I move—

1. (a) the administration and working of the prisons of the Union; and
2. (b) the Union penal system, with a view to effecting such changes as may be deemed in the national interest.

I am here this morning not merely to express my own views on this motion but to voice in general terms what I believe to be the considered opinion of this House and of those members of the public whose thoughts and service are continually directed towards the uplift of all our people. Being personally interested in social welfare matters, as far as this House is concerned, I will also endeavour to deal with it from that point of view. So far as the movement inside Parliament is concerned, in my action this morning I am continuing a service already rendered in Parliament in a very able manner. I refer particularly to the motion in Another Place by Senator Hartog in 1941 and to the constructive speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) during the last Session of Parliament. Therefore, the proposition I now urge upon the Government has been advocated for four years, and of course the general question has been raised from time to time with good effect. But, Sir, we must continually move forward in these matters. Outside Parliament the principle of the motion has been urged by Dr. the Hon. F. E. T. Krause (formerly Judge-President of the Orange Free State) for over twenty years. He must be regarded as the pioneer of this reform movement, and in view of his important position and long experience his counsel must be treated seriously, however advanced it may be. Among others there are Mr. Justice Black-well, in reference to prison reform; the rotary clubs of South Africa, representing a cross-section of practically every urban community (they are to have a conference on this question next month), the South African Institute of Race Relations, which has a standing committee on penal reform, the Christian Council of South Africa, the Rev. H. D. Junod, Missionary to African prisoners in Pretoria for many years, and the Bishop of Pretoria. And what is very important, the Minister of Justice and Secretary for Justice can, I think, correctly be stated to be in favour not only of the principle but of action being taken. I shall refer to statements which-give me more than that impression. Further only the other Sunday evening in Johannesburg the Dean preached a sermon on this very subject, indicating that the churches in South Africa are keenly alive to the importance of this question. I have received a telegram from the District Governor of Rotary in South Africa saying—

I have also received a telegram from the women of the Methodist Churches of South Africa, giving their wholehearted support. I think, therefore, it is opportune that this House should now express itself decisively on this subject and ally itself to what I believe to be considered public opinion on this matter. It is right also to state that the motion was largely inspired by the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell in the case Rex versus Scholes, but while it may be considered timely in that respect, there are other considerations to which I may refer. My lack of an intimate knowledge of prisons is a severe handicap, but it is not an uncommon practice in this House for hon. members to express views on subjects they are not intimately associated with. I think it will be admitted generally and it will also be the opinion of this House that no national scheme of reconstruction would be complete without an investigation of our penal system and our prison conditions. A study of crime statistics, its causes, treatment and effects, would throw into relief the whole basis of our South African society, the equity or inequity of our laws and the conditions affecting human behaviour. I quite agree that emotionalism or sensationalism should play no part in arriving at a decision on these matters, and that rather any conclusion we arrive at should be based on reason and the logic of facts with the general background of the interests of South African society as a whole. The sincerity, however, of our request for a better order will be tested in the main by our regard for those dwelling in the shadows of our society in or out of prison. Those whose interests the motion seeks to advance are walled or shuttered out from modern society and for them it may generally be said “Out of sight out of mind”. Lord Morley has recorded that, passing one of the great gaols of London, he asked himself two questions, “Why are they in?” “Why are we out?” Whichever way this is interpreted, it gives to most of us a new approach to this matter. Lord Samuel in 1939 dealt with one aspect in an address entitled, “Is the criminal to be blamed, or society?” He said—

He ends by saying—

I quote this because I think it gives us broadly the background for consideration of penal reform. In regard to the essential of the enforcement of the law and the punishment of offenders, I cannot do better than quote from a speech of the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, Mr. Herbert Morrison at Birmingham in March, 1944—

As far back as 1895, a committee presided over by Lord Gladstone said—

On these principles all subsequent development of the British prison system has been based. The most recent reforms contemplated are those introduced by Sir Samuel Hoare in November, 1938, which passed through the committee stage in the House of Commons in 1939, when its further progress was prevented by the outbreak of war. The preamble of the Bill reads—

It is I am sure the desire of this House that we should move forward with other countries. Improvements have been made since the introduction of or the passing of our prison regulations in 1911; but the position is still very unsatisfactory. I feel it is the intention of the Government to associate itself in practice with the policy indicated by the British staesmen I have quoted, but I am serioulsy perturbed in view of what has been disclosed to us in the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell. But an indication has been given by this Government of its policy. The Minister of Justice has already given us a lead in this matter. On the 29th April, 1941, in reply to Senator Hartog he said—

We shall consider later whether the heed for a commission has increased; but for the present let us take some comparative figures on which to base our finding. Great Britain has a population of some 40,000,000. It is stated that each year about 32,000 people are sent to prison. South Africa has a population of between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000; in 1943, 207,000 persons were committed to penal institutions. It is estimated of this number 150,000 were Africans and 110,000 were first offenders, but of these first offenders 90 per cent. were people who were placed in gaol for statutory offences that we Europeans would not regard as crimes at all. In 1944 we could not accommodate our prison population; the Minister had to release nearly 4,000 shortterm prisoners on account of the overcrowding of the gaols and the impossibility of obtaining more buildings. It has been stated that our prison population is in proportion to total population probably the largest in the world. During the last six years, of our prison population, averaging 200,000 70 per cent. were first offenders. Another very important and disturbing matter is that in regard to recidivists (broadly those who serve more than one term after conviction) show a serious increase in percentage of the total, rising from 20.4 per cent. in 1936 to 31 per cent. in 1942. This is an advance of over 50 per cent. in proportion. The conclusion that I draw and that the House will draw from these figures is that our present prison system, or our penal system if you like, is to say the least, very unsatisfactory. It is not successful either as a deterrent or as a rehabilitative force. The Secretary for Justice has said in regard to recidivists—

Our main purpose should be and must be to keep persons out of gaol. In our treatment of this question generally, due weight must be given to prevention, deterrence and reformation, while bearing in mind that the greater the amount of crime the greater the reflection upon our South African society either in regard to its laws or in relation to its economic and social conditions. It is, I think, true to say that a substantial proportion of offenders under our laws are more sinned against than sinning. Take, for example, the poor economic and living conditions of so many Africans in urban areas under which it is essential that both parents should go out to work, leaving their children without supervision. It is stated that “at the Diepkloof Reformatory 82.4 per cent. of African male juvenile inmates from the Witwatersrand have been convicted for theft, housebreaking and robbery, crimes usually associated with an impoverished community”. While dealing with this question as it affects Africans, I think attention should be drawn to the number convicted for statutory offences which were breaches of laws only applicable to them. I have the numbers of persons convicted in regard to these laws in 1943. They are: Native Taxation Act, 21,464; illegal possession of native liquor, 102,574; municipal offences, 34,619; Native Urban Areas Act, 9,464; Native Pass Law, 54,903; and Native Labour Regulations Act, 20,572. The approximate figures for actual imprisonment I have already quoted. The whole question of penalties for breaches of these laws and the outlook of the Department of Justice in terms of the regulations should be brought under review not only in the interests of the offenders, but of our society in general. Is reform then a matter of urgency? As our prisons are practically a closed book even to Parliamentarians, it is only possible to know something of what happens when a page is turned over, as in the case of the finding of Mr. Justice Black-well (which should be in the hands of every legislator). The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) will deal more extensively with this finding which is of great importance for many reasons, not the least of which is that it gives the country information which it would not otherwise have known. It has come by chance. I must include one or two extracts from it—

The judge paid a tribute to Mr. Du Plooy’s kindly nature, his humanity and his fairness in meeting the men and in redressing their grievances once they got as far as him. Their complaint was that they could not get to him when they wanted to see him. Judge Blackwell further stated—

As this finding had relation to a European it may be assumed that the postiion of nonEuropeans would be worse. It must also be borne in mind that the state of affairs at the Pretoria prison may be indicative of what is happening at the other prisons. One hesitates actually to suggest that this is so, but the following statement that appeared in the “Cape Argus” on the 3rd December, 1944, would seem to support such a view—

Mr. Weston was fined £25 or three months for an offence he did not commit. After 17 days the fine was paid and two years later, in 1941, he was officially pardoned. The Government paid him £173 in recompense for the fees he had paid to private detectives to track down the real culprit in his case. On the day he was released Mr. Weston began a seven days’ sentence of solitary confinement.

