephoned the Publications Control Board this morning and I was informed that this publication, A New Course in South Africa, is quite unknown to them and that it is not banned. Nevertheless, it was removed and it has not yet been returned.

I then went further and I examined the February issue of Pro Veritate. I have it here —15 February, 1965. I first thought that the raid had been as a result of the brilliant satirical attack made by Professor Albert Geyser in this issue on Professor Adrianus Pont of the University of Pretoria because of certain allegations made by Professor Pont against Afrikaans theologians which caused Dr. Geyser to write (translation): “We must be pleased that overnight and unexpectedly we are an Afrikaans equivalent of Secret Agent James Bond richer—Professor Adrianus Pont, Secret Agent No. Dougle-nought-nought!”

It was, however, not apparently that article which gave rise to this particular raid. The true reason, as far as I can make out—and I am supported in this by an article in the Burger of this morning—is an article which appeared in Pro Veritate under the heading “World Federation on Road of Violence”. This article tells of a pamphlet issued by the General Committee of the World Federation of Christian Students in which the reprehensible suggestion is made that the United Nations Organization should take action against South Africa by force and by the application of economic sanctions. This appears in the article “World Federation on Road of Violence”, in which they quote what is stated in that pamphlet of the General Committee of the World Federation of Christian Students.

There are, however, three very important things in this connection. The first is that this article criticizes that decision of the Committee of the World Federation of Christian Students that action be taken against South Africa. There is strong criticism of the attacks against South Africa by that World Federation in this article in Pro Veritate. But the second interesting thing is that this article which appears here and which has been mentioned in connection with the raid has been taken over word for word from Die Kerkbode, the official organ of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa! It appeared in Die Kerkbode on Wednesday, 9 September 1964.

Mr. Chairman, a raid has been carried out on Pro Veritate because of an article which it published. But no raid was carried out on Die Kerkbode which originally ran the article. Pro Veritate has to suffer, its editor has to be searched, while the editor of Die Kerkbode gets off scot-free. Sir, I am the last one to ask that a raid be carried out on Die Kerkbode. That would be ridiculous. But how much more ridiculous it is to carry out that raid on another paper which has taken over an article from Die Kerkbode !

The third point is this: The mistake in this article, of which both Die Kerkbode and Pro Veritate are guilty, is apparently that they mentioned the names, in all good faith, of certain publications which had been banned. Pro Veritate realized this later and in its next month’s issue it stated frankly that it had made a mistake and that it was sorry for having made that mistake. But, as far as I can ascertain, a further charge was brought at a later stage, based on this particular article. I do not know whether Die Kerkbode was equally frank and whether Die Kerkbode also apologized.

It is clear to me that the Department of Justice and the security police, most probably completely unwittingly, have been drawn into a theological dispute—that they have been made a pawn in a theological dispute. I think it is a pity that this should have happened and I hope that we will have an assurance from the hon. the Minister in this connection. In my opinion there is something wrong in South Africa when a law is used, even unwittingly, to cause interference in a theological dispute on the part of the police and the Department of Justice. There is something radically wrong with the course of democracy in South Africa when a discussion in a Christian paper can give rise to raids by the security police. Heaven knows, Mr. Chairman, the task of the security police is already difficult enough, and they ought not to be drawn into matters of this nature. There are more important things for them to do than to carry out raids on Christian papers. They are there to protect the safety of the State and I believe that they are doing good work in this connection. They are not there to be made use of unwittingly by, say, an ersatz Torquemada at the University of Pretoria.

But I ask myself: When the complaint was lodged, was it not clear to the security police that there could not be very much substance in it? After all, it was an article which had appeared in Die Kerkbode and which was taken over by Pro Veritate. Why then this attack upon this particular paper? Why then was the same action not followed in connection with Die Kerkbode ? As a member of the D.R. Church I am deeply concerned at the treatment meted out to the Reverend Beyers Naudé. He has already been persecuted a great deal. He has been persecuted by that sensationseeking newspaper the Transvaler which sent photographers in advance to take photographs when the Reverend Naudé was supposed to have been humiliated in front of a church in Johannesburg by former members of his congregation. The Reverend Naudé bears the yoke of a martyr to-day. He is a man who did something according to the dictates of his own conscience. I do not say that everything he does is right, but I do not doubt his honesty. The hon. the Minister knows the Reverend Naudé; Beyers Naudé and he were together at the University of Stellenbosch. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said that there was very obviously something wrong in South Africa. It seems very much more to me that there is something wrong with the hon. member. It is quite ironical to my mind to think that that hon. member should to-day be a spokesman for the Reverend Beyers Naudé while over the past few years the hon. member has complained so vociferously in this House that the Broederbond as such has undermined everything, and it was also the Reverend Beyers Naudé whom he took to task in this regard. How has the position changed so suddenly? I should very much like to know this from the hon. member. The offer of the hon. the Minister of Justice still stands that he will have a statue of that hon. member made by Mr. Harpley if only the hon. member for Orange Grove will give evidence against the Broederbond. I do not think that it is necessary to say anything more in regard to what was said by that hon. member. There is one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. About 30,000 persons become available annually from whom the South African Defence Force draws its bailotees for their year’s training, and also for the gymnasia. Recruits for the police and prison colleges have also to come from this number. About 20,000 are balloted and recruited by these various bodies annually, leaving 10,000 who are not balloted. We know that the police have to protect our internal security, the South African Defence Force has to look after the defence of the country and the prisons are there to keep offenders in safe custody. Because our Defence Force does not have the facilities and staff to make use of all these persons who become available annually and to give them the necessary training to enable them to defend the country in time of war, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister in co-operation with defence cannot set up additional facilities in the Department of Prisons in order to draw some of these persons who are not balloted into the prisons service where they can be given the necessary training? Many of these persons may stay on in the Department of Prisons at the end of the year if there are vacant posts for them, or else they can go to university or accept employment elsewhere. We also find to-day that there are certain persons balloted in South Africa who have certain conscientious objections to being absorbed in the Defence Force and who do not want to do their duty by their country in that sphere. There are certain religious associations and individuals who have religious objections and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that those persons who do not do their share in defending South Africa are utilized in other ways in the service of our country. We have also heard this year that there is a great shortage of staff in the Post Office. This is also a service to South Africa. If those persons do not want to serve in our Defence Force, let them be balloted for a year’s service in the Post Office so that they can serve South Africa’s interests there. The Post Office has facilities for training in other ways than bearing arms in time of war. They can also be further utilized in protecting and improving the soil of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must not wander so far afield from the Vote of Justice.

No, Mr. Chairman. I merely ask that use be made of their services. If we can do this we shall be achieving a double purpose. These people will be trained to enable us to have trained persons in time of war who will be able to keep those persons who are taken prisoner in our country, if a war comes, in safe custody. They can render service to their country in this way.

I want to refer briefly to the subject that was raised here by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), replied to briefly by the hon. the Minister, and that is stock thefts from adjoining territories. I am extremely pleased that the hon. Minister has given the assurance that the Free State farmers are satisfied, and better pleased with what is taking place there now. It is on that score that I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister in the hope that we will get some relief in the other areas in which we are experiencing perhaps worse difficulties than those experienced by European farmers in the Free State from stock rustling into Basutoland.

Mr. Chairman, the frontiers have been there for all these years, but unfortunately circumstances are changing. You have got an extended boundary of Basutoland, and now you have got extended boundaries in respect of what are to be created as Bantustans, in particular the Transkeian Territories. There was a time when rustling was particularly bad, and I do not know that it is much better now, but at that time it was possible for those farmers, as the hon. Minister well knows, to follow their stock, some of them to almost the borders of Natal to recover at least a portion of their stock that have been stolen. Those days are past. You have got two separate territories there and no farmer is allowed to go through to the Transkei to try and recover any of his stock. We have got to overcome that difficulty. Let me admit at the very outset that the police that we have got in that area have not sufficient personnel to be able to protect that part of the country. It is urgently necessary therefore that something should be done, possibly by opening some of the old posts that were closed, but what is most important is that not only these thefts should be stopped, but the pot-stealing that is taking place, and which is very much worse than it has ever been before in those districts, should be brought under control by new methods perhaps. The hon. Minister knows that in certain parts of that country they have resorted to shooting. That, I think, is the last resort and it should be avoided as much as possible. But what is taking place actually on the border itself can cause a serious rift and dangerous position for the people along those borders. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to overcome that difficulty.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories discussed the matter of fencing. I know it is not the hon. Minister’s duty to attend to fencing. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration has given us an undertaking that he will see to the fencing and the hon. Minister of Agriculture has told us that he will protect us by fencing, and if the hon. Minister can persuade those two Ministers to carry out what they have undertaken, then I can assure the hon. Minister of Justice, that his problem will be decidedly less and even need less personnel to overcome the boundary difficulties. I want to make certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister to cope with the position. He should have squads, flying squads, that will deal with both the pot-stealing and rustling, mobile squads with dogs to track down the thiefs and to guard those boundaries. They can be posted at points that he can choose, with easy access to all of those points, that can deal with both those problems. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the position is very difficult in that part of the country. Last year we made up a tally and there were very few stores in Stutterheim, Komgha, Kei Mouth, Haga-Hag, Gonubie that had not been broken into. As a matter of fact, you could count them on one hand. The police have been able to run many of those criminals to earth, but there are some of them still getting away with it. I want to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister, not because the police are not doing their duty—they are doing their duty admirably, but the personnel cannot cope with the position that has developed, as a result of that part of the country having Natives living in peri-urban areas, quite unoccupied. The last point that I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that we find that the penalties for stock theft are no deterrent. I want to make the appeal to the hon. the Minister: Will he not consider as part of the penalty the return of those criminals, after they have served their sentences, back to the areas from which they came, rather than let them settle as squatters in peri-urban areas adjacent to these farming areas, where they carry out these nefarious acts of theirs? The matter has become an extremely important one for that part of the country, and I would urge upon the Minister to give it immediate attention.

I want to deal with one or two aspects regarding the prevention of crime and say, that on many occasions I have had complaints made to me by the residents of Coloured townships of the lack of police protection. Let me add at once, that in regard to all cases that have come to my notice, I have been in touch with the station commanders and they have all been most helpful. They have told me that they have had no actual complaints. But I think I might say, that in view of what is happening, I hope the hon. Minister will be able to do something. All these townships, as I mentioned under other Votes, are new townships, that are being built and developed, and they are being built very fast. Many of them lack police posts of any kind. At the same time the local authorities are very slow in putting in street lighting, with the result that these people live in Stygian darkness. The replies I have had, have been to the effect that the police van makes a trip through the Coloured village or the Bantu township at fixed periods during the night, but I submit to the hon. the Minister that that is not very satisfactory. The van is so obvious as to what its purpose and aims are that evildoers just lie low when the van is about, and when the van returns to the station, these people get on with their nefarious practices. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the police might revert to a few more men on the beat. You know in the olden days, that the policeman strolled Mong slowly and quietly, and that that was far more effective than the express service of police vans riding around hell-for-leather all over the place. They have to ride at speed, I know, but they don’t travel around quietly—I do not want to criticize the police in any shape or form, but it is an aspect, which I think should be investigated, and should be investigated without delay. I think the Minister will find that there will be a vast improvement in the prevention of crime in the Bantu villages and in the Coloured townships if such a step was taken. I can assure him that the complaint I ventilate here, is a general complaint, and that it comes particularly from the Coloured community because the women going home at night are molested and interfered with. The same applies to Bantu women going back to their homes. As was said by another speaker, in many Bantu villages, men are also attacked and their money taken from them, the whole of the week’s pay, by hooligans and hoodlums, who frequent these places, and because it is so dark, nobody can trace them and identify them. If the Minister would pay some attention to that, I think he would do us all a service.