Sir, from information I have received I am satisfied that Mr. Weston was imbued with public-spiritedness in giving publicity to his experience. I was particularly concerned about his statement “another impression of mine was that natives were given solitary confinement for the most trivial offences. I saw natives walking in chains”. In regard to solitary confinement there is a great deal of public opinion against solitary confinement and spare diet for health reasons, mental distress and its degrading effect upon the individual. Mr. Weston’s statement, taken in conjunction with the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell, gives cause for serious concern about all our prisons. If Europeans have reason for strong complaint we may well be exercised in our minds about the non-Europeans. Dr., the hon. F. E. T. Krause has stated in regard to Mr. Weston’s report—

While it is necessary to give prominence to much criticism of our prison system, it is only fair to say that much improvement has been made in recent years. I quote the following from the publication “Inside our Prisons” by Dr. the hon. F. E. T. Krause. He says that—

In regard to prison offences, the list which I have tried in the time at my disposal to digest and obtain some idea as to the reasons therefor, I must say that they place a person in a mental barbed wire entanglement. There are regulations for warders, regulations for prisoners, and a list of offences. Now as far as prisoners are concerned the regulations number 55. They are rules which the prisoner is expected to be acquainted with and if he breaks one of these regulations he is liable to be tried by the Superintendendent of the prison and to have punishment inflicted on him. Offences in prison relating to prisoners number 30. Now I am not in a position to say whether the regulations are all justified or not, I only point out their number. Some, I say, are essential—discipline must be observed in prison and the law must be carried out—but others certainly appear as being definitely unnecessary. For example, a convict must be quiet everywhere and at all times; he must, when marching, keep his head erect and his face to the front; he must, in speaking to an officer, stand at two paces distance and must not breathe into an officer’s face to make him hear; he must, on entering the dining hall, take his seat promptly, position erect, with eyes to the front, and not commence eating until the signal is given. He must, after finishing his meal, sit erect until the signal is given to rise, and then they must march out in line, in a prompt, quick and orderly manner; he must, in talking to an officer confine himself strictly to the matter in hand. There are no specific regulations dealing with native prisoners. While there are reasons for these regulations, it seems to me that they require some straightening out. I cannot imagine that the prison authorities enforce them all, and it is due to the warders’ attitude that they are not enforced 100 per cent. In regard to offences 30 are actually specified. I cannot say the extent to which the regulations are enforced but the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell in the case quoted is illuminating. I think the time has arrived to have a revised set of regulations brought up to date with considered public opinion and the more Christian outlook now obtaining. The Government is to be commended for what it has done for the segregation of different types of offenders, but this should be pursued much further. This question of disciplinary punishment in prisons calls for investigation and adjustment in the light of experience. Bad prisons and inefficient and unsympathetic administration are a cause of crime and probably the large number of recidivists. The position in Russia and other countries overseas should again be investigated by members of the commission. Obviously unnecessary hardships should be corrected without delay as a matter of common justice or done away with, but generally speaking we should avoid piecemeal legislation. As has been well said patchwork leads to more patches. The appointment of warders should be made more attractive and such as to induce a higher, qualified type of public servant capable not only of maintaining discipline, but of imparting the right spirit to the prisoners. The warders’ work calls for great patience and is arduous to a degree not fully appreciated. It is imperative that these Government servants should have a due appreciation of human personality. It is a matter worthy of consideration as to whether the treatment and care of the better types of prisoners should not be undertaken in institutions under the Social Welfare Department and not under the Department of Justice. It strikes me that Africans found guilty of statutory offences should be under the jurisdiction of the Native Affairs Department. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I went to prison, in other words, I was taken to prison by the Secretary for Justice. It was only a lightning visit, and a passing phase, but it made a great impression on me. In the company of Mr. Hoal I visited the Cape Town prison (Roeland Street) and also the prison at Bellville. The contrast between the two buildings was sharp, and the Roeland Street prison points to the necessity of a new building, based upon a modern conception of deterrence and reformation. The accommodation at Roeland Street provides for 530 inmates, while the actual total registered on the day of my visit, without including myself, was 893. These figures speak for themselves and may be indicative of the general position of prisons in South Africa. The staff is based on the normal accommodation of 530, and you can well imagine what that means to the staff to have that surplus or excess over the accommodation provided. The Secretary for Justice told me that on a minimum basis, 40 per cent. of the inmates should in his opinion not be in that prison, but committed to other penal institutions, as they were guilty of offences which cannot be regarded as serious enough to justify their incarceration there. He estimated also that 25 per cent. of those at Bellville, which is for long-term prisoners, should never have reached that prison for the same reason. I have obviously not had time to measure the full significance of these estimates which were confirmed by the superintendent, but they appear to give abundant and strong support to the claim for a review of the treatment of Africans guilty of statutory offences, such as have already been referred to. Now, I would say this in regard to Roeland Street: the site is wrong, the building is antiquated in regard to its layout, the ventilation is bad in the single cells, and that at the earliest opportunity it should be used for some other purpose or be demolished, and a prison like that at Bellville should be established in the open spaces in the Cape Peninsula. I hope I am not boring the House. This is a matter which calls for serious consideration. With regard to reformation, any attempts— I don’t think I am incorrect here—any attempts made in regard to reformation are left to the chaplains. At Bellville, where there is a large number of prisoners, chaplains go there once a week to conduct a service. That is not sufficient to carry out the work of reformation and to make these people realise in some measure at least that they are in touch with the outside world. The work of the chaplain calls for the highest qualities of character. Appointments should be made with some degree of permanence and should it is considered be made in consultation with such bodies as the Christian Council of South Africa, the Federal Council of the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church. On the 27th June, 1944, a deputation of chaplains interviewed the Secretary for Justice and laid before him certain recommendations to which I understand no reply has been received. Among other things they asked for the punitive and reformative purposes of the prison to be more closely co-ordinated; for the recognition of a chaplain as an essential worker and not merely as a preacher once a week. They asked that the Department should recognise reform as the purpose of prisions. On this aspect of the matter I want to repeat that it has been aptly said that wrongdoers are sent to prison as a punishment, nor for punishment. The deputation urged the repeal of the present regulations and the drafting of new ones in accord with the modern spirit of penal reform. They pressed for the term “prisoner” to be substituted for “convict” (bandiet) and stated that the psychological effect of the term “convict” is demoralising and degrading, and suggests that the person has reached an irredeemable condition. In England the phrase “convict prison” is never used and the use of the term “convict” is also avoided. In connection with sentences, may I, as a layman, suggest a review of the principle of alternative sentences. I have in mind, for example, that of money or imprisonment, £25 or 10 days’ hard labour. One man with a good bank balance pays the fine and goes home with a smile and feels that he has made a good bargain, but another man who cannot pay goes to prison and becomes a convict and remains one in the eyes of his neighbours. This does not seem to approach elementary justice. If imprisonment is justified for a given offence, it should not be possible to evade it by a cash payment. There is also the question of inequality or differentiation in sentence as between offenders of varying races. This requires urgent and careful consideration in the light of rapidly changing circumstances. A definite policy should be decided on with due regard to the obligations of our trusteeship. The report of the Director of Prisons for 1943 is not yet available, although extracts have appeared in the Press. Since the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell, the Minister of Justice has asked the Acting Director of Prisons to report upon the Pretoria Prison. This is not considered adequate and we are justified in asking, and not only this House, but the public of South Africa is justified in asking for an independent commission presided over by a judge to investigate the whole position in the Union. It is not clear to me whether the position of the Director of Prisons has been abolished as a separate post and whether there has been a change of policy in regard thereto. At the moment the Secretary for Justice is the Acting Director of Prisons. I went into the office of the Secretary for Justice the other day and I could hardly see him for the bundles of papers there. I do not know much about the work which falls Upon his shoulders, but I question whether he is able to do his work as Secretary for Justice and at the same time undertake the control of the Department of Prisons, about which there is so much concern in the country today. Mr. Speaker, time will not admit of my dealing with other important factors involved in a due consideration of the resolution before the House. Nor do I wish to occupy more time than is absolutely necessary for me as the introducer of the subject, because of the intimation given to me, not only from this side of the House, but also from the other side of the House, that they wish to make their contribution to what I hope will be a very important debate. I desire to thank the Government officials and others for their ready and valuable assistance offered since the motion appeared on the Paper—it may be because they understood that I would be comparatively ignorant in regard to these matters. Let me say, Sir, that the movement for reform is growing stronger and stronger every day. Men and women in all branches of life have had their interest awakened and their minds disturbed about this question of our prisons and penal reform. This is a non-party matter. It deals with the interest of those who have no real political representatives in this House. They are walled in and shuttered from the ordinary social experiences of life, and we shall be failing in our duty if we do not, on their behalf, urge upon the Government, with all the determination and logic at our disposal, that a resolution such as I have submitted, should be received by the Government favourably and a commission appointed as a matter of urgency. I associate myself in principle with the South Africa Institute of Race Relations in putting forward the following subjects for investigation by a commission: (a) The causes of delinquency and crime in the Union (b) The laws of the Union (e.g. pass laws) which create statutory offences; their effects upon the volume of crime and the extent of the prision population. (c) Alternative forms of penal treatment and their possibilities in the Union (d) Prison conditions, by first-hand investigation where possible, and by other means. (e) Study of nature of sentences and their effects upon crime including the study of corporal punishment and the death sentence and (f) comparison of the Union’s penal system with systems in other countries. Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to indicate certain reforms and certain considerations which should influence our conclusions in regard to crime and the criminal in the light of our desire for a better order of society in South Africa, and I want finally to bring to the notice of this House an extract from a speech made by Mr. Winston Churchill when he was Home Secretary in 1910. He said—

Mr. Speaker, may I add that it is this attitude which has brought about great reforms in Britain and which I consider should continually govern our laws and the administration of justice in our own great country. I therefore commend the motion to the consideration of the House in these terms.

I second, Mr. Speaker, the very interesting and very impressive speech to which we have listened here, has, I am sure, covinced the House that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) was far too modest when he disclaimed any intimate knowledge of our prison system. What he has told us convinced me, and I am sure also the rest of the House, that he has made a very careful study of it and that his remarks deserve our attention and respect. I think, secondly, that the speech we have just listened to must have satisfied us beyond doubt that the penal system in this country stands in very serious need of reform, very drastic and revolutionary reform, but I think it has also shown us that there are great difficulties in the way; that it is not an easy matter, and that if we want to find the lines to follow, we can only do so by appointing a Judicial Commission which can go into the matter scientifically and point the way to bringing about conditions better than those we have enjoyed in the last century or so. Speaking about reform I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Roodepoort has suggested with regard to the objects of this motion. We are not here to show precisely on what lines reform should take place, but that reform is necessary and we are here to plead that if it is to be done thoroughly, the matter must first of all be investigated. But while I associate myself with the hon. member’s demand for a Judicial Commission, while I fully recognise that we are dealing with a complex matter, I would be very disappointed, assuming the Minister does accept this motion, if he were thereafter to take up the attitude that nothing can be done until the findings of the Commission are produced. We all know that there is a deal of public criticism on the appointment of commissions. For my part I do not think that arises from any feeling of the public that where changes of policy are called for, they should not be preceded by an enquiry which only a commission can undertake. I think, first of all, there is a tendency to believe that when the findings of a commission are published, they are ignored or shelved, and secondly, it is felt that, all too often, the appointment of a commission is regarded as a pretext for inaction. While I support the motion, I hope that we will get the assurance that in some direction reform can take place immediately and that we shall not have to await the report of the commission. There are certain reforms which can be introduced without delay, and I would like to remind the. Minister that as long ago as 1934 a very important statement was made by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Justice. I am going, at the risk of wearying the House, to read quite substantial portions of the speech made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at that time. He said—

Then he goes on later—

“The second class will be what we shall call first offenders, that is people who have committed an offence and crime for the first time, and who have been sentenced to under two years. For these people will be the gaols; not the prisons yet; the prisons will be different. They will be accommodated in the ordinary gaols of the country, and there will be a differentiation between them and the next class—the hardened criminal.”

Those observations were made in 1934, but as far as I have been able to discover, very little progress has been made along the lines indicated by the Prime Minister at that time. There have been certain changes. I had a discussion with the Director of Prisons on this subject. He was extremely helpful and he gave me certain information with regard to what has taken place between 1934 and the present time. Unfortunately that information does not enable me to make any real comparison. It is very difficult to say what actual changes have come about during the past ten years, but let me say that the director himself confirms my impression that very little has been done. I think in particular—and this was the most important aspect of the statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at the time, —that very little has been done to treat the statutory offenders—that is to say the people whom the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister described as not real criminals at all—to treat them differently and to keep them apart from ordinary criminals. They are still mingling in the prisons and goals with the ordinary criminals. That is what I mean when I talk about the possibility of immediate reforms being introduced. I hope that during the day we shall get an assurance from the hon. Minister that, without waiting for any of the findings of the commission, he will see that those recommendations, promised eleven years ago, will be carried out without any further delay. I have no doubt that the intervention of the war has placed great difficulties in the road of the department. One accepts that. I am sure that the Director of Prisons is among the people most eager to see this sort of reform introduced. I submit that the time has come when we can no longer postpone them. There are one or two further matters I should like to refer to. I think it is implicit in everything that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has said, there are two aspects of reform. The most important aspect is the amelioration of general social conditions which will bring about a decline in delinquency by improving general conditions in the ways contemplated by the present Government under the heads of social security, public health and so forth. I have no doubt whatsoever that general social reform will, by itself, bring about a considerable decline in delinquency. The other aspect, however, is the reclamation or reformation of the criminal class once they find their way into gaol …. I think we have to accept under the best possible social order there will be criminals, and we have to accept further that among these criminals there will always be incorrigibles, a certain class of offender whom no treatment in gaol, however humane, however considerate, however scientific can redeem. There are those incorrigibles. We have to accept that, but there remain a class of individual who, if given a proper opportunity, if given training, can be returned to society at the end of his period of imprisonment a reformed character, and in a position to take his normal and proper place among law-abiding citizens. There is that class, and for that class we must cater. At once, to my mind we come up against a very great difficulty. I am aware that the department has made very genuine efforts to provide a sort of training during prison life which will fit persons to take their place in the community once again. They have made very strenuous endeavours in that regard. I would like to refer to some information which the Director of Prisons was good enough to give me in this connection. He says here—

That is the great difficulty. The Director of Prisons gave me an example of two individuals who had been trained as printers, and it was perfectly clear from what he told me that their training was fully equal to the ordinary form of apprenticeship which they would have had, had they been outside prison, but after negotiations the master printers finally turned down the request that these men should be accepted as journeymen on their return to ordinary life. One can quite understand the attitude of the trade unions. One can also understand the attitude of the employers. Whatever the crime involved, the ordinary employer generally says: “I am not prepared to take the risk of taking this man into my employ.” The result of course, has been that despite this training, despite this effort to bring up a good class of man in the prisons they return to ordinary life and cannot get a job; and that is how it happens that the prisons become breeding grounds of crime. That is the sort of man who, after looking for a job and failing to find one, returns to a life of crime. It is far from easy to find a solution to that difficulty. I hope in the course of the debate some of my hon. friends on the Labour benches may be able to give some suggesions as to how some change of attitude on the part of trade unions can be brought about.

We on this side hope that the Minister will take notice.

But this is a problem that concerns the public even more than the Minister. It is clear if our prison system is going to aim at reformation, at teaching a man the error of his ways and turning him into a law-abiding citizen, that there must be a change of attitude on the part of the community as well. They must be prepared to give that man another chance. It is difficult to make any concrete suggestion; the only suggestion I can make is that some system should be devised at the end of his term of imprisonment whereby the prison authorities, in the case of a man such as I am discussing, would give a prisoner a good character, something he can display when he is seeking employment, and which will satisfy his would-be employer that he is a reformed character. I know there are difficulties, but some system of that sort must be tried. The other suggestion I would make is that the public service itself ought to collaborate. One would like to see it generally accepted as a principle that if the prison authorities are prepared to vouch for a man he will be taken into employment by the public service, provided his qualifications are suitable; that they at all events will give a lead in this matter and give the man another chance. Finally, the hon. member for Roodepoort undertook that I would give the House further particulars about the Scholes case. I shall refer to it, but very briefly. That case has already received a good deal of publicity and the mover himself has already referred to certain of the findings in which the judge who tried that case made certain reflections and certain criticisms upon the administration in regard to breaches of the regulations, and so forth. But there is one other aspect of the Scholes case I would like to refer to, simply for this reason, that this case threw a very strong light upon the punishment known as solitary confinement. Let me confess that this particular prisoner was quite evidently a very difficult individual; he was an exceptional prisoner; he was probably a neurotic of some kind or other, and it may well be that he belongs to the class I described as incorrigible, but it is equally clear that for him the punishment of solitary confinement had disastrous consequences and I do not think it is too much to say that this punishment turned this particular prisoner into a potential murderer. I should like to conclude my speech by reading a few passages out of the findings in that case—

The catalogue of offences continues up to the number of fifteen—then the learned judge goes on—

I do not think it would be possible to read any passage containing such an indictment of this form of punishment, and I sincerely trust that when the Minister replies to this debate he will first of all give us an assurance that there will be a commission to go into the whole system, and secondly he will give us an assurance that this barbarous form of punishment will be abandoned, or at all events very seriously curtailed.