Now I want to raise another matter with the Minister. It arises out of an answer to a question he gave earlier this Session, when he intimated that something like 14,000 pistols had been stolen and 900 had been mislaid. I raise this because I think the time has come when licences for firearms should not be granted so freely. People are getting too trigger-happy. One can look into the cubby-holes of any number of motor cars and there will be a gun lying there. I think the whole attitude in this country is quite wrong, that everyone should have a gun. I think a man should be in possession of a pistol only under very exceptional circumstances, and it should not be in the cubby-hole of his car. I want to highlight this by drawing attention to the difficulty that some people have in obtaining a licence. I have the details of the case of a man who travels around the country with large sums of money on him, buying wool. He asked for a pistol licence and it was refused. When I queried this decision and asked for it to be reviewed, I received a letter from the Department dated November last year saying that the matter was being investigated. As recently as 13 April this year, again in response to a query from me as to what was happening, I was informed that the matter was still under consideration in consultation with the Department of Coloured Affairs. I put this to the Minister in all fairness. I am not disputing the decision, although I think this is a case where the man should get a gun. What I think is bad, is that it takes the Department nearly 18 months and they are still investigating the matter. What are they investigating? This recommendation came from me via a friend of mine in the Eastern Province, a public figure, and with it were all the testimonials certifying that the man was a responsible person, and the application is still being investigated. Who is doing the investigating and what are they investigating, and why does it take so long? Surely this sort of thing should come to an end. This is the sort of thing which creates a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction. The method I use with complaints is always to write direct to the Department or to the Minister concerned and I get replies, but I find, that in many cases, one has to keeep at it and one gets fobbed off with the reply that the matter is still being investigated. I should like to hand this letter to the Minister, because it comes from his office. In any case, what has the Department of Coloured Affairs got to do with it? I think we are getting ourselves into a very difficult position if such applications are refused and are still being investigated after a period of 12 months. I just do not understand it. The Minister often tells us to give examples of things that worry us. I have here a receipt for an admission of guilt and I want to concede right away, that in the course of my investigation, I found that this may not apply to this Minister, but it is too late to deal with the Minister of Transport and I just want to bring it to the notice of this Minister because he is getting the blame. It is a case of a Coloured man, who was fined R6 for running over a “White” bridge at Retreat. The fine was half his week’s wages. This is the sort of thing that happens. We are always told that we cannot produce examples. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the police. They do what they are told to do. This man ran across the bridge because he was late for work and he wanted to catch the train. He found himself on the wrong bridge and was arrested by the police.

Where do we go from here?

I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to it. These are the things that cause dissatisfaction. I have been in touch with the station commander, but unfortunately he cannot trace the record.

It has nothing to do with my Department. It was done by the Railway Police. Why raise it here?

Because it only happened the other day and the Railway Vote has already been passed [Time limit.]

I was speaking about the reference of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to NUSAS. You will remember, Sir, that towards the end of last year we took note here of a document which was discussed at a NUSAS seminar and which was drawn up by Mr. Jonty Driver, the previous president of NUSAS. Shortly thereafter Parliament adjourned and then it was intimated right throughout the country that this document which Mr. Driver was discussing there contained his personal opinion. That was said repeatedly. I have here the Sunday Times of 30 August, in which Mr. Joseph H. Levenstein, the chairman of the Students’ Representative Council of Cape Town University, wrote the following. He refers to this document and says—

That was the note that was sounded everywhere, that these were only personal opinions. But I said a moment ago that after those things had been said it was revealed in the courts that numbers of former presidents and members of the executive of NUSAS had already put into practice the things Mr. Driver advocated in that document. How does the hon. member for Houghton expect anybody to accept that it was Mr. Driver’s personal ideas when it had already been put into practice by members of that association. Surely these were not personal opinions. Surely it was proved last year that the things which Mr. Driver wrote in that document in regard to Nusas, its attitude and its policy, were put into practice by members of Nusas, and that they actively tried to promote those ideas. I want to read out a few of those things. I referred a moment ago to their definition of revolution, and that they say it does not refer only to revolution by violence. [Interjections.1 These are not innocent “student politics”, as the hon. member for Houghton would have us believe. When they talk about revolution tney say “it is not used to refer only to violence, i.e. armed revolution”. That is the primary meaning they attach to it, but it is not the only meaning. He says—

It is the president of Nusas who says that a revolution can no longer be brought about in South Africa by talking to people, and then they started with violence. There were Leftwich, De Keller, Rubin, Alex Hepple—all people who were members of Nusas and who received their training there. From the court cases it is clear that Nusas is a political indoctrination school which conditions people for committing violence in order to have a revolution. [Interjection.] That is the old recipe for revolution throughout the world. The hon. member for Houghton is not as ignorant as she pretends to be. If she reads in the American periodicals what is going on at the universities there, she will find statements made by people such as President Johnson and Mr. Edgar Hoover that there also there is a small handful of students who lead mass demonstrations and cause great unrest. It is not necessary for all the revolutionaries to be on the executive of Nusas at the same time. I want to read to her what is being said at present in responsible American circles. One can read what Newsweek says about what happened at the University of California. But what does Mr. Johnson say? Here I have U.S. News and World Report of 20th May. They say—

And Newsweek says that Communism “is a greying spectre”. The President of America says he is surprised at the extent of communist infiltration in university life. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she is not so ignorant; she knows very well what these things mean which were revealed in South Africa last year, the role played by people who attended these liberal universities, who were members of Nusas, and scores of whom were concerned in these acts. I referred to it a moment ago. Here is a report which appeared. I think 87 people at English universities were arrested, and then they give the names. They are people who came into conflict with the Security Police. The hon. member for Houghton said a moment ago that it was a small percentage of the actual membership of Nusas, but what percentage is this figure of the number of Whites who came into conflict with the police during the last few years? How many of these people who committed sabotage came from the ranks of Nusas? Then one gets a true picture of what is going on, and that is what I am talking about. But I want to leave the hon. member there and refer to something in connection with the United Party.

Before the Provincial election the United Party, through its Cape leader, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), said that before 1948 there was no Communism in South Africa. In fact, according to one Press report he went so far as to say that the then Government had a report from the police in which it was stated that there was no Communism in South Africa and that there was no reason for taking action against Communism, and that this was the reason why the United Party Government did nothing. I am sorry the hon. member for Gardens is not here now, but I suspect that this is a story which has been told fairly widely also by other members of the United Party. I put a question to the Minister in this regard and he said that in 1947—and this is what I blame the United Party for—there was a report by the police to the then Government to the effect that Communism had assumed disquieting proportions as revealed in the strike of non-White mine-workers on the Rand in 1946, and that the Government therefore knew very well at the time that there was Communism and, in fact, intended to take action. I find it deplorable that the United Party should to-day tell the country that there was no Communism, and then make the accusation that it is the policy of this party which is the cause of Communism. I know the United Party is not in the mood to-day, at this time when the Government has acted so effectively against Communism, to discuss these matters, but I know they will say so again. The Leader of the Opposition has already told us in the no-confidence debate how wrong our policy is because the Transkei will be a stronghold of Communism. They are never concerned when we are really dealing with the communists, as we did last year after the decision in the Rivonia case when it was proved that almost all the people concerned in it were communists. Then the accusation made by the United Party was that that was so because we had deprived the non-Whites of any right to express their political opinions, and that therefore this violence had taken place. But they did not utter a word of condemnation of those communists who had committed the violence. I did not listen to the whole of the debate. I did not listen, e.g., to the hon. member for Durban (North), but until to-day I have not yet heard any United Party member express thanks to the Security Police for the work they did. nor did I hoar them disapprove in any way of what had happened during the past six months. I am surprised that a party which talks about human rights and political rights and which is concerned about what might possibly happen in the Transkei closes its eyes to Communism when it has to be combated. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with the question of police salaries, and I want to say right at the beginning that our motive in raising this matter is not an irresponsible one. It is simply that individuals have approached us and we are concerned to place the complaints of these individuals before the Minister for his consideration because, after all, that is our job. I would like to say also that in no case have the people who approached me had any complaints at all about the nature of their work or their conditions of service. Their complaint was purely a bread-and-butter one, —that they were struggling to come out on their pay. In order to illustrate to the Minister what I mean, I want to read a few extracts from a letter I received. It comes from one of the mining towns in the Free State, from a commissioned officer in the Force, who writes as follows—

I put that to the hon. the Minister merely as an example of the sort of complaint we have to deal with.

Now from the figures produced in this House it would appear that the majority of those who bought their discharge recently have served between five and three years in the force and they represent the rank and file of the men who are most urgently needed. I hardly think it is fair that policemen’s salaries should be based on any comparison at all with those of members of the Public Service, for a number of reasons. The first is the fact that a policeman has no guarantee that he will have any time for himself. All his time is at the disposal of the State. In theory he has an eight-hour day and a five-day week, but he is iiable to be called out at any time, and the Minister has already told us of 534 stations that axe not properly manned through shortages, so that many are likely to work overtime. If a man starts at 6 a.m. he finishes at 2 p.m., and if he starts at 2 p.m. he finishes at 10 p.m., and if he starts at 10 p.m. he finishes at 6 a.m. In other words, a police officer works two-thirds of his working life up to 10 p.m., according to the way the shifts axe organized. He can never leave his station area without special permission, and he cannot leave his place of residence for more than five hours at a time. In an emergency, if necessary, he is expected to work for 24 hours and gets no overtime pay for it. What is more, although he is entitled to 30 days’ leave a year, he is not entitled to take that leave whenever he wants it, but can only take it when his superiors think fit. So I would say that when it comes to the pay scales we should remember clearly that these men are out at all hours of the day or night, working under very difficult conditions in all weathers and subjected very often to a great deal of danger. Also, the ordinary public holidays which everyone else enjoys are not included in their weekly time off, and because of all these factors I think there is no valid basis for comparison between the salary scales of the Police Force and those of other public servants. I hope that when the Minister deals with this matter he will not make that comparison, and that he will not come with the reply we have had from so many other Ministers, that he is unable to compete with the private sector when it comes to salary scales, because the police are a particularly vital factor in South Africa, and they cannot be compared with ordinary civilian officials.

The number of resignations from the force is a matter of great concern, although of course South Africa is not the only country suffering from this shortage. The United Kingdom has been suffering from the same sort of thing, although there the police have their own Police Association, a very powerful body, which looks after the welfare and the interests of its members and it can be used as a body through which negotiations can be conducted with the authorities for better conditions. I think it is a pity that we have nothing similar in South Africa. In the United Kingdom recently the Federation of Police Associations, after negotiations with the Home Office, adopted concessions in terms of which a recruit there now starts with a salary of Rl,400 a year, and after eight years he earns R2,000 a year, and if after he has reached the age of 22 he is still an ordinary constable on the beat he will receive R2,210 p.a. In the Republic a 16-year old recruit without the Senior Certificate receives R840 a year from the time he begins his training at the Police College. With matric the recruit starts at R900 a year, and in both cases they receive a duty allowance of R180, which increases up to R300 over a period of time. But a youngster in the United Kingdom starts with Rl,400, whereas our youngsters start with a salary plus duty allowance at a salary which is R380 a year less than in the United Kingdom, without the Senior Certificate, and the fellow with R900 a year basic salary and R180 duty allowance has Rl,080 which is R320 less than the youngster overseas. The arguments in favour of higher pay are of course, firstly, that more men will be attracted to the force, and secondly, that the increase in the rate of crime will definitely be smaller with a larger and more settled complement of men. We know that the Minister and the Commissioner of Police and the Cabinet have taken various steps to remedy this position in the last two years. Last year increases in salary were granted to non-commissioned ranks. In February this year the Minister announced that the Cabinet had approved the creation of more posts and in March this year General Keevy announced that the Cabinet had approved an increase of another 400 higher posts in the ranks from sergeant to colonel, providing for the promotion of another 843 members of the force to take effect in April this year. We also know that these 400 higher posts came after an increase of 944 posts in 1964, creating an opportunity for 2,501 men in the various ranks out of a total of 14,6f4, and that was additional to the normal turnover of promotions. That, Mr. Chairman, is not enough. [Time limit.]