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

I will certainly not be busy for very long, for I understand that the hon. member for Roodeport (Mr. Allen) would like us to vote on this motion this afternoon before we have to drop this discussion. I want to thank the hon. member for Roode-poort, who moved the motion, and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), who seconded it, for the manner in which they put the matter before the House, He appealed to us, and very rightly, not to treat this motion as a Party matter. It is not a Party matter. It is a matter of national interest, and may I say that it is a pity that so many matters which are really of national importance and which are not party matters, are so often viewed from the Party point of view. The other day we pleaded that the native question should not be made a Party matter. Agriculture ought not to be a Party matter. And may I in this connection go back a little into the past and bring something to the attention of members. I remember that in the old days when a national matter of this nature was raised by a private member, it was the practice for him to ask someone belonging to the other Party to second his motion. The hon. member for Parktown seconded this motion in a very admirable manner, and I do not wish to cast any reflection upon him, but it would perhaps have been more fitting if the hon. member for Roode-poort had asked someone on the other side of the House to second his motion. In the past it was the practice that, if a non-Party matter was being put before the House, then a member on the one side proposed it and tried to get somebody on the other side to second it. Let us in that way prove to the country that we differ on certain points, but that in matters of national importance we are prepared to approach them from a national viewpoint and not from a Party standpoint. Let us prove that we are not here to advance only one side of the matter, but that we can consider these matters from a broad national viewpoint. It will perhaps be a good thing if we endeavour in the future to follow the practice which in the past has produced such good results. If one side proposes a motion, let them try to have it seconded by somebody on the other side. Today we are once again busy with one of the old problems, and the country is grateful to the hon. member for Roodepoort for bringing this matter under discussion, namely what the purpose of punishment is; is it only intended to inflict punishment, or to improve, or both? I think that we are all agreed that punishment to a certain extent must be merely punishment. We do not want to encourage crime. We do not wish, especially in the case of a native, to punish him by sending him to a happier environment than he has been accustomed to in his own home. He must realise that he is being punished, and that the punishment has been inflicted upon him because he has violated the laws of the land. The purpose of the punishment must be to improve the person. Unfortunately time does not permit us today to deal fully with that side of the question. Both hon. members who have already spoken, dealt fully with that aspect. I want to point out that the greatest punishment which can be meted out to a European is to find him guilty and then sentence him. The fact that he has been found guilty and must be sentenced for violating the laws. of the land and the dishonour involved, is the greatest punishment. Seclusion is an additional punishment, but the greatest punishment to him is that he has been found guilty of the offence. Here, however, we must differentiate between the European and the native. The native is not yet sufficiently civilised to feel the same reaction. Perhaps we Europeans are the cause of the native being sent to gaol and punished for crimes which are not looked upon as such by him, and which we as Europeans would not regard as crimes if we committed them ourselves. I want to mention a few cases. A native may transgress a regulation in connection with the making of kaffir beer, and it is regarded as a crime. There are other laws which he violates which are not really crimes, but merely statutory transgressions, and he is punished as if they were crimes.

Do you mean pass laws?

Yes, I mean the pass laws, the making of kaffir beer and that sort of thing. The native is sent to gaol because he makes kaffir beer, and in his own reserve he is legally allowed to make as much as he likes. In European civilisation it is considered a crime, and he is sent to gaol. He does not look upon it as a crime. At his home the European allows him to make beer, but here it is looked upon as a crime, and when he goes to gaol he feels that he has not committed a crime. That is where the difference comes in, and the line must be drawn between the native and the white man as far as punishment is concerned. That is where we are going to experience great difficulty. As the hon. member for Roodepoort rightly said, as far as the natives are concerned—and they constitute the majority of people in gaol—many of them are sent there for offences which cannot be looked upon as crimes. They are sent there for statutory crimes which they have committed, in connection with kaffir beer, the pass laws, nonpayment of the hut tax, and such like offences for which they are sent to gaol. Let me say at once that sending a native to gaol for those offences, is really no punishment. The only punishment he experiences is when he is made to feel it while he is serving his sentence. I am speaking from personal experience, for I have had a lot to do with the natives. In the first place he works fewer hours in gaol than he would do for his master, and in the second place he receives better food there than he would get in his own home. For him it is not a heavy punishment, and this is what must be taken into consideration when an investigation is instituted. There must be a differentiation in punishments as far as the natives are concerned. When a native commits a crime such as punishable manslaughter, or when he commits anything ordinary such as theft, cattle theft or the like, then he must be punished, and he must be bodily punished. But I would not punish the natives in that manner for ordinary offences. In the other instance the native must be made to feel that he has misbehaved and that he has violated the laws of the land. He must feel it bodily. But the native who is punished for ordinary statutory offences cannot be punished in that way. It is not fair and reasonable towards the natives to do that. But the reason why I am particularly taking part in this debate, is that on one point I want to appeal very strongly to the Minister. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that the Minister in some respects can act at once and that it is one of these things which should not be made to wait until a commission has investigated matters and submitted a report, for it is a matter which has already been tested during the last few years, and it has produced good results, namely that certain natives who received short-term sentences were not sent to gaol but hired out to farmers to work on their farms as long as the sentence lasted. That system produced exceptional results. We see then that the native realises that he is being punished. He is forced to go there and work and he is not allowed to return to his home. He cannot go back to his kraal and he has to work there without compensation. On the other hand, he does not come into contact with the usual criminal class. He does not mix with them, and he is not looked upon as a criminal. It is definitely in the interest of the native that this should be done, and on the other hand the farmer benefits by this labour while he cannot obtain other labour. In this way he is afforded the opportunity of absorbing these natives in his farming activities. But while I would particularly recommend this system, I also want to appeal for an expansion of it. I still fail to understand why under the present system it is only applied in the case of natives who are punished for two months. Why can it not be extended to the period of three months, that is the period for which the magistrate possesses jurisdiction without a review of the sentence? We know that the magistrate can impose a sentence of three months without the sentence being reviewed by the higher court, and I would like to ask the Minister whether this system can be applied in such cases. They are natives who are punished for trifling offences in connection with kaffir beer, pass laws, non-payment of hut tax, and the like. I would also like to see it applied to cases where fines are imposed on natives as an alternative to imprisonment. In all cases where the magistrate imposes a sentence which does not come up for review by the higher court, I think we should apply this system. It is only reasonable that in those cases the magistrate should have the right to direct that the native may be hired to a farmer. As I say, I want to ask the Minister to make the system applicable to all sentences where there is an option of a fine. Even if it is a case of four or five months, if there is an option of a fine, then it is proof that the magistrate realises that that man is not a danger to the community. He cannot be a danger to the community, for if he were to pay the fine, he would be free. The mere fact that a fine has been imposed, testifies to the fact that the man has not committed a serious crime. Why cannot the magistrate have the right in all those cases to instruct that the native may be employed. We know that this system is working exceptionally well at present. The farmer pays 6d. per day and provides food, etc., and the native must work for him until such time as the period of his sentence expires. The State benefits considerably by this method, instead of having to keep them in gaol and feed them. Here the State has the advantage of not having to feed them. The farmer derives the benefit of the labour. The native lives in a healthy environment; he does not mix with criminals and he feels that he is being treated as a human being. Now I want to go further and ask the hon. Minister to permit the magistrate to judge what type of offence the native has committed and whether he is a person who must be locked up and undergo special punishment, or whether it is a case of beer drinking where for example, the native used a knife and stabbed someone, which was only due to special circumstances. If such a native has never before been in gaol, and it is an exceptional case where the magistrate says that in this instance the rule can be applied that the native may be hired out, even there I feel it should be applied, even should he get a long-term sentence. In this manner not only the farmers will be assisted by the farm-hands which they acquire, but the native will be afforded the opportunity of working there under normal circumstances. I will go further. Where you have a native who has been punished for a certain period, it does not matter how long—the longer perhaps, the more reason there may be for my proposal—in that case I would suggest that for the last three months of his punishment he should be given the opportunity of escaping from the environment where he has served his punishment, and be allowed to go and work outside the prison. As is the case now, the day the native leaves the prison, he does not know where to go to. He does not know where he can take refuge. But if this suggestion is carried out and he is allowed to work for three months with a farmer before his full period of sentence has expired, then the farmer will keep him on if he thinks the native is worth his salt. The result thereof is the salvation of the native, and the farmer is afforded the opportunity of acquiring additional labour. A few years ago I had the opportunity here at Constantia, where the farmers use another system which we do not have in the north, of seeing how they manage matters there. There the Government goes further, and I would strongly recommend that system. The native convicts are hired out where they have made the necessary provision as at Constantia. The farmers have their own gaol there where the natives are locked up. The warder accompanies them from Wynberg to their work and he remains there with gang for quite some time. In this manner, labour is not wasted. At Wynberg they did nothing except perhaps a little stone breaking which is of no value, while with the farmer work is offered to them and it is of great interest to the native himself.

We do the same in the Transvaal.

I know that there are one or two cases where it is done, but not in our parts. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to extend the system. It is sound and in the interest of the public generally to apply this system. As far as the commission is concerned, which I certainly hope the Minister is going to appoint, I would like to propose a slight amendment in order to make it a little more practical. I will come to it just now. But to come back to Europeans, I would like the Minister to give the commission the opportunity of obtaining evidence from people who have already served imprisonment. There are many people today who are absolutely rehabilitated; but who have served imprisonment at some stage or other. Possibly they have embezzled money or committed an offence under the Insolvency Act, and today they are rehabilitated. Such a person would not give evidence in public. He is rehabilitated and the public have forgotten that he was ever there. One feels that such a person should not be compelled to give evidence, but if he was afforded the opportunity of giving evidence in camera, he could possibly be persuaded to give valuable evidence concerning improvements. I hope the Minister will see to it that this is made possible. And now I would like to propose an amendment, namely that the commission which is to be appointed should consist of a judge “or exjudge”. I will give my reason at once for doing so. Today, unfortunately, there is already a shortage of judges on the bench, and one feels that there are ex-judges and I am thinking only of one or two and may just as well mention their names, judges such as Judge Krause, who for instance would be a most suitable person as chairman, or Judge Botha. They are the type of person in whom the public has the fullest confidence. Although they are no longer judges, their services could be utilised, especially those who have made a special study of the matter. In the days of my youth Judge Krause was the outstanding criminal advocate, and he, could perhaps speak and act with more authority in this connection than any other person. One would like to see their services utilised. There is every reason why this enquiry should take place. As the hon. member for Roodepoort has said, in our small country which is looked upon as a peace loving land, and where the laws are not usually violated by normal people, we have the astonishing fact that the prisons are fuller than in any other country in the world. This position is due to the type of criminal we have in the country. This alone should be sufficient reason to ask for an enquiry by such a commission. Before I sit down, I want to deal with one more point, and it is something which made a very deep impression on me. One always thinks of one’s own home town, and I must say that the prison at Pieters-burg is kept in such good condition that I would like to pay tribute to the warden there for the work he has done. The most beautiful gardens have been laid out round the gaol. It was a barren piece of ground and as a result of the initiative of the warden there are now beautiful gardens. He used the convicts to lay out gardens instead of doing nothing or breaking up stones, and today they provide vegetables to the gaols in Johannesburg and Pretoria and elsewhere. It is also of great benefit to the natives that they learn such gardening, and I think I should rightly compliment the warden for the work he has done there. Just before I sit down, I would like to propose the amendment, namely—

This will mean that the commission can have as a chairman an ex-judge and not necessarily one who is today a judge on the bench.

I second the amendment. I am prepared to support the motion, but I would like to see appointed as members of the commission well-balanced men. We do not want people taking part in this enquiry who are too partial towards one side or the other. Some people have voiced their opinions and from them it has appeared that they do not realise what the actual position is. We should like to see the prisons administered well, and I want to say here and now that as far as concerns the prison staffs with whom I have come into contact, they are all people with a sense of responsibility who are attempting to do their work as well as possible, and to treat the prisoners as reasonably well as possible. We cannot now go into the question of solitary confinement, but I want to say you must not have people who are biased and who have stated beforehand they are not in favour of solitary confinement, nor on the other hand do you want people who have expressed themselves in favour of corporal punishment. The commission that is being appointed must be comprised of reasonable persons. Their proposals may then be of great value, but otherwise they may do things that may cause great mischief. I do not think that gaol is a place where people should be treated as in a hotel. People who are sent there have transgressed, and deserve some punishment or other. Otherwise they would not be sent there, and I want to add to that that the treatment they are accorded on their discharge from gaol, the treatment after release is perhaps just as important, or more important, than the treatment in gaol. I heard someone this morning express an opinion about solitary confinement in connection with natives. I cannot say very much about natives, but in regard to coloured people I want to say that the only time that the coloured person is afraid of gaol is before he is put into gaol. He is afraid of being locked up, he does not know what the consequences are going to be, but once he has been in gaol and is released, even if he is not a criminal his fear of the gaol has vanished. I remember how not so long ago I was in court and there was a decent coloured woman before the court. She was up on some charge or other. She looked very respectable, but did not portray any fear. I asked the sergeant how it was the woman was standing there not caring at all. He replied that she had previously been in gaol and had no further fear of it. As far as the coloured people are concerned they often have better accommodation in gaol and better food than they have in their own homes. The only thing that is unpleasant about it to them is that they are denied food and liquor, but usually they are able to get hold of tobacco in all sorts of surreptitious ways. There are coloured people who have deserved solitary confinement, and they are afraid of it. If a person is nervous and he is locked up alone definite harm can be done, but in other cases it has a wholesome effect. There are so many sorts of people and you cannot legislate for exceptions. If people have really earned their punishment, they should be punished. But I agree it is wrong that people who have not committed a serious offence should be made to mix with criminals who, one might say, are habitual criminals. These make the others still worse. I feel that there should be an entirely separate place for those people who have committed trivial offences. I think the judges and the magistrates always try to avoid sending people to gaol for trivial offences. They give the offenders another chance by imposing a fine or a suspended sentence. One does not want to have these people put into gaol with real criminals. Consequently, I would again ask the Minister to appoint on the commission people who are well balanced. It is sometimes said that we are all mad, only some of us are madder than others. But the position is that some people when they see an injustice being done go to extreme lengths to the other side. If you have such people on the commission you will have a report that will be valueless. You must have people of sound and sober judgment, people who consider realities. Otherwise you will not receive a valuable report in connection with this big problem. In view of the fact that both sides of the House are in favour of the proposal, I anticipate that the Minister will accept it, and when he appoints the commission I hope that he will appoint members who are well balanced and not men who have already expressed themselves in an unbalanced manner in connection with these matters.