I want, first of all, to tell the hon. the Minister, in spite of what he said to me this morning, that I did not deliberately try to inconvenience him by not submitting the names of the cases I intended to raise at an earlier date. The Minister must realize that other things have been occupying me in this House, and I can give him a long list of the debates in which I participated since I last spoke to the Minister. The Minister could have let me know when his Vote was coming up. I knew only on Tuesday afternoon that the Minister’s Vote was coming on this week. Anyway, I simply wanted to explain to the Minister that I did not deliberately keep back the names of the cases I wanted to discuss.

As far as the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) is concerned, I want to say only that I can give him some reading material which will enlighten him about the speeches made by hon. members opposite when they were members of the Opposition during the war years, speeches made by leading members of the National Party about the incarceration of young members of the Nationalist Party, of students at the Universities of Potchefstroom, Bloemfontein, Pretoria and Stellenbosch during the war, for activities which were subversive. So he need not think that because one raises this matter as a question of justice, one agrees with sabotage. I can give him some reading material and he can give me some, and maybe we will both emerge a little more educated as the result of it.

What I want to raise with the Minister now is the question of the so-called political prisoners who are at present in gaol. I hope the Minister will not tell me that there is no such animal as a political prisoner, as he has done in reply to questions I have put to him in this House. Incidentally, quite by accident, the day after the Minister had denied that there was such a thing as a political prisoner I received an anonymous letter containing a circular from the Prisons Department in which they talk about the procedure “wat in the toekoms gevolg moet word as politieke gevangenes aansoek doen om te studeer” and another one, which was headed, “vrylating van politieke ge-vangenes-vorm P.B.77.” Apparently therefore within the circles of the police it is admitted that there are political prisoners. The hon. the Minister has stated that he will not allow a remission of sentence for any political prisoner; they will all serve their full term, except for those who can prove that they have been misled by the past presidents of Nusas. I do feel, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is again abusing his powers as Minister of Justice in laying down a set of rules about the remission of sentence because, after all, the prison regulations make allowance for a remission of sentence. It is provided in the regulations that the Commissioner may grant a prisoner who is serving a term of a prison sentence of less than two years imprisonment, with or without the option of a fine, a remission of sentence not exceeding one-third of such sentence, and in cases where prisoners are serving longer sentences, their cases may also come up for review for remission of sentence. Sir, why does the hon. the Minister lay down a hard and fast rule for political prisoners, except in certain cases where parents are prepared to come to him and put before him specific instances of their children having been misled? I think that is wrong. Surely each case should be considered on its merits, and surely imprisonment is a rehabilitative process, not only a punitive process. I do not think that the hon. the Minister should lay down hard and fast rules as far as remission of sentence is concerned.

The other point that I want to raise is this. The Commissioner has stated, according to a newspaper report, that all prisoners are treated on the same basis; that all prisoners on admission are put into the one category and that they are afterwards regraded. I understand that some of the so-called political prisoners have been regraded from D to higher categories, although I believe that there are not very many of them. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will inform this Committee how many so-called political prisoners have now been upgraded from D to C, B and A, because I want to point out that the D category is a very harsh category indeed. Some of these prisoners were kept in the D category for many months before they were upgraded. It means one visit in six months from a member of the family, one letter out of gaol and one letter into gaol. I think these regulations in any case are very harsh and I think it is time our prison regulations came under review by the Minister and his Department. I think they are mediaeval. I am not talking about political prisoners only now. Prisoners in this category are cut off entirely from their families; they are not given an incentive to become decent members of society again by virtue of maintaining these very important links with their wives and their children. Surely this acts as a deterrent in the rehabilitation of people who are kept in prison. Sir, I have here the British prison regulation, which I sent for, of 1964. It is stated here that special attention “shall be paid to the maintenance of such relations between the prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both”. The regulation then goes on to say—

I think that is a modern approach to prisoners and I commend this booklet to the hon. the Minister. I feel sure that our own prison regulations could be adapted to bring them more into line with modern practice. I have done some more research on this and I find that neither in England nor in America is any distinction whatsoever drawn between the first six months of a term of imprisonment and any subsequent part of it. The same conditions of internment and treatment apply throughout the term; there is no such thing as segregation unless the prisoner has committed an offence and it is considered in the best interests of prison discipline that he be kept away from other prisoners. But there is no such thing as segregation as certainly did occur in the case of some D category prisoners. There is no special category such as a D category under the American and British systems.

Visits and letters are regulated but not prohibited. Sir, I also have a letter from the Home Office in Britain which states that the minimum statutory entitlement to visits for convicted prisoners, other than prisoners under the age of 21, who receive more favourable treatment —and many of the young people serving prison sentences for political offences at the present stage are in fact under 21 years of age—the minimum statutory entitlement is a visit once in eight weeks. The Secretary of State has powers under the rules to allow additional visits to any prisoner or class of prisoners. In practice the situation is that normally prisoners of all classes are allowed a visit on reception and after a qualifying period of either eight weeks or four weeks depending on the prisoner’s classification, a visit every four weeks. Prison governors have powers under the statutory rules to allow additional visits where this is necessary for the welfare of the prisoner concerned or of his family. Prisoners under the age of 21 years are entitled by statutory rule to receive a visit every four weeks; if they are located at Young Prisoners’ Centres, they are allowed in practice to receive a visit every two weeks, and if located elsewhere they are still allowed the higher entitlement of visits if this is practicable.

Under the Prison Rules, 1964, a prisoner is entitled to send and to receive a letter on his reception into prison and thereafter once a week. The governor has authority to allow a prisoner an additional letter where necessary for his welfare or that of his family and the governor can also allow a prisoner entitled to a visit to send and to receive a letter instead. This comes from the Home Office, the Prisons Department of Britain, and it seems to me that these regulations at least reveal a modern approach towards the rehabilitation of prisoners, in comparison with which our regulations are very harsh indeed. I cannot see any reason why a man who is serving a term of imprisonment should be entitled to one visit only in six months and be allowed to receive a letter from outside only once and to send out only one letter, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider reviewing the prison regulations with a view to making them a little less harsh and with a view to bringing South Africa more into line with modern penal practices. [Time limit.]

I would also like to deal with the question of the salary scales of the police and more particularly with the commencing salaries of constables, to which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) referred.

Order! The question of salary scales and grading is a matter for the Public Service Commission, which Vote has already been discussed.

In that case I want to pass on to the hon. the Minister certain information which has come to my notice from a person who wrote to me in connection with his son who is serving in the Police Force. In one of the paragraphs of this letter he says—

Order! The hon. member cannot circumvent my ruling in that way.

Sir, this is a letter written to me in connection with a man’s conditions of service.

The hon. member is raising the question of salary scales. He cannot do so under this Vote.

The hon. the Minister already knows what the problem is, and I do not think he will be worried so much about the question of scales as about the question of the establishment of the force. In 1962 the establishment for constables was 7,807; the actual number of men in the force in that year was 7,181, which means that there were 700 vacant posts. During that year there were 659 discharges by purchase, which I must assume to be resignations. In respect of the period from 1 January 1963 to 30 June 1963 there was an establishment, as far as constables are concerned, of 8,555. with an actual strength of 6,861; in other words, there was a shortage of approximau1,700, which was very much in excess of the figure for the previous 12 months. In that period of six months there were 495 discharges, of which 412 were resignations. In the year 1964, according to the figures given to us in the House in answer to a question, there was a total establishment of 16,218, with a total actual strength of 14,231, plus 1,822 still in training. During that year there were 1,787 resignations, of which 1,307 were Whites. I bring this to the attention of the Committee and of the Minister because I think we should be given some explanation as to why the number of resignations is continuing to grow year by year in spite of the fact that the conditions of service to-day are very much better than they were before. I think the hon. the Minister is doing everything in his power to improve the conditions of service in the Police Force. In spite of what has been said here by the highly strung member for Groblersdal, the Police Force has always been regarded, not only by this Government but by past Governments, as a force which has enjoyed high esteem in police circles in the rest of the world. There is no question of anybody on this side attempting to discredit the Police Force.

The other matter that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is also a matter on which I have received correspondence and in regard to which the hon. the Minister is the only person who can help us. This letter was written to me by a young man who is in the employ of the State and who was one of the unfortunate victims of the bomb outrage at the Johannesburg station last year. This young man in his early 20s writes to say that he was seriously injured, that he suffered second-degree burns on his face, hands and legs, and that he spent six weeks in hospital, and that he found that his holiday pay and other benefits were not sufficient to see him through his period of illness, his period of convalescence. He writes to say that he still has to undergo some serious plastice surgery operations.

In which Department is he?

I will tell the Minister that privately. This young man goes on to say—

I think he is referring in particular to people in the employ of the State, because he feels that the State might then perhaps deal with the matter as a sympathetic employer. I imagine that he assumes that something will be done for other victims who were in private employment, and he draws attention to the fund which has been established to raise money for this unfortunate child who was a victim of this outrage. Sir, a couple of years ago in this House there was a private member’s motion in which this very question of compensation for the victims of acts of violence was raised. This is a matter which formed the subject of an investigation in Britain and it is also dealt with in certain reports which have been brought out in South Africa. I am just wondering whether this is not a timeous opportunity for an issue like this to be placed before the hon. the Minister because this may well be a precedent that may lead to the passing of legislation to cover cases of this nature. When this motion to which I have referred was discussed in the House a couple of years ago, hon. members on the Government side were of the opinion that such a step might involve the State in heavy expenditure, but I do think that there is a certain amount of merit in the plea put forward by this young man. I will be quite happy to show the hon. the Minister this letter personally.

On the general question of crime I just want to say that we have reached a state of affairs in Johannesburg, through no fault of the Police Force, where criminals are becoming much more daring. The situation in Johannesburg to-day reminds one of the sort of thing that happened in the United States in the heyday of gang warfare. Just recently some Africans actually had the effrontery to make a big haul of local authority funds, at a little shopping centre in Soweto. Listening to what the hon. the Minister said with regard to steps which the owners of private property should take to protect their assets, I wondered whether the State should not perhaps make it compulsory for members of the public to take certain steps to protect their assets with a view to building up some form of resistance to what is taking place at the present time. Since the public does not appear to be cooperating and seems to be impervious to what is taking place, the unfortunate consequence is that the gangster, the criminal, is becoming bolder and bolder. We may one day find that we are faced with a state of lawlessness which is completely out of hand and we will then get the complaint from the public that they are afforded no protection. [Time limit.]