There is much homely realistic wisdom among the country people of the County of Suffolk, where I was born, and there are many workaday proverbs or folksayings amongst them. One of these I heard most often at a very early age applied to the wrongdoer who had been caught out and who, therefore, in the common phrase, had got to “cop out”. It was then said: “He had made up his bed and he must lie on it.” To my youthful mind that seemed a quite logical attitude to be adopted and I agreed. Later I disagreed, for the entirely sufficient reason that he had not made the bed. At least, he had not made it alone; there had been a great many other fingers in the pie. As a schoolboy I used to attend great trials in the city of Winchester, murder trials amongst others; and in a murder trial it seemed to me the proceedings were circumscribed by the fact that the most important witness could not be produced. The deceased person could not be produced to give evidence, although he might sometimes at least have taken a large and direct part in causing the crime. It seemed to me in such a trial there might have been a very considerable number of people in the dock. If the accused as a child was neglected by his parents, I would put them in too. There might in certain cases be a little fault attached to the schoolmaster. It may be that the parson was very good with the Girls’ Friendly Society but had not much flair with boys’ clubs and youth associations. He might, also, to some extent be blameworthy. And I am certain that the first man who said: “Come and be a man” and gave him a double brandy in place of a ginger ale, also had a responsibility. So has every one of his employers who paid him a stravation wage. I want to sum that up in these words: “The criminal has not merely sinned against society. Society has also sinned against him”; and it is in the light of that fact that the whole subject of the penal code and prison procedure should be regarded. You cannot tolerate causes and then rationally complain of their natural consequences. You cannot retain a poisonous drain and then whip the child who gets some disease therefrom. Poverty itself has many necessary results. My maiden aunts were very horrified when I took my first curacy in that sink of sin, as they thought it, Newmarket the racing metropolis of Great Britain. In their opinion it was a horrid place, the haunt of dreadful gamblers. Well, the stable lads laid a few bets, for a very strong reason. Their weekly wage was £1 2s. 6d.; that was a European wage, and not so very long ago. If they saved their bonsellas they might have a Sunday supper; but if they put them on a lucky flier they could have a Sunday suit. The only way those men could clothe their children was to find winners, and in their position, with all the fine words we use, we should have done the same or worse. Extreme poverty causes not merely betting, but causes actual crime. Much crime is due to ignorance and idleness. If we tolerate the broad causes of these things, while quite sincerely legislating for happiness—while we keep education expensive and available only to the privileged, out of ignorance will come this great misery and crime. I remember, on the idleness side of the question, at the end of the last war I had the felicity to be chaplain to the Second Dragoon Guards at Northern Headquarters. Part of my business was to look after the training camp at Strensall, seven miles away from our barracks in York. They gave me a push bike for the outward trip and return but many times I did not like to return, because I used to have to pass Rowntree’s factory, during the time the young ladies who made the chocolates were for the moment idle. It was their lunch-hour, and they were unused to leisure, which wasn’t their fault. In those days I was very young arid very handsome too—at least so I thought—but the things those young ladies were able to say about me within the short period it took to cycle past them was nobody’s business. You, Sir, would have ruled it out as entirely unparliamentary. They were just “idle”; and we have to cure idleness-wherever it may be by providing worthwhile amusement or Occupation. So when we come to the prisons we have to supply there the lack from which these people concerned have suffered. It is not a question of revenge, it is not a matter even of punishment; it is a matter of reformation. And we have to remember that people would not need to be reformed if we saw to it they were trained rightly the first time. There are a great many contributing factors and tendencies. It is impossible for a man to respect others, to be social, unless he can respect himself. And the duty of a prison is to be a training school. Certainly we should have given him schooling earlier on, but it is better late than not at all, and the first thing the prison must supply is some society. The criminal is anti-social. I leave aside his reasons which often are ample and sufficient. But he needs society if he is ever to become human, and if the Minister does nothing else he will abandon solitary confinement, which is a monstrous medieval cruelty, not an act of justice. That, Sir, he can do. Then we have to give prisoners the education that they lack. They must have educational classes in the prison. They must have access to books, and what we call “the pleasures of the mind”. And they have to be trained occupationally. They have to be taught a useful job which they can do in ordinary life. The seconder of the motion wondered where they could go when they had learned a trade. Then he suggested the answer I propose to give. It is up to the government that mishandled them when they were young, it is up to the government that has had the retraining of the men, to find the occupation, and I would suggest very strongly to the Minister that that be done. I have known many cases where an ex-convict has done splendid work, but a quite unjust nemesis dogged his steps and downed him in the end. If he were employed in a government department he would have a chance. It is all very well to talk about warder’s shortcomings, but it has to be remembered how many people they have to deal with. What is wanted is a type of warder and of prison official who would be qualified social workers. They should be artists in the psychology of human beings. If they are not that, they should get out and make room for abler men. You cannot appoint a Director of Prisons or a Chief of Police, or any other sort of chief, merely because he is a good-looking fellow, otherwise I would be qualified for such a post—that is in my own opinion. We need to have trained social workers in touch with these people while they are being given what is regarded as their second chance. Another thing I want to say simply to the Minister, make sure you don’t punish the wrong party. If a man is arrested, found guilty and put into prison, and after a period of time he is proved after all not guilty, he is discharged. That does not meet the bill. It goes nowhére near meeting the bill. Probably his business has gone to wrack and ruin. I say adequate compensation should be given and there should be no argument at all about that. There was a case last year in Johannesburg of the general secretary of a trade union who was arrested, locked up and kept in gaol for four days without any trial at all. He was made to go down on his knees and scrub floors, which was probably well needed, and probably did not seriously hurt him; but this happened to be the punishment for convicted criminals. After four days the Attorney-General stated there was no case whatever against him, so he was freed. What right has any prison system, what right has any prison official, to treat any man as a convict until he has been charged and tried and found guilty? That injustice also can be dealt with by a stroke of the pen. A man who is charged is not necessarily a guilty man. We know the police have to do their work, and on the whole they do it very well. When they make a mistake, why should other people bear the consequences? Let them carry their own burden. Above all, do not let the punishment fall on the dependants of the wrongdoer. Probably you, Sir, have read a case in the annual report of the Social Services Association of South Africa regarding the dependants, the family of a man, who got six months hard labour for theft. The wife and four children under eight lived in one slum room. The Social Services Association paid the rent, £1 6s. a month. They also paid for the sustence of five of the family, 19s. 2d. every week. There is a note in the report that the proper starvation minimum for five persons is £1 10s. 11d. I do not know what expert worked out that figure, or how scrupulous he must have been not to have given an extra penny and make it £1 11s. But I want to know why, if the scientific starvation rate for five people is £1 10s. 11d., or how we can stand up here without admitting our own humbug and hypocrisy in giving those innocent children and their mother 19s. 2d. per week, 3s. 10d. per day, for food and clothing and all the ordinary costs of living. Sir, fine feathers make fine birds, and fine speeches make fine Hansards, but I am one who is sick and tired of fine words, words, words, and I want action. I say to the hon. Minister, who has much common-sense in his head and great sympathy in his heart, that the time has arrived when not only the Department of Justice, but every other department of the Government, must treat the very humblest of our people with respect and with humanity. Otherwise it will be true of us, as it was true of far-off Palestine nearly two thousand years ago, that though

It is inevitable that from the homeless and desperate some, at least, of the worst criminals must come. We have heard some talk this afternoon of abandoned characters, persons beyond redemption or hope of reformation. There may be such, but even those in a true sense are less objects for punishment than subjects for medical care. I ask the Minister to give the fullest consideration to this aspect of the matter, and to recognise that these by-products of so called civilisation form also part of the responsibility of the State.

I feel very glad indeed about the manner in which this motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has been received by all sides of the House. It will not, however, come as a surprise to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) to learn that I have a lot to disagree with in regard to what he had to say. But I would at this stage express the hope that the amendment he moved will be accepted by the mover. The reason why I support it is because I cannot conceive of any better chairman of this commission than Mr. Justice Krause. He has taken a lead in regard to this matter and he has consistently advocated reform. He has had the experience of going to gaol himself, he has had a very large criminal practice at the Bar and he has also served for many years on the Bench of the Supreme Court. I am going to quote a few things he has said, and I hope the hon. member for Pietersburg will agree with them. Mr. Speaker, the real issue in regard to penal reform is this. Everyone is agreed that the object of any penal system is to protect society against anti-social elements, but the question is whether our present system does that, and we who suppor†* this reform strongly contend that the present system is no protection against anti-social elements. In fact, it is just the opposite. Now the hon. member for Roodepoort has in considerable detail described the operation of the penal system in South Africa at the present time. We are far behind the systems of other countries, but I do not want to repeat what he has said. But there are just one or two aspects of the matter on which I want to touch. The first is that our system is literally manufacturing criminals. It is doing so by putting every year not thousands, but hundreds of thousands, of people in gaol who should never be there, and these people come into contact with criminal elements. In proportion to any other civilised country in the world, this country has the largest gaol population. That of course is accounted for mostly by non-Europeans. I understand that the latest figures show that out of every thousand non-European men, women and children, 33 are admitted to gaol every year, and 70 per cent. of our gaol population are people serving short-term sentences, sentences under one month. But the important thing is that side by side with that shortterm population in the gaols there has been an increasing number of recidivists. Sir Herbert Morrison, the British Home Secretary, stated in a recent speech that the proportion of recidivists in England was very small. As the hon. member for Roodepoort pointed out this morning, in this country nearly 30 per cent. of the gaol population have been there before. Therefore is not that steady growth of the number of convicts who have been convicted more than once real reflection of the breakdown of our system? Another reflection is the mounting cost of prisons. The Government of the day, when it gave a pledge to spend a million pounds from Loan Funds to buy land for natives, claimed that it was making a very generous gesture. I am not going into that matter now, but it costs that amount to keep our gaols going today. I want to refer now to the waiting trial prisoner. He is kept apart from the convicted prisoners but, as far as I can discover, he may be mixed up with people who, though themselves waiting trial, have been convicted before. The way waiting trial prisoners are treated does not differ much from the way convicts are treated. They have to sleep on floors and they have the greatest difficulty in seeing their legal advisers. Some members of this House must know that. When a professional person goes to a gaol to consult with a waiting trial prisoner in his professional capacity, he has to make application to see the waiting trial prisoner and then there is always a warder hanging about and it is difficult to get the waiting trial prisoner to speak, because he is afraid that the warder is going to hear what is going on, and he is afraid. There is an atmosphere of conspiracy between the man interviewing him as his legal adviser and the prisoner. That is a matter which should not be allowed to take place. Every privacy should be granted. I myself have never come away from a consultation in gaol without having been made to feel that I am a bit of a scoundrel myself for having participated in a consultation of this kind. With regard to convicts, in the daytime the prisoner is made to do hard work which the State ought to employ free people to do and then he is locked up at night in the most depressing conditions. Not only is an enormous amount of free work done by convicts for the State but there is a wholesale hiring out of convicts to private people, which is a matter which has been condemned long ago by the League of Nations. I was surprised when I heard the hon. member for Pietersburg advocate an extension of this system that no member of the Labour Party answered him. I remember that the leader of the Labour Party when in opposition previously protested habitually against this hiring out of convict labour, and the hon. member for Pietersburg is now for extending it further for handing over the convict to a private person with complete control over him. I hope the proposed commission will not approach the matter on those lines. In 1942 £1,982 was made out of convict labour, which was hired out. The general conditions in gaols have been described by Mr. Justice Krause as follows—

I would like to compare Mr. Justice Krause’s remark in that respect with the statement of the hon. member for Pietersburg who said that it is really not a punishment for the native to go to gaol. The quotation goes on—

I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg that Mr. Justice Krause is the right man to be the chairman of the commission, but whether he had this statement of the distinguished judge in mind when he said that, I very much doubt. I don’t want to take up the time of the House because I hope that a vote will be reached, but I wish to say in conclusion that before anything is done to reform the system it will be necessary to sort out the criminals from the non-criminals by preventing hundreds of thousands of native people, who are sent to gaol for no crime at all, for a breach of a statutory provision, from being sent to gaol at all. My view is that the only way of doing that is to abolish the laws creating these technical offences. It is to my mind an absolute reflection on the administration of this country that we cannot rule the African people without sending hundreds of thousands of them every year to gaol for offences which are not crimes. That itself should be sufficient indication that the laws under which we send them to gaol are laws which are impossible and impose too great a burden on human nature. The object of treatment of any convicted person should be to find out through scientific methods whether he is capable of reform, and if he is not, he should be segregated, not as a punishment, but as a protection for society. If he is capable of reform, then the appropriate treatment should be applied. It is in that spirit that I believe this proposed investigation should proceed, and because I believe it will proceed in that spirit I support this motion.

I rise to say a few words in connection with this debate for two reasons. Firstly because I sat as one of the assessors with Mr. Justice Blackwell in the case of Rex vs. Scholes which brought this question to the fore, and secondly I want to support the member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) when he said that the Minister should not appoint a commission and then wash his hands of the whole thing, but he should take immediate action to remedy the prison system in some of its worst aspects. It will surprise the House to know that the prison regulations under which the prisons are operating today were framed under an Act passed as far back as 1911, 34 years ago, and during that period only a single alteration of any consequence was made in the administration of prisons. In 1930 the present Major-General Beyers was sent over to Europe to examine the prison system there, and in consequence of his tour he came back and decided that the recidivists should be separated from first offenders. That, in fact, during a period of 34 years, has been the only alteration of any consequence in the prison system. In Pretoria Mr. Du Plooy, who has been referred to by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) as a man who is humane, efficient and administers the prison as well as is possible under the existing regulations, introduced an additional alteration to the Prison Regulations, and that is that he exempted the convicts from having their hair close-cropped. Apart from these two alterations we are carrying on as we have done for the last generation. In this case Mr. Du Plooy gave some evidence which I would like to tell the House about. The Central Prison in Pretoria is the prison to which all European convicts are sent, who receive a sentence of two years or more, or who have been in prison before and then received sentences of six months or more. They are sent to the Central Gaol in Pretoria, which is the only gaol of that character in the Union. When they enter, there are 500 others there, and the first work they are put on to is known as the penal section, where, in a confined area, very little larger than this House, they are put on duty of breaking stones, and they are kept on breaking stones for a period of six months, if their health will permit. During that period they are not allowed any privileges whatever, but there are, in that penal section, a certain number of convicts who have been there longer than six months, and who do other types of work and have earned privileges. One of the highest prized privileges is the right to smoke, so you have convicts with privileges, mixing with those who have no privileges, and it is not necessary for me to tell the House that where a man is an habitual smoker and then he is prevented for six months from smoking, he will do anything to satisfy that craving. In consequence you find that a large proportion in that section smoke at the first opportunity they get. The men who have got smoking privileges often share their cigarettes and tobacco with others, and they smoke surreptitiously. When they are caught they are brought before the superintendent and they are warned on the first occasion, and on the second and subsequent occasions they are caught they are given three days solitary confinement and spare diet on each offence. I want to quote some figures. Out of the total number of 646 convictions for gaol offences during the year 1944 up to the end of November, no less than 362, that is more than half, were for smoking and being in possession of smoking material. That is for a period of 11 months. In 1943, out of a total of 682, 440 were for offences connected with smoking, and the punishment, as you can imagine, is a severe one. In the case of Scholes, a large portion of the 80 days he spent in solitary confinement was for smoking offences, I want to describe to members what the punishment of solitary confinement and spare diet means. The hon. member for Roodepoort has told you that the man is confined to a small cell, and the spare diet consists of rice water boiled up, but as rice is no longer obtainable, he now gets three-quarters of a pint of water, in which mealie rice has been boiled, twice a day. Two pints of this water with mealie rice is taken and it is boiled down until three-quarters or half a pint is left. After three days he is given one day on full diet. It seems to me that the Minister might seriously consider the advisability of allowing these men to smoke. It is a wrong thing to mix men who have got smoking privileges with those who have not. He might consider whether it is not advisable to allow them to smoke for a fixed period each day under the supervision, of warders, and make the punishment, if they do not behave themselves, that they should be deprived of these privileges. The superintendent, in giving evidence in the case in question, divided the prisoners into five classes. He said the first class was the studious type, who gave no trouble; the second was the lay lawyer who spent his time examining the book my friend showed you, and was watching the warders with an idea of taking an advantage; then there was the hardened criminal; the next was the weak man who was led by anyone who was strong enough to lead him, and the fifth one was the man who should not be in gaol at all, but in a lunatic asylum. It seems to me that if the Minister can do something to separate these classes, it would be to the benefit of the prison system as a whole. I want to say that the attitude which the hon. Minister has adopted, after the Scholes case took place, seems to be useless. He at once appointed Mr. W. G. Hoal to go into the case and ask Major-General Beyers to submit his views on it.

That is quite wrong.

I am quoting from the newspaper but the hon. Minister says that that is entirely incorrect. Well, it was a report from Mr. Hoal which was called for; is that correct?

No.

This is what the “Star” says—

No, on the remarks made by Mr. Justice Blackwell.

However, I want to say that a few days after that, Major-General Beyers was given a farewell at the Central Prison Hall, and he said, “there was nothing wrong with the prison system, and it compared favourably with the prison systems of other countries of which he had made a personal study. Unruly prisoners could not be treated according to academic thêory. If theories were applied they would not work. So-called sympathisers with the prisoners knew all about everything, but they had never worked with prisoners”. The only point about that is that I ask the Minister to appoint an independent, impartial commission to go into this matter and to let these experts give evidence before the commission, and no doubt the greatest weight will be given to what they say. I again ask the Minister to see whether something cannot be done by him at once and not to wait until a report of a commission of this nature is available, which may be a considerable time.