I want to deal more particularly with one aspect of the Vote, the prisons section of the Vote. I want to deal with the escapes which take place after prisoners have been apprehended, and, in some cases, after they have been convicted. In doing this I am casting no reflection on the Police Force. In fact, they rather have my sympathy in view of the additional work that is thus thrown on their shoulders. According to the figures before us, there has been quite a fair increase in the personnel of the Prisons Department during the past year. It appears from the Estimates that several hundred additional members have been engaged for the prisons staff and one hopes that as a result of the engagement of these additional men there will be fewer escapes. In dealing with this position, one is somewhat handicapped by the fact that the annual report of the Commissioner of Prisons for this year has not yet been made available. One therefore has to rely on newspaper reports. I prefer to take the figures which appeared in the last report which came out at about this time last year and which covered the 12 months ending June 1963. These figures, of course, are somewhat out of date, and it does appear from Press reports that there has been a diminution in the number of escapes during the past year although the number is still very high. According to this report, the total number of escapes during that year was 1,259, 193 from inside prisons and 1,066 from work-gangs and other places outside prisons. Of those who escaped 59.3 per cent were recaptured, which, in round figures, means that 500 of those who escaped have never been recaptured and are free to continue their life of crime. Amongst the prisoners who escaped there were 82 Whites, 909 Bantu, 13 Asiatics and 255 Coloureds. Of the non-Whites 215 were serving the indeterminate sentence and can therefore be regarded as hardened criminals. The report also says that in the case of 399 of these escapes it was found that guards were to blame and that disciplinary action was taken in those particular cases. I think one has to be fair to the prisons staff in dealing with this question of escapes; one should take the total number of escapees and compare the number with the total number of prisoners admitted to prison over the same period. Between July 1962 and July 1963, according to this report, taking all races, there were roughly 401,374 total of admissions—prisoners awaiting trial and prisoners under detention for some reason or another. Those figures, of course, are not all separate people. They include people who may have been brought in two or three times during the course of the year. The number of convicted prisoners at that time totalled 288,908, and that figure again includes prisoners admitted more than once during the year. Whilst the frequency of the escapes is disquieting, the total number of 1,259 escapes must, in fairness to the staff, be considered in relation to the very large number of prisoners they were dealing with. But what is serious, and I think one of the factors on which we have to base our judgment, is that the majority of the people who escape are dangerous characters, hardened criminals, who are prepared to take the risk. The number of prisoners convicted of contraventions of regulations and for failing to produce their reference books, etc., totals plus-minus 100,000, which leaves us with about 180,000 prisoners to set off against the total number of 1,259 escapes. In other words, just over a third of the total number of persons convicted and sent to gaol are what might be described as people who are not desperate, hardened criminals. I think what is even more alarming is the extra, unnecessary work which is thrown on the shoulders of the already overburdened Police Force. This extra, unnecessary work has to be done by the Police Force at considerable risk to themselves, with resultant dislocation of their ordinary duties. All the hard work done by the police in bringing the crimes home to the offenders, in arresting them and bringing them to trial, has to be done all over again by the police when these prisoners escape and have to be re-apprehended. They have to do this work again under even more dangerous conditions because the people for whom they are now looking are desperate and reckless in their efforts to retain the liberty that they have won. Sir. I want to refer to one case which is typical of the sort of case that one probably finds throughout the Republic. This is a case where four Native convicts escaped from prison. I quote from the Cape Argus of 6 May 1965—

Immediately after their escape these men committed a burglary. They broke into a shop and stole clothing as a means of disguise. They stole certain items from a car, which they also stole to make their getaway. This report goes on to say—

Sir that is what I mean when I say that the police are subjected to all these extra duties when they already have quite sufficient work in their own sphere. There is more or less a standard pattern in these gaolbreaks. The gaolbreak is often accompanied by violence; a car is stolen; a robbery is committed; people are intimidated into giving the escapees food and clothing or money. When these gaolbreaks take place there is usually a period of terrorism in the immediate neighbourhood, particularly amongst the older people in the isolated areas, where these escapees are at large. I think one also has to take into account the fact that although the numbers may appear to be low in comparison with the total number of prisoners in gaol, the escape of prisoners is also a costly waste of the taxpayers’ money, and it means that valuable police resources have to be employed in order to re-arrest the escapees.

I want to touch on another type of escape which I think is even more serious than the one I have already dealt with, and that is the escape of these people who have been arrested or who are on the point of being arrested and who have been the leaders of subversive movements in the country. [Time limit.]

I wish to deal with a dis-quietening feature of administration of a different kind. I want to raise with the hori. the Minister certain matters connected with the administration of the liquor law. It would certainly help everybody concerned with the administration of the liquor law if there was a consolidated measure. There are some outstanding promises in that regard and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether further amendments of the Liquor Act are in contemplation and, if not, when he considers it will be possible for consolidation to take place. I want to deal particularly with certain replies given by the hon. the Minister to questions which I put to him in the course of this Session. Section 71 bis of the Liquor Act, as inserted by the 1963 amending Bill, empowers the Minister to authorize the holder of a hotel liquor licence, which is classified as an accommodation establishment, to sell off-consumption liquor at a place different from where the hotel itself is situated provided, of course, it is in the same town or city. In reply to a question which I put to him on 2 March, the hon. the Minister confirmed that the licensee of the Marine Hotel at Summerstrand in Port Elizabeth had been authorized on 17 December 1964. to remove the off-sales portion of that licence to premises in Algoa Park in Port Elizabeth, which is some distance from where the hotel itself is situated. In reply to my question as to whether objections to the granting of the authority had been received from bodies or persons, the hon. the Minister said “yes,” and then listed the objectors—

He also said that there were 1,694 signatures on the list handed to him by the aforementione-d Minister who are also objectors to this licence. When I asked the hon. Minister whether there was any support regarding the licence he said this: “No, besides the reply of the applicants to the objections and the report and recommendations of the National Liquor Board It may be added, in conformity with the policy of granting off-consumption licences to holders of suitable hotels, that the recommendations of the National Liquod Board were approved.” In spite of this long list of objectors to the authority being issued it was granted by the hon. Minister. I am not concerned with the licensee as such. He is a nominee of Cape Hotels Ltd. I mention that detail because of the sequel. In reply to a further question I raised with the hon. Minister on 25 May it appears that on 10 May the same licensee, in respect of the same off-sales business, as nominee of Cape Hotels Ltd. gave notice of his intention to apply for the removal of this off-sale liquor licence from Algoa Bay Park to a different area in Port Elizabeth, an area which, according to Press reports, was already very well accommodated with off-sales facilities. That was the sequel to this application with which I am dealing. It is true that the Minister stated in his reply that this at>plication for removal to a different locality had been withdrawn.

The second case I want to deal with relates to Section 53 of the Liquor Act as inserted by the 1963 amendment. That section, as amended, empowers the hon. the Minister to authorize the removal of an existing liquor licence to new premises in an area which is described as a “prohibited area”. I am fully aware that the hon. Minister, in exercising his power, must first get a recommendation from the National Liquor Board or from the local licensing board. The fact remains, of course, that the final decision rests with the hon. the Minister. In reply to a second question in regard to this licence on 2 March, the Minister again confirmed that transfer bad been granted on 18 September 1964 for the removal of such a licence to this area of a bottle liquor licence in the name of a nominee of a bottle liquor business. I am not so anxious to mention the name of the business concerned. When asked whether there were any objections to the removal of this licence, the hon. Minister said: “Yes, the City Council of Port Elizabeth and 40 industrialists and one resident.” This area to which it was moved, a place called Deal Park, is essentially an industrial area and is in the proximity of what is known as a prohibited area. I asked again as to whether there was any support for the removal of this licence and the Minister said: “No, besides the reply of the applicant to the objections and a recommendation by the chairman of the National Licensing Liquor Board, in terms of Section 53 of the Liquor Act.” We know that the liquor trade is a form of monopoly trade. Basic to the whole system of legislative control, it has always been a principle that the one essential criterion for the issue of a transfer or removal or the granting of a licence is whether the facility so granted will meet a public need in the area in which it is proposed to establish this type of business. I make bold to say that in neither of these instances was the hon. the Minister justified in granting the licence on the facts disclosed by himself. In regard to the first case, the one which was granted in Algoa Bay Park, in the face of a long list of objectors, the very fact that this applicant, within five months, found it desirable to seek new pastures, confirms the fact, I think, that it was not justified. The facts surrounding that application certainly prove that the objectors were right and that the hon. the Minister was wrong in granting the licence. In regard to the other one, I also submit that the facts show that the Minister was not justified in granting the licence. The City Council of Port Elizabeth itself objected, as well as a large number of industrialists in the area concerned. There was no support for it at all, other than that which I have just quoted.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to explain why these licences were granted by him in the light of the objection by the public concerned. [Time limit.]

This year appears to be the year of the liquor take-over, which is a matter in which the public is very greatly interested, particularly those members of the public who have invested in the one or other liquor distributing or producing company. I, as a Member of Parliament, regard this as an important matter. So, since February of this year, I have put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister of Justice in order to ascertain, if possible, what the Minister’s policy was in regard to applications for the taking over by one liquor company of the interests of another. This was brought very clearly to the notice of the Minister in connection with the application of the S.A. Breweries to merge with Moni’s. These companies are well known to the Minister. Then there are the oases of mergers between certain liquor distributing interests which, after the merger of A with B, sought to merge with a new company which resulted, for example, from the merger of C with D. I put it in this way, Sir, because I do not want to detain the House by reading all the details of the various companies that were involved in this takeover.

Briefly, the position is that in the case of the application of the S.A. Breweries for a takeover of Moni’s, the Minister, in terms of the discretion vested in him by the Act, refused his consent. In the case of the other major take-over which resulted in the formation of the Oude Meester Company, which is well known to certain hon. members of this House —I see the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) looking at me very intently—the hon. Minister gave his consent. What is curious about this matter is that, whereas the Minister must know very well what his reasons were for refusing the first application and consenting to the second one, he refused to give the House, in this case myself as the questioner, those reasons. I am not inquisitive, Sir—this is a matter of public interest and a matter of public policy. For that reason I thought that the hon. Minister would seize one of the eight opportunities I gave him in order to give the House a statement of his policy. Having referred me to the Act in the case of one answer and, when I asked him what the relevant considerations were, having told me that all considerations were taken into account; then again shuttling me back to the previous answer, he comes up with the reply on 30 April to my question—

He replies with his usual brevity and says: “All relevant factors were considered.” All I am trying to find out, in all honesty, is what the relevant factors are. I am not assuming for a moment that the hon. the Minister has not considered all the relevant factors. I am sure he is more than competent to consider the relevant factors. What I am trying to get at is, which is the relevant factor—and this I cannot get from the hon. Minister! I, therefore, have to refer the Minister to this commission of inquiry, which has a very long title, but which is more commonly known as the Malan Commission. The Malan Commission made certain very definite recommendations as a result of which the same hon. Minister moved certain amendments to the Liquor Act, All that was designed to change the pattern of drinking in South Africa. I do not quite know what that means, but this was the ostensible reason for the changes to the Act. The commission was heard to say in paragraph 242—

That is simple enough, Sir—

In other words, there must be a division between the wholesale trade and the retail trade—

There are other relevant paragraphs in the commission’s report which I could read to the hon. the Minister, but I am sure he knows them better than I do.

In order to sum up the position, I think I can do no better than to quote what the Financial Mail expressed as its opinion and, I maintain, the opinion of the general public, let alone the shareholders in existing liquor distributing companies, in its issue of 9 April 1965. It says, inter alia, in referring the Minister’s decision to give permission for the setting up of a new company, the Oude Meester—

Inter alia, all the advertising in connection with the Oude Meester’s prospectus has referred to the fact that one company listed on the Stock Exchange earns more than half the profits earned out of liquor distribution in South Africa. So that apparently, as the Financial Mail says, that is the reason, in some quarters, for the consent—

I think that aptly sums up the position as it is seen by the public, in regard to this merger and the Minister’s consent. [Time limit.]

When first I had the opportunity of addressing this Committee I was deploring the amount of crime and the recent crime wave of a very serious crime. I want to say that this gives me no pleasure whatsoever; it gives no South African any pleasure whatsoever. We would like to see this position entirely eliminated. I think everybody on both sides of the House and all the people outside ought to make it their business to try to assist in this respect.

I was making the point, and I still think it is a fair one, that the hon. the Minister has not done enough in the way that he can do to cope with this situation. When I said this, certain hon. members opposite tried to shield the Minister by comparing our position with that obtaining to other countries. Incidentally I was not doing that. The Minister thereupon said that I had no evidence for a statement I had made that crime had increased here to a greater extent than in other countries. I in fact cited the fact that we unfortunately had burglar bars on a great many houses. When challenged about it in other countries I said I had not come across that in those other countries in which I had travelled. The hon. Minister was still not satisfied that that was enough evidence and in his reply he quoted certain figures designed to refute this contention of mine. The figures he cited were comparisons on a percentage basis. He cited comparative increases in crime in other countries. He particularly cited Britain. I have not been able to check those figures; but let us assume, for the moment, that there has been a greater percentage increase. That was not the point I was discussing; I was discussing the over-all total amount of crime here in South Africa, the absolute amount of crime, because I was discussing it in the context of the need for burglar bars. If, for example, in one year you had one murder in a country and you now have two, that represents a 100 per cent increase, but it is not nearly as serious as when you have a few thousand murders, increasing by another thousand or so.

Because of what the hon. the Minister said I looked up certain figures on this question and I would like to give them to the Committee. I stress again that they give me no pleasure at all. It is very difficult to get accurate comparisons because the crimes seem to be marshalled under different headings in the various statistics. Since the hon. Minister dealt mainly with Britain in his comparison I think I can do no better than to compare the convictions for offences involving a death in the two countries. I think these figures constitute a valid indication of the greatly increased number of crimes of that kind here in South Africa compared with Britain. For all I know, the percentage may be greater there; but the absolute increase is obviously the important thing. The figures are not entirely satisfactory but I submit that they go a very long way to bearing me out and are certainly more than an adequate answer to anything the Minister gave. These figures are taken from the Home Office Criminal Statistics for 1963 and I give the figures in regard to all offences in which, as far as I can see, death was caused, including, I may say, death caused by dangerous driving. I am not sure whether such convictions are included in our South African figures, but I shall include them in the British figures. In 1961 there was a total of 541 convictions in Britain; in 1962, 435 and 1963, 487. The comparable figures for South Africa reflect a much worse position. These figures are from Union Statistics for Fifty Years, page F5. Under the heading “Convictions for Murder, Attempted Murder and Culpable Homicide” you find this position: in 1945 there were 1,453 such convictions. Then I jump to 1956, 1957 and 1958. These are the last three years given. In 1956 the number was 2,390; in 1957 2,350 and in 1958 2,740. In other words, the increase between 1945 and 1958 was 1,310 in this country. This is nearly three times the total number of annual convictions in British courts for crimes involving deaths. I, therefore, say again that the extent of the increase is definitely greater. It is the absolute figure which is much more important here. I suggest, therefore, that I have more than answered the Minister with these figures.

I shall now deal with murder and attempted murder. According to the same publicity there were 31 convictions for murder in 1962 in Britain. In South Africa 14 Whites were convicted of murder in 1962 and 850 non-Whites. In 1964 only four were convicted of murder in New Zealand. This is the latest year I have for New Zealand. In the case of attempted murder there were 30 convictions in 1962 in Britain; none in New Zealand in 1964 and in South Africa 45 Whites and 220 non-Whites (this 220 is either non-Whites or the total, I am not sure) were convicted of attempted murder. As so often happens figures based on percentage comparisons are entirely unconvincing and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to satisfy himself that the proper figure to look at is the absolute figure.

That brings me to an aspect where, I think, the Minister is concerned. There are, in fact, fewer police to-day in proportion to the total population than at any time since 1957. In 1958 there were 1.9 policemen per 1,000 of the population and in 1963 there were 1.65 which is an appreciable fall. One is aware that there is a manpower shortage and so on, but I would like to know from the hon. Minister what proportion he aims at under his policy I would also like to ask him how far short he is of his establishment. And whether the establishment is in fact being added to in the normal way, or whether, because men are not available, he is following a policy of not asking for an additional establishment? This is most important; the proportion of policemen to every 1,000 of the population is the vital figure. Several members on this side have already stressed the need to bring relief to the police in the way of emoluments. The police have a most dangerous task. I would say they have the most dangerous task of anybody in South Africa and they should have the highest consideration when it comes to pay. Everybody is influenced by the amount of pay they are going to get in deciding what job to take. I suggest that the hon. Minister ought definitely to hold out for greater improvements in the emoluments of the police on that ground.

It is hardly necessary for me to add anything to the tributes which have been paid to these hard-pressed policemen. When I have had certain dealings with them they have immediately conveyed to me that they are absolutely overworked and that they are battling like anything. One can see that. I think they are doing an extremely fine job in very difficult circumstances. In this connection I am very happy to say what a good job Warrant Officer Ludi did. That was a fine piece of normal detective work. It was highly successful and thoroughly praiseworthy.

I said I would try to make certain suggestions as to what the Minister could do in order to meet the position. I think suggestions are implicit in what I have already said, namely, the need for more police, the need for police to be more evident, both in walking about and travelling around in vehicles, so that they can be seen by all concerned; better pay would have a big effect upon this. If the Minister cannot, because of Government policy, get an improvement in pay, I suggest he carries out an advertising campaign to try to popularize the police, to try to improve the attitude of people towards joining the police. Very often you need to have these jobs drawn to your attention. I am not thinking of just the ordinary channels that are employed but I am thinking of a kind of special campaign that could perhaps be used. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with the hon. member who has just sat down. It is true that the ratio of police to the public is 1.65 to every 1,000. I may just say that this is higher than any percentage at any time during the period of office of the United Party.

No.

Oh, yes. The hon. member may investigate the matter and he will find that this is true.

In 1948 it was 1.73.

The hon. member forgets that his party lost the election in May, 1948! The hon. member can examine the figures himself. I have the figures here. From 1933 to 1947 the highest percentage— judging from a quick look at the list—was 1.32.

No. It was 1.55.

That may be so. In any case, it was never 1.65, which it is at present. I do not say that the figures should remain as it is: indeed, we shall not allow it to remain as it is. I told hon. members that I have increased the accommodation at the Police college and that we shall therefore be able to absorb many more people in the future than we have been able to absorb in the past. We have no problems in this connection. We can get the recruits and we can get recruits of the highest calibre. As I told hon. members, the admission standard was formerly Std. VI. This was raised to Std. VIII, and the position at the moment is that plus/minus 25 per cent of recruits are matriculants. Provision is made in respect of those who are not matriculated for very thorough training by 20 teachers who have been specially appointed at the college for this purpose. An excellent course is offered to these lads and everything possible is done to encourage them to improve their scholastic achievements, which indeed, they are doing. We have no problems, therefore, in obtaining the services of these young lads, nor will we experience any difficulty in this regard in the future. The hon. member said that we should advertise. The best advertisement we can have is the achievements of the police themselves in every possible sphere, and in spite of all the propaganda that has been made and everything that has been said —and I may add, that which has not been said during the course of the discussion of this Vote—we shall obtain the services of the necessary personnel. The hon. member returned to the question of crime statistics. I gave him the total number this morning which in 1941 just touched the 1,000,000 mark and which at present just exceeds the 2,000,000 mark. This is a hundred per cent increase. But if hon. members look at the population figures, they will find that in 1941 the total population was 10.000. 000, while in 1964 it was estimated at 18.000. 000, which means that the population almost doubled as well. So hon. members can see that I had every right to say that although we were, concerned at the increase in crime, we would achieve nothing by exaggerating this increase or putting South Africa in a bad light in this regard, and I repeat that thanks to the actions of the public, to their law-abiding nature and to the actions of the police, we have every reason to be grateful that the increase in South Africa has not been as great as it has been in other parts of the world, of which I gave examples.

I come now to the two hon. members who were the last two speakers on the Opposition side, firstly, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth South (Mr. Plewman).

The hon. member for Hospital thought fit to raise the question of the establishment of the new liquor company, the question of Moni’s and of the breweries. The hon. member put certain questions to me and I replied to the questions as they were put to me. What is the position in connection with this matter? It is true that the Malan Commission made certain recommendations, but has the hon. member asked himself when the effect of those recommendations fell away which necessitated this new development? This occurred when the breweries took over the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery. Strangely enough, the hon. member raised no objection then, nor has he raised any objection in this regard up to the present.

I was not here. How could I have objected?

Up to the present I have not heard the hon. member, or anybody else for that matter, take me to task because this happened.

You could have written a letter.

It would be preferable for the hon. member to write a letter. The hon. member is aware of the fact, or he should have made himself acquainted with it because he intended raising this matter, that, in conflict with the spirit—I want to go further and say to a certain extent in conflict with the letter—of the law the breweries took over the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery. They invested a great deal of capital in this venture and eventually, when I came on the scene, I was compelled to take action in connection with this problem. I could have said then that they should disband. I had the power to do so. But if I had done so, I would have dealt both companies a tremendous economic blow. To have made those two companies disband would have meant economic disaster for both of them. This was put to me. I then had to use my discretion as to whether I should allow it or not, and I exercised my discretion in favour of the breweries. The hon. member did not mention this fact. Apparently it does not interest him.

What has that to do with me?

What happened at a later stage has a great deal to do with the hon. member, and I shall tell him why. The amalgamation of the breweries with the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery resulted in the breweries having a monopoly as far as beer brewing was concerned and they also obtained a virtual monopoly in regard to light wine. Let me say to their credit that as a result of their marketing methods and their advertising and the manner in which they tackled this matter they also obtained a monopoly, as it were, of the cheaper light wine market. Then they went a step further. They applied for a take-over of Moni’s. I may just say that they were not the only ones who applied for a takeover of Moni’s. Another large company also applied at the same time to take over Moni’s. I refused this in both cases, to the one company because it would have been in conflict with the spirit of the law if these two large companies had amalgamated, and in the case of the breweries because it would have led to the fact that apart from the light wine monopoly and the beer monopoly, they would also have had a monopoly over good wine. All that would eventually have remained would have been the brandy market. It would just have been a question of time before this mighty monopoly with its annual R9,000,000 profit would also have had a monopoly in this regard and thus have had a complete monopoly over the whole of the liquor trade. I want to put it very clearly to the hon. member that when I allowed this new amalgamation I discussed the matter in detail with the chairman of the brewery before I decided. We had a very open-hearted discussion about the matter. I had a further discussion with the chairman of the brewery later and met virtually all the directors of the breweries, all the persons whom they brought with them. They brought their managing director and members of their expert staff with them and we discussed the whole matter in great detail. It was only after I had heard them and after I had given them a full opportunity to put their side of the matter that I arrived at a decision in this connection. I ask hon. members, what can be fairer than that one should go out of one’s way, as I did, to discuss this matter with the breweries? I put all my cards on the table and advanced every argument possible. If the hon. member for Hospital had only taken the elementary trouble to do so he would have discovered this. Perhaps he knows that this is indeed the case.

May I ask a question? How much time did the hon. the Minister give the breweries in which to lodge objection?

Unfortunately, I cannot remember but what I do know is that I discussed the matter with the chairman a good three weeks before the decision was taken. I can give the hon. member the periods later. I can also tell him that I had no application before me at that stage. I simply understood that an application would be forthcoming, but nevertheless I discussed the matter with them, and later, when I received the application, I informed the chairman of the brewery. I received the application on the 27th of the month, I informed them and discussed it with them immediately, and I took my decision on the 5th of the next month. I do not know what can be fairer than this—to discuss an application of this nature with these peoples competitors as I did in this case. I allowed this new constellation—and I accept full responsibility for it—to be established because I considered, and I believe I was right—that otherwise there would have been an absolute monopoly in the liquor trade which would not have been a good thing for anyone. I accept full responsibility for this. I gave this one large company certain markets and those markets which they have do not form 2¾ per cent of all the markets in the Republic when we count them all together, including potential markets. Unfortunately I do not have the figure before me because I did not think that this matter would be raised here. In any case, the markets they have are minimal in comparison with all the markets in the Republic. I want to make it very clear that there are other large independent companies and, because of this new set-up in the liquor trade, if some of those other large companies ask for markets, I shall be compelled to give them those markets. It is put to me, and this is an argument which I must meet, that the breweries have markets not only through their retail organizations but also through their hotels. The hon. member knows just as well as I do how many hotels are in the hands of the breweries and how many markets they have by this means. But, as I have said, I discussed the position openly with these people and they understand it. The only one who apparently does not understand it is the hon. member for Hospital. But what is more, the hon. member is aware of the close ties which exist between various groups in the Liquor trade. I do not want to mention names across the floor of the House but there is, inter alia, the group which now has control of Moni’s and which it obtained by another means. That is why my attitude is—and the hon. member ought to appreciate this; he knows that it is so—that the wonderful position envisaged by the Malan Commission and which one would have liked to have had is no longer feasible at the moment. It has become impossible, and it would be fantasy to believe that one could still bring it about. It is true that we have the position that more than one type of liquor must be displayed but, during the few years that this provision has been in force, we have seen what it has meant in practice. It means virtually nothing. It has a certain amount of advertising value but every man pushes the type in which he is interested. That is what happens in practice.

I come now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) and I am pleased that the hon. member raised this matter. I am also aware that the hon. member was urged by a certain newspaper in Port Elizabeth to raise this matter. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member—and I know what I am talking about—that if ever there has been a case of naked race hatred it has been in connection with this matter. I am speaking now of the removal of the Parkade Bottle Store to a certain area. The hon. member knows just as well as I the low propaganda which was made out of this matter by the Evening Post in Port Elizabeth. What is the position there? This matter has been put in a completely wrong light. I did not issue a new licence as these people like to insinuate and about which there have been so many lies and gossip. This was not a licence which I granted. It was an existing licence and, in the normal course of business, application was made for its removal to an industrial area. This is not a residential area but an ordinary industrial area to which it was in order for a liquor licence to be removed. If the hon. member had gone out of his way a little he would have realized that the agitation against the removal of this business rested purely on personal and racial grounds.

No.

It is true. I know it is true and the hon. member knows it too. This was purely a personal question and in order to cover it up all sorts of ulterior motives were dragged in and attempts were made to disguise the matter. I want to make this point. If the people concerned in the case had other names, there would have been no agitation. I want to make this clear and I ask the hon. member who represents Port Elizabeth what is wrong in my having approved what was recommended by all the bodies which had to make a recommendation—that this licence should be moved to a business area? What was wrong with that?

Who recommended it? What about all the objections?

The board concerned considered the objections. In spite of those objections, it recommended that the transfer be approved of. What objections did these people lodge, other than the fact that they did not want it? They simply said that they did not want it in an industrial area. But this is where the stupidity of the whole thing comes in: The one moved to a residential area and the other moved to an industrial area. They objected to the one because it was in an industrial area, and they objected to the other because it was in a residential area! Where in Heaven’s name is one to move a licence?

If it is necessary.

It is not necessary anywhere in Port Elizabeth if it belongs to an Afrikaner. Let me say this frankly to the hon. member. This is true. In this case, too, it is my duty to accept responsibility, and I accept responsibility for the recommendation which the National Liquor Board made in this connection. As far as the removal of the licence of the Marine Hotel is concerned, Parliament accepted the fact— which was approved by everyone—that an hotel which was established in such a position for the convenience of its residents could transfer its licence to another area. But to judge from the fuss and the hullabaloo which was made in this Port Elizabeth newspaper because this hotel had moved its licence, one would have sworn that the world was coming to an end. It is true that the church objected to the transfer of the licence. But the hon. member himself was chairman of a liquor licensing court. He granted many licences himself and the churches objected in respect of virtually every licence. The hon. member knows that this always happens, but he did not bother about it then.

You are wrong.

He did not bother about the objections which were lodged then. This licence was transferred to a business area in Algoa Park. There is no other licence in Algoa Park. There was no reason at all why it should have been refused. These people had the right to go there. The minister of that area came to see me. I have a great deal of sympathy with the attitude of these people, and I told him as much. I may just tell hon. members that I interested myself in this matter in spite of the fact that I could do nothing in this regard. I interested myself in it together with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), in whose constituency it falls, and between the two of us we succeeded in persuading the company concerned to transfer its licence to another area where they would not have the problem which one has in Algoa Park. I want to mention this fact. If they move from Algoa Park to another area, that same newspaper will agitate again, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) will go along with them. I know this. That is what will happen, so why hon. members have raised it in this way, I do not know.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) referred to escapes from prison. This is a matter which is causing the prison authorities concern. It is true that the incidence of escapes has increased over the years, but this is because of two reasons. The first one is because we employ these people outside more instead of keeping them in prison; so they have more opportunity to escape than when they are locked up. The other fact of the matter is that the steel in many of our old institutions cannot stand up to the modern steel saws that are being made, and where previously it was very difficult to effect an escape by means of the old iron saw, it is very easy with the steel saws which can be smuggled in to-day to saw away the bars. It is interesting that each time a prisoner escapes, the newspapers describe him as dangerous, for sensational purposes, and each time a girl is accused of a crime, they describe her as being attractive. These are the two stock phrases which the newspapers always use. It is not true that the majority of those who escape are dangerous people, because by far the minority of escapees are from the maximum security institutions where the dangerous criminals are held. Those prisoners who are employed outside are of the less dangerous type and some of them are not dangerous at all. But this is a matter which is causing concern and which one cannot overlook. The Commissioner and other officials of the Prisons Department are not doing so either. Very strong steps have been taken, particularly recently, to restrict escapes to an absolute minimum, if possible. Time does not permit me to mention all the details. But this is a problem which prison authorities throughout the world are having to combat to an increasing extent.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) referred to a certain case of a person who wrote to him. I shall be very pleased if he will give me the name and address of this person. I may make a statement in regard to this matter at a later stage, but I shall be very pleased if the hon. member will turn the case over to me, because I am dealing with these cases at the moment.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised the question that saboteurs are not given remission of sentences. I want to tell the hon. member .that I accept full responsibility in this regard. I also believe that the House will agree with me that these people ought not to be given remission. For the rest, the hon. member raised the question of the D category. I am quite satisfied with the categories in which prisoners are classified. From the nature of the case they all start under the D category and move up eventually to the A group. I am satisfied that the system we have at the moment not only works well, but is fair towards the prisoners and the community and the people who have to work with them. As far as the Poqo group is concerned, there are 1,187 in the D group, 303 in the C group, 193 in the B group and not one in the A group, while there are 39 who are unclassified. There are further recommendations that 116 be transferred from D to C, 53 from C to B and six from B to A, but no decision has been arrived at as yet in this regard.

Are the last figures those for White prisoners?

They hold good for all those who are in gaol for sabotage.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) raised the question of foot patrols. I shall have something to say in this regard when I reply to another hon. member who raised the same question. As far as the letter which the hon. member mentioned is concerned, it is obvious that I know nothing about it. If the hon. member will bring it to my attention or to that of the Secretary for Justice, we shall go into the matter.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) is not a person to raise matters lightly and, for that reason, I view the matter which he raises very seriously. The hon. member made certain suggestions and supplied certain information. I have not yet received any representations in that connection from farming communities or organizations in that area, but I shall order an inquiry into the conditions there, and I shall discuss the matter again with the hon. member in due course.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Van Zyl) made a suggestion which is worth investigating. I cannot express an opinion in this regard at this stage, because I have not had an opportunity to consider all its ramifications. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) raised the question of Mr. Naudé. In this case the police were in the same position as they are in any other case. If a complaint is made and a warrant issued, they carry out their duty, whether in regard to Mr. Naudé or any other individual.

Would they have done the same in regard to Die Kerkbode")

I know of nobody who has lodged a complaint against Die Kerkbode and so the question is quite hypothetical. I do not know on what grounds the hon. member seeks to equate Mr. Naudé with Die Kerkbode. I see no comparison between them. It is for the Attorney-General to decide whether to prosecute or not. I told the hon. member what the intention was of the raid which was carried out in this connection. Until this matter has been dealt with by the Attorney-General it will not be fitting for me to say anything further in this regard, except this. I do not know on what grounds the hon. member can take a certain article and say that it was on the grounds of that article that these things took place. That is pure guesswork on the part of the hon. member. I neither agree nor disagree with him at this stage.

The hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) referred quite correctly to the question of the Congress of Democrats and Nusas. I want to emphasize again that there is scarcely one executive member of Nusas who has not been involved in subversive activities. I have never, and nobody on this side has ever, made an accusation against the ordinary members of Nusas. We all know that they are not concerned in what is going on. But what we do say is that thanks to the actions of its executive, this organization is an obnoxious and reprehensible one. I want to express my surprise once again that in spite of what has happened the heads of the universities have not taken action in this connection. I have issued warnings in this regard over the years. Hon. members attacked me and took me to task in this regard. They know to-day that I was right and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove will agree that I was right. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also found it necessary to issue warnings in this connection although not always on the same grounds as I have issued them. But no matter what one’s political convictions may be, it does give one reason for concern that our young people are misused and destroyed in this way by a group of leftist saboteurs which control this organization. Do not imagine for a moment that those who are still there have learnt their lesson. Oh no, the gentlemen still there are playing with fire again and I hope they will take this warning to heart. The people who were there before they were, burnt their fingers and I hope that they will have second thoughts in time. Once again there is association and liaison with students in Algiers and Tanzania and with students of communist countries, and I am aware of this fact. I hope and trust that the authorities of every university at which this organization exists will come to their senses and will look into the activities of this organization. I want to repeat that it is not my people’s children who are affected in this regard. I say to the Opposition with all the earnestness at my disposal that it is their children’s future which is at stake. But whether it is their children or mine, we cannot afford to lose one of them in this struggle.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) raised the question of traffic courts, a matter which was considered earlier, and the hon. member knows that nothing came of it. I am quite prepared to go into it again to see whether something cannot be done in this regard. In actual fact it does not require as much manpower as the hon. member imagines because most of the work in this connection is taken up in issuing summonses. This requires most of the manpower and this is done by the traffic department itself. The hon. member knows that we have given them the necessary authority to do so. As far as the Cob oureds are concerned I repeat that we would like to make provision for Coloureds to occupy posts in the Department of Justice in their own municipal areas—there are openings for them—but that these people simply do not come forward.

I do not think they know about it.

No, they know about it. I have already said this in Parliament and I shall be grateful if the representatives of the Coloureds here in this House will tell their voters about it. This also holds good in regard to police services. In spite of the good remuneration in comparison with what they can receive elsewhere, it is not easy to recruit these people for the police service and it is obvious that Coloured police will do better in places like Bonteheuwel and others if only these people will come forward. Hon. members who are representatives of the Coloureds and the leaders of the Coloureds have a very great task in educating their people to serve their own people in this way. There are so many ways in which they can serve their own people but they simply do not come forward. It will be a good thing if every authority will concentrate on encouraging this spirit among the Coloureds—that they must be prepared to serve their own people. Hon. members referred to the meeting which was held at Bonteheuwel. I am pleased that there was such a good reaction but that reaction has not been good enough. The hon. member knows that we have gone out of our way to get Coloureds to join the police reserve. I would like them to participate in this movement in order to protect their own areas. But they have come forward in very small numbers. It is not necessary to establish the organition to which the hon. member referred. We have the police reserve which they can join. As such they can protect their own areas under the guidance of the police. The hon. member and other members must encourage them to do this. Let me make this very clear about the Coloureds. They must begin to realize that they have a duty towards their own people and their own townships. They cannot expect the Whites to protect them from one another in their own area, or expect the Bantu police to do so. They themselves have a duty to come forward to protect their own lives and their own people against themselves. They do not seek protection against other people but against themselves. They must be taught that they have a positive duty and if they come forward we have the necessary posts to which to appoint them and we shall give them the necessary training to serve their own people in this way.

Will the hon. the Minister establish a police station in that area?

Yes, the planning of police stations for the Coloured areas, including one which will serve Bishop Lavis Township and Bonteheuwel, is far advanced. We are giving priority to this matter because we realize that it is necessary.

The hon. members for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) and Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) referred to the question of maternity benefits for the South African Police according to the regulations. I must honestly admit that I was not aware of that position. I can therefore not give a decision in that regard now but I want to give them the assurance that I shall go into the matter to see what can be done. As far as the second aspect raised by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus is concerned, the retired members of the force, the hon. member knows of course of the principles which have already been decided in this connection and, depending upon certain approval which has still to be obtained, we hope that we shall shortly be able to eliminate that problem and thus give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) referred to the increase in crime. I have already dealt with this matter and it is not necessary to say anything further in this regard. He also referred to the so-called petty duties which the police have to perform, among others, in connection with group areas. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily now by making a full statement in this connection but the fact is that because of the new arrangement to which the hon. member referred, the police are doing far less work than before because all the administrative and office work which they had previously to do is now being done by other people and they have in effect only to deal with convictions. The hon. member referred to the magistrates’ offices at Durban. The hon. member knows the problems we have had in this connection. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) knows that I have interested myself in this matter very strongly because I know what the position is there. At this stage the matter is out of my hands; it is now in the planning stage with the Department of Public Works. Hon. members know the priority which has been given to this matter; the Department knows how urgent the matter is and as soon as that planning has been completed the building of the magistrates’ offices in Durban will be proceeded with.

The hon. Member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) referred to the Hartebees-fontein police station. Unfortunately, I do not know what the position is there. I have, however, taken note of the hon. member’s representations and I shall go into the matter. Unfortunately, I cannot at this stage give the hon. member any news in regard to the building complex at Lichtenburg but I shall make enquiries to find out what the position is and let him know later.

The hon. members for Hospital, Musgrave and Karoo referred to the absence or otherwise of police on the streets. Depending upon circumstances, the police operate either in uniform or in civilian clothes. The fact, therefore, that one does not always see a policeman does not mean to say that there is not one in the vicinity. Let us take the case of the Witwatersrand. Having regard to the total number of police available, we have made generous provision for the Witwatersrand, namely, 1,677 White and 2,741 non-White police. We have more than 4,300 police officers on the Witwatersrand. Hon. members referred to Chicago. We have all read that article. In spite of all the measures which they have taken there and to which hon members referred—they are all effective measures—there were more than 1,100 cases of rape in Chicago during the past year, according to that same article. I is not simply a question of placing a policeman on the corner of each street and thus preventing crime; it is not simply a question of having a patrol car which drives past every two seconds. The causes of crime go far deeper. Hon. members opposite say that they are not interested in the fact that crime in other parts of the world has increased; they are only interested in South Africa, and the fact that crime has increased here is apparently due to rrjy weakness. Because I cannot apprehend these criminals myself, they also by implication accuse the police of being incompetent. But hon. members on that side know that crime is increasing every year. One expects the number of crimes to increase each year. That was the position under the United Party Government; that is the position in South Africa and it is the position throughout the world. Nobody can be blamed for this. What can be done is that the Minister and the police can be blamed if they do not catch the people committing these crimes. One can blame the police if they do not give the necessary attention to the matter. But hon. members opposite cannot do so because I have proved to them how successful the police have been in this connection.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) quoted from a newspaper in regard to everything that happened on a particular day requiring the attention of the police. Well, we can do this at all times in respect of every country and in respect of every period in our history. It takes us no further in our efforts to find a solution to this problem. I repeat that the position today is that there are 1.65 police for every thousand people in South Africa. Hon. members are aware that we have raised the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. This will make a great difference. But hon. members are also aware that this ratio of 1.65 per thousand is higher that it was at any time under the United Party Government. The highest figure under the U.P. Government was in 1947 when it was 1.5 per thousand.

And what about 1948?

The hon. members for Florida and Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) referred to police salaries and similar matters. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter. I also want to say that I welcome the spirit in which these two members discussed this matter, a spirit which was far different to that in which certain newspapers wrote on this matter when the question of police salaries was flagrantly exploited by certain unscrupulous people. Let us consider the position for a moment. Because one must have a basis to work on one must unfortunately quote comparative figures in this connection.

I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to discuss the question of police salaries.

No, Sir, I do not want to discuss their salaries. With your permission I should like to discuss police strength. I am sure you will permit me when mentioning certain posts to say in passing what the starting salary in respect of that particular post is without discussing salary scales as such. In 1948, as now, there was one Commissioner of Police, while to-day we also have Deputy-Commissioners, Sub-Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners. There was only one such post in 1948 while to-day we have no fewer than 18 such posts. I mention these figures because I want hon. members to understand clearly that the force has improved and expanded tremendously in two respects. The one is in regard to the question of remuneration and the other is in regard to the question of the possibilities for promotion which exist to-day and which did not exist under the United Party Government. Under the United Party Government there were only two persons with the rank of Colonel in the whole of the Police Force while to-day there are 43. There were 12 Lt.-Colonels while to-day there are 94. There were 46 Majors as against 147 to-day. There were 87 Captains as against 329 to-day. There were 121 Lieutenants as against 447 to-day. There were 361 warrant officers as against 1,300 to-day. There were 3,000 sergeants as against 4,308 to-day. I am speaking only of the Whites. In spite of the fact that the number of Whites in the South African Police Force increased by only 50 per cent, the number of officer posts rose from 45, if I have added correctly, to more than 1,100. In other words, there is the fullest opportunity in the Police Force to-day for promotion to officer rank, which was not available in former years. There is not a single person who joins the Police Force to-day and who passes his examination who cannot become an officer in the Police Force. In earlier years this was impossible. In 1948 there was one officer for every 48 members of the force while to-day there is one officer for every 13 members of the force. Hon. members will realize the great chances for promotion there are to-day which did not exist in the past. The cost of living has risen by 66 per cent since 1948 but police starting salaries have increased by 300 per cent. Hon. members are aware that a constable started on a salary of R400 in 1948 and they know that when a constable leaves the college to-day, he is paid R 1,002 plus an allowance of R300, a total of R 1,302 as against the R400 which he received in 1948. In other words, he is paid three times as much in spite of the fact that the cost of living has risen by only 66 per cent. Mr. Chairman, you will not permit me to discuss this matter any further although I would very much have liked to have had the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), like the hon. member for Boland, referred to police matters in the Coloured residential areas. He asked certain questions and made certain suggestions which I shall consider. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I have now dealt with most of the points raised by hon. members.

I do not think the hon. the Minister has replied at all to the questions I put to him about Sobukwe; whether he is considering his release or otherwise will allow him to be moved to a place where his wife can see him.

I am pleased that the hon. member has reminded me about this. The hon. member raised the question of Sobukwe. I am not prepared at this stage to move him to another place, and for very good reasons. Nor do I wish to discuss Sobukwe’s future with the hon. member at this stage. She will have another opportunity during this Session to raise this matter and then we can discuss it in all its details. If we do so now, we shall only have to repeat it all at a later stage.

In regard to the transfer of off-consumption licences from one area to another, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the policy to respect the rights of existing bottle stores?

Yes as far as possible the board considers the interests of other licencees because it does not want all the licencees in one area. But in this connection and almost to my dismay, I had the position that a certain hotel in Pretoria qualified automatically for an off-consumption licence because it was classified. It established its off-consumption premises on the hotel premises and to my surprise the bottle store a little way away objected strongly to me because the hotel received an off-consumption licence on its own premises. It is very difficult to satisfy everyone in the liquor trade but it is the policy of the board to spread licences as much as possible and not to have them on top of one another. But in many cases there are no suitable premises to which the licences can be moved and sometimes one can simply not do otherwise than to have these premises fairly close to one another. The hon. member knows that in Cape Town and Johannesburg and the larger cities there have for many years been licensed premises situated only a few doors from one another. Everything depends upon circumstances.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 44. — “Prisons”, R 14,440,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 45. — “Police”, R56,358,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 46.—“Information”, R3,185,000,

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. Sir, we on these benches, just like hon. members on the Government benches, I presume, are concerned about the disastrous image of South Africa in the eyes of people in the Western countries, and more particularly in the eyes of the peoples of the Africa countries.

Who created that image?

You did.

Apart from the activities of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in assisting to alter that image, we on these benches view the work of the Minister of Information as one of the most important means of breaking down the barriers of misunderstanding that exist in respect of our country abroad. Sir, last year when we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister we made certain constructive proposals to him which we hoped he could apply in the administration of his Department. We suggested, for instance, that he should scrap his policy of selling Government race policies through the medium of the Department of Information and that he should rather substitute the idea of selling South Africa factually and the people of South Africa as they really are. We also suggested that to this end he should emphasize the aspect that there are White South Africans who have as much right to their place on the African Continent as any Black African and that in our country there is a large measure of goodwill between the various races. We also suggested to the hon. the Minister that in carrying out the work of his Department abroad he should also make use of the services of Coloureds and Bantu and, if necessary, even Indians of South African origin to emphasize the activities of the Government in the interests of the Indian population. In putting forward these practical suggestions we felt that we could make a constructive contribution to the work of the Minister’s Department on the basis that we all share this concern over the bad image of South Africa abroad. We also suggested to the hon. the Minister, as I do again to-day, that the hon. the Minister himself should reorientate his own outlook and that he should approach the responsibilities of his Department from a South African point of view rather than from the point of view of a Nationalist Party politician. Sir, I am prepared to admit that in the past year since we last discussed his Vote, the Minister has made efforts to alter South Africa’s image abroad, but I want to say that whatever efforts have been made by the Minister in the process of spending the R3,180,000 which was voted by this House last year for the administration of his Department, those efforts were sabotaged by acts of this Government. Sir, evidence to support this statement of mine is to be found in the Minister’s own departmental report. Let me quote from page 8 of the report—

Sir, we have just had two very good instances showing how the image of South Africa is created abroad by acts of this Government. We had the case of the refusal of a visa to a South African, Mr. Breyitenbach, a person with great achievements to his credit in the cultural sphere. The story of the refusal of a visa to Mr. Breytenbach made headlines throughout the world.

He was not refused a visa.

Well, his wife was refused a visa. Sir, the entire Budget of the Minister could not buy the space which was given to this Story abroad in newspapers, apart from the time taken over the radio, in giving publicity to this story. Then there is another case that we can cite, and that is the silly action in refusing entry to a Cypriot who had been granted a visa to enter this country as an immigrant, on the grounds that he was suntanned. I repeat, Sir, that the Minister’s efforts and the efforts of his Department are being sabotaged by the Government’s own actions. Sir, we cannot look at the report which the Minister has tabled with regard to the work of his Department, in isolation. I think I should remind the Committee that this report indicates that no progress whatsoever has been made in improving the image of South Africa abroad. It indicates the same position that is reflected in the reports that we have had from the Department of Information in the past four years. The progress made in this connection, in relation to the expenditure, is relatively negligible. The report of the Department still reveals absolute animosity on the part of many media which have to be used by the, hon. the Minister’s information officers abroad. The report reveals a world not only full of animosity to the people of South Africa, but a world whose animosity is directed at the race policies of this Government. Sir, we on these benches would be the last people to say that we in South Africa do not have a lot to sell to the world as far as the attractions and the achievements of our country are concerned. We certainly have a great deal that we can sell to the world, but the problem that we face is that all these assets of South Africa are lost because of the attitude of the Government on the question of race issues. That is clearly stated in the report of the hon. the Minister. I quote again from page 8—

This is no different from the comments in the previous year’s report where they said this—

I think it would only be fair to say that there are one or two encouraging signs in the report tabled by the Minister. As far as the work of the Department in France is concerned, certainly, there are encouraging signs that the picture is being changed, based apparently, according to the report, on the economic development and flourishing economy of South Africa.

But has all the work done by the information attachés in France not been broken down by the extensive publicity given to the case of Mr. Breyitenbach and his wife in the French Press. The image that that incident has built up to the Frenoh people is not an image of a constructive South Africa, but an image which they cannot understand in their equation of human values.

We are asked to vote R3,185,000, of which R 1,600,000 will be spent on publicity, publications and advertisements. Of all this expenditure, how much is really directed overseas? The Minister to-day has a staff of something like 378 in his Department. Of these 336 are employed in the Republic and, of those 336, 145 are located in the regional offices of the Department throughout the country. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what do all these information officers sell. The report tabled by the Minister deals with the work of the Department overseas. The report is strangely silent on the activities of the Department here in the Republic. We are told in this report that these 336 members of the Minister’s staff produced 441 Press statements or Government blurbs, so much so, that complaints are to-day aired by the South African Press that they have considerable difficulty in getting direct contact with the Ministers or Government Departments in order to make assessments of Government policy of their own accord. All Statements on Government activities are to-day released through the Press liaison office of the Minister of Information. One wonders whether the Minister’s Department paints those Press statements up in acceptable form to present the actions of the Government in the most favourable light.

I want to ask the Minister now, in the course of this debate, to give the House and the country some idea of the breakdown of this expenditure. How much of his departmental activities are directed towards the internal activities of the Department, and how much is devoted to the external activities of his Department which, I believe, the country understands to be his prime responsibility? Certain criticism is to-day being aired in connection with the work of the information attachés abroad. I do not want to press this point too far, because I am prepared to concede that in certain cases there may be unjustified criticism. But there is criticism without a shadow of doubt. The criticism which is to-day being aired in certain foreign Presses is that the work of our Information Office abroad is more to publicise that Information Office than to publicise the image of South Africa as a whole. I want to quote an extract in justification of this statement. This comes from the South African Press. It is a newspaper of which I believe the Prime Minister is the chairman. It says this—

It then criticizes the Department of Information for not disseminating the South African story effectively—

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting this from the Financial Gazette of two weeks ago. I believe the Financial Gazette is published by a company of which the Prime Minister is chairman. They are quoting from an Australian paper, the Australian International News Review, printed in Sydney.

They are quoting from an Australian paper?

Yes, I said so. I quoted that as an example, and I believe there are others. I quoted this example because it comes from the Prime Minister’s own newspaper.

There is no doubt that a great deal of the information that flows to newspapers abroad comes ex our own newspaper offices here in South Africa, either by stringers or by arrangement between one newspaper group and another newspaper group as a normal business transaction in selling news. I put a question on the Order Paper to the Minister, some two months ago, whether or not he had taken any steps to make direct contact with the newspaper editors of South Africa with a view to soliciting their support in the work in which the hon. the Minister has to present a correct picture of South Africa. I would like to ask the Minister again: Wihat is his actual liaison with the Press of South Africa? What acutal contact is there between the Press and his Department other than giving out handouts, prepared blurbs, blurbs checked by his Department from the public relations aspect? What is the Minister’s personal relationship with the Press of South Africa in order to get the support of that Press in the work of his Department in presenting a correct image? We on these benches, Sir, are afraid that the Minister looks upon the entire Press in South Africa, other than that section which supports his own party, as a potential enemy. The Minister is not prepared to concede that there are responsible newspapermen in South Africa who are as much concerned about this disastrous image the outside world has of our country as ihe and I are. They are prepared to play their part in seeing that a true image of South Africa is presented abroad. It is rather disastrous, when you put a question like this to the Minister of Information on the Order Paper, the Minister with all the responsibility which he does carry, that he has to tell this House that he has absolutely no contacts, or makes no contact, with the general Press of South Africa.

I want to turn to another aspect. This budget is for R3,185,000. This is to change the picture of South Africa; to give the facts of South Africa. Yet the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is embarking upon a scheme which is not going to cost R3,000,000 odd, but which is going to involve a capital expenditure in excess of R5,000,000, and whose operations are going to run into at least R 1,000,000 per annum, in order to give the world, by means of the radio, a picture of South Africa. I put certain questions to the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in that regard. I asked him whether he had had any consultation or contact with the Minister of Information in regard to what was obviously an information activity. I asked him whether he had had discussions with the Minister of Information in regard to the nature of the service and its objectives, and, if not, why not? The reply was: “No, as the external radio service will also not be a propaganda service, and as it will merely reflect the true image of South Africa and its people. The S.A.B.C. will attend to the programmes in the normal course of its activities.” But here we have a report from the Minister’s own Department in which he says how much his Department is doing in the preparation of talks, tape recordings, news items, features, musical programmes and so forth which his Department can disseminate to all the other radio stations of the world in order to give a true picture of South Africa. But his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, has no confidence in him. But then I ask the hon. Minister of Information, aware of all these activities in the Cabinet, aware of this vast capital expenditure, aware of the current expenditure to paint a correct picture of South Africa abroad, whether he has taken any action in regard to these steps? I asked the Minister in March of this year whether he intended to offer any suggestions to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in regard to this important work, and what was his reply? He said: “The S.A.B.C. is an autonomous body. Therefore, when approached, the matter will receive attention.” At no time has .the Minister had any consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in regard to these vast developments. This is a medium established by the Government which is going to reach millions and millions of people, not only in the Western world, but in the entire African Continent. It is going to reach millions of people in a manner in which this Minister’s Department can never hope to reach them, yet the Minister of Information can prepare radio programmes for foreign stations, but he cannot do so for our own South African station. I want to ask the Minister whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has no confidence in him or has the Minister of Information no confidence in the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs?

Now you have made a very major political point.

It is not a political point; it is a tragic issue. It is tragic that, when South Africa is faced with a problem of presenting a correct image to the outside world, an image which can affect our entire relationship with other countries, that you have to have a silly interjection of that nature. The hon. member is surely not aware of his responsibility in this matter. Is the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) not concerned about changing this image of South Africa?

That was a very good interjection.

There you have it, Sir. Hon. members opposite think they can still sit and grin, in the circumstances in which our country finds itself, and satisfy themselves that they can still play the old racial tom-tom with impunity on all occasions.

Can the Minister give us a clear picture? Is it his intention, is it his policy, to assist in the type of programmes that will be submitted by means of these tremendously powerful transmitters in order to put over the right picture to the peoples of the world, something which he is trying to do with 42 humble information attachés and a few Press handouts and printed leaflets at the rate of 1,000 a time? Here he has a medium in his lap whereby he can get into the homes of those millions of people and put across a message from South Africa.

We on this side of the House have to ask ourselves what hope we have. We are discussing this Vote with a literal feeling of hopelessness. What hope have we got, with this Minister and his Governmenit’s policy, of being †able to change the picture of South Africa in the minds of the .peoples of the world? That is the question I ask myself.

Here I have a leaflet issued by the Life “Lively” series. This is an international publication. It is a magazine which has never been equalled in the history of the world in its circulation on an international scale. I do not know in how many languages it is printed. It is the largest publishing concern of magazines in the world. They have now embarked upon a programme of publishing individual information about the countries of the world. I wonder what the Minister of Information will say when he hears this, because I am sure he has not even bothered to get it or to read it; perhaps he is not even aware of it.

You are not the only one who reads these things.

I hope I am wrong, but I wonder whether the Minister can get up and say that the representatives of Life came and consulted him about the facts of South Africa. Did .they come to the Minister?

No.

Because this is how they describe South Africa. This is going to be conveyed to millions and millions of people in the world. This is how they describe this country of ours—

In spite of all our assets, in spite of everything we have, the thing that concerns people most in the world is the question of human relations, the attitude of one man to another, the attitude of nation to nation. The tragedy of the situation is this: In discussing a Vote of this nature, no matter what constructive suggestions we make, in the last resort it is all sabotaged by the short-sighted racial policies of this Government.

I want to deal with the last point made by the hon. member. He said that everything was being destroyed as the result of the policy of this Government. I am sure he knows that if their policy were applied it would find as little favour in the eyes of Life and in the eyes of Time and of the New York Times.

Give us a chance.

You had a chance. I am very pleased that the hon. member has made that interjection. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says now that certain incidents like the Breytenbach incident— he probably forgot to mention the Independence incident—are destroying all the good work being done by the hon. the Minister and his Department. He will be the first to admit that certain things which happen in South Africa cannot be understood by people overseas. I shall be the first to admit that certain things which happen here are very difficult to explain to people overseas. I do not care which government is in power, it will still be just as difficult to explain these things. Let me remind the hon. member that when our representative at UN in 1947 was Field Marshall Smuts, Field Marshall Smuts with his tremendous reputation, the darling of the West, he was not able to create the impression that we were treating the Indians in South Africa in a decent way. I admit that he was the South African who had the highest reputation and who was held in the highest esteem by those people, but even with that great reputation he could not with all his influence convince UN that we were treating the Indians properly here.

How many votes were there against him?

The majority, and then it was chiefly a White UN. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with an extremely difficult situation and we will always have incidents. I want to ask the hon. member for Turffontein, if he had been Minister of Information in General Smuts’s day, how he would have explained the incident of the Israelites and Henoch, when more than 400 Bantu were shot dead, to people overseas? How would he have explained Bulhoek? How would he have explained the Bondelswarts incident when hundreds of Bantu were shot dead? I can think of numbers and numbers of incidents under the Smuts Government which he would not have been able to explain to the people overseas because they do not understand our problems. If the hon. member for Turffontein had been Minister of Information how would he have explained the 1922 strike and the shooting of people in the streets of Johannesburg to the people overseas? Why were they shot? They were shot because the miners went on strike—and they won—because they did not want certain work on the mines to be done by the Bantu. Would the hon. member have been able to explain this to the people overseas? How would he explain to the people overseas that under the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition Bantu may not do certain work on the mines?

The whole point of the matter is that we have a situation here in which things happen which are extremely difficult to explain to those people. This was the position under General Smuts and if he had been in power to-day the position would have been precisely the same. We shall simply have to follow through and try to make it clear to these people that our policy will in the long run be the best for South Africa.