The background to the excellent speeches made on this motion is the consciousness that the ultimate cause of most of the crime committed lies in repressive economic condtions. Man is the victim of his environment; and if there is a heavy incidence of crime in this country, then we are the accused. Unless we are prepared to change these economic conditions, then, notwithstanding our humane and expert approach to the problem of crime, we are going to fail. Modern repressive economic conditions, as the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has suggested, is, in effect, a prolific nursery of crime. The case of our African people is proof enough of that. They live in extreme poverty. Their housing conditions are abominable. They are badly fed, and underfed. Sixty per cent. of them have no education. Infringements of the pass laws, taxation laws, liquor laws, the Urban Areas Act, introduce them to crime; and thousands of them become, as hon. members have said, recidivists. Obviously the right approach to the removal of crime in the case of Africans is to remedy their economic conditions; revise our discriminatory legislation; and do all we can to remove social injustices. The same circumstances, perhaps to a lesser degree, apply to the other races of the Union. We create the slums in which moral and spiritual appreciation becomes impossible. Crime is the inevitable result. We create the poverty by keeping large masses of our people in economic bondage. Poverty and crime are inseparable. We boast of our competitive economic system; the exploiters of that system we honour, while those who revolt against the exploitation we put into gaol. By our legislation, by our social prestige, we give enormous powers to the monopoly of the drink traffic in this country; that business is the cause of at least 60 per cent. of the crime in South Africa. We give to our people mass education, and the ability to enjoy the good things of life; yet by low wages and insecurity we prevent the satisfaction of healthy human needs and decent human aspirations. It is cruel frustration of that kind which produces crime. The heavy incidence of crime in this country— the Budget we are now considering indicates that the direct costs are not less than £3,000,000 a year; the indirect costs in broken homes, inefficient lives, and wastage of life is incalculable—the incidence of crime is mainly due to economic factors; and the remedy—not the whole remedy, I admit—is obvious. Improve living standards; make courageous provision for housing and nutrition; and give security for decency for all families of all races. Countries that have attempted that policy have practically succeeded in eliminating crime. I wholeheartedly support the motion of the hon. member for Roodepoort. I want to put it to the Minister that, without waiting for an investigation, there is something practical that he can do without delay. He can improve the training and the conditions of the police force. Here we have a body of seven thousand men from whom we expect perpetual vigilance in the struggle against crime, and on whom we rely for the public security of this country. But their training and conditions make it impossible for them to give their best in service to the country. Their training, in view of the racial structure of the Union, is wrong. The 1937 Police Investigation admitted that. A different type of training is necessary. We should have a proper police college where young men with the Junior Certificate or the Matriculation Certificate can be enrolled for further education; for specific training including sociology and psychology; and particularly training in one African language. Every official coming out of such a college would have an imprimatur of efficiency and dignity when he undertakes his important duties amongst our people. South África is backward in regard to the training of its police force. Their pay and conditions of service are a disgrace to South Africa. After his training, the policeman gets about £10 a month. Typists won’t work for that. Natives, under certain wage determinations are paid more than that. After five years’ service, when the man is marriageable, and roundabout twenty five years of age, the wage is £25 per month. After twelve years’ service when the man may be a constable at the head of his grade, the wage is £28 a month. I submit to the Minister that if he doubled those salaries, it would not be too much for the high responsibility these men have to carry. Similarly in the case of sergeants head constables and inspectors, they are grossly underpaid, notwithstandnig the benefits they receive in the form of medical benefits, dental benefits, clothing allowances, and pensions. They are amongst the worst paid people in the country, yet so necessary are they as custodians of public security that their whole time is demanded of them by the Government. Many of them do not even get the usual weekly rest-day. Large numbers of them, I believe, have as much as twelve months’ vacation leave due to them. They are always subject to transfer. Housing then becomes of paramount importance to them, but the Government has no housing scheme at all for them. They have no proper medical service. The men and their families are often left to the mercy of overworked district surgeons. I understand that in the four years ending June, 1944, three hundred men of the seven thousand were discharged from the force as medically unfit. Nothing proves better than those figures the need for reform in the police force to fit the men to carry out effectively the struggle against crime and promote the prevention of crime. Notwithstanding these things they are a fine body of men. They are in the front line in the fight against crime. Yet the Government fails to fit them mentally and socially for the discharge of their high public duties. To improve their pay and conditions is, I submit, something which the Minister might do, even without waiting for an investigation. Then there is one more matter of practical and immediate importance that he might do. Our lower courts need overhauling without delay. We should revise the First Offenders’ Act. We should extend legal aid bureaux throughout the country on the lines of that in existence in Johannesburg. We should have a public defender as we have a public prosecutor, in order as an hon. member reminded me a few moments ago, to prevent prosecution from becoming persecution. Our magistrates should have better pay and training. No African should be tried by a magistrate who is not a native linguist. Some time ago in September I drew the attention of the hon. Minister to a case of injustice in our courts which occurred in Durban. I sent him a letter, and I want to read to the House a part of it. I wrote—

I intend to follow this matter up, and I appeal to the Minister to institute an immediate enquiry into gaol conditions; treatment of our serving men in the common gaols; the proper method of dealing with first offenders of this type, a boy with an honourable and brave record from a good family; the action of a magistrate, who in a period of a few minutes can imperil the career of a young life with so much promise by a sentence so unwarrantably heavy. In my view this boy’s record should be expunged, and he should receive a communication of such a nature as will completely clear his character and help him to make good in life. I mention this case to show how absolutely necessary it is that we revise the constitution and procedure of our lower courts and reform our prisons. I congratulate the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I believe a good case has been made out for a properly constituted commission. In conclusion I want to say this: this motion is a challenge to this House to lead South Africa in a great reform long overdue and pressing heavily and urgently on the consciënce of South Africans of goodwill who desire to see a more just and a more cleanly South Africa.

Right at the outset I wish to express my appreciation for the mover and the seconder of this motion for the reasonable and effective way in which they dealt with this very difficult subject. I can also assure them that I am accepting the motion. Some years ago in the Senate, as was pointed out by the mover, I expressed the view that it was desirable to appoint such a committee. I personally think that the time has now come for an impartial and able committee to go into this matter very thoroughly and very fully and to make a full report to the Government. I may also assure them that I am very much in sympathy with their remarks. I believe that in the majority of cases, kindness to the criminal, especially in the case of first offenders, will be more effective than severity. Naturally one has a number of abnormal cases, but they should not be taken to form the rule on which others should be dealt with. I also believe that leniency as far as first offenders are concerned, is the effective manner of dealing with them. I think all those who have had experience at the bar will bear me out that where a man has been acquitted where he has stood his trial, he very rarely comes back, he has had a fright and he has been cured. Furthermore, where the man has had the option of a fine, it also assists in the same direction; and here I may say that as far as first offenders are concerned, I think wherever possible they should be given the option of a fine. They have the conviction against them, and that ought to be a deterrent. You have the case where two accused, accused of similar crimes, are both given the option of a fine. The one is in a position to pay; the other is not. The one becomes a criminal in the sense that he has been to gaol. The other escapes that stigma. May I deal at once with the point which was made by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) that we should not wait until we have had the recommendations of the Commission. That is a statement with which I am entirely in agreement. But what is more, we have also acted on it. Knowing that it would be some time before a commission could be appointed to deal with the wider scope, Mr. Hoal was appointed as a one man commission to bring about these reforms. He has been working on it for some time. Some of his recommendations are already in operation, and we are already preventing men from going to gaol who in the ordinary sense, would have gone there. I feel confident that before the end of this year we will be able to bring into operation all his recommendations. The object of this one-man commission was to prevent men from going to gaol where possible. They are divided into two categories. The first category comprises men who have been convicted of statutory offences. We have already made full investigations and it is hoped to keep these men entirely out of gaol. The second category are those who have been given the option of a fine. There we are setting up means by which everyone will be given sufficient time and ample time if he is willing to work, to pay that fine and not to go to gaol. May I at once assure the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that although he has made a valuable contribution to this debate, I do not agree with him at all that these men should be convicted and sent out at 6d. a day. They should be fined if their crime merits that punishment, but having been fined, they should be given an opportunity of earning a full wage for a full day’s work to pay the fine as soon as possible, and the fact that they committed a crime should not make them a supply of labour for any purpose whatsoever. The object being that these men should not go to gaol but that they should be put in the same position as those who could afford to pay their fine. If we deal with these two categories, as I am perfectly confident we shall before the end of the year, we will have advanced a long way on the right road; so that I am in entire agreement with the hon. member for Parktown. I want to give him the assurance that we are already acting on those lines. It was better to have a one-man commission who could get on with the job than to have a long discussion. Then I just want to deal with a further point which was raised by the hon. member for Roodepoort. He suggested that the Secretary for Justice might be overworked. I believe he said that when he entered Mr. Hoal’s office, he found a pile of papers on his desk. Let me give him the assurance that he found this pile of papers on Mr. Hoal’s desk because we were notified at very short notice that this motion would have preference today, and we had to give it priority in our office So if he found Mr. Hoal’s desk rather overloaded, he was the primary cause of the Secretary for Justice being overworked on that particular day. But may I express my appreciation for Mr. Hoal for the very excellent work he has done as acting Director of Prisons. At very short notice he had to take over that very onerous task as if his own was not onerous enough, and he has done most excellent work, and I am quite sure that his experience will be of the utmost importance to the commission when they ultimately come to making their recommendations. I do not think it would be advisable for me to make a full statement on this matter, for the obvious reason that I do not want to pre-judge the issue. I think that both the mover and the seconder realise what a thorny and difficult subject this is, and I am Very pleased to say that I have their assurance, as well as that of other hon. members, that after this motion has been disposed of, I shall have their co-operation in bringing this matter into operation as soon as possible. Because I think it is a very urgent matter, and I do not think we should delay any longer. There are a few other points I want to deal with. I fully appreciate what the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) has said. He was under the misapprehension that the Secretary for Justice and Maj.-Gen. Beyers had been appointed on a commission, which is wrong He got that impression from the newspaper. I do not blame the papers; the fault may be mine. These gentlemen were appointed to give a report on the finding of Mr. Justice Blackwell, where it was stated that certain regulations now in vogue were not observed. I merely asked them to give a report in regard to the non-carrying out of those regulations. Maj.-Gen. Beyers is not on the commission ät all, nor do I think it would be advisable to put some one so closely connected with prisons on such a commission. I think this commission should consist of entirely impartial individuals who will have ample time to investigate this matter very fully. I could give many other examples where improvements have already been brought about, but I think I had better wait until we have completed this system, because I believe that prevention is better than cure and it is much better for the whole of society to combine in assisting people not to go to gaol than to try to reform them once they are there. But you will always have a certain number who will go to gaol, and there I again agree, as far as first offenders are concerned, that we should do our utmost to reform them. Our aim should not be so much to punish them as to help them on to the right road after they leave the gaol. As was pointed out here, the Department of Justice may assist a great deal in this direction, but it cannot deal with the problem effectively unless the Department of Social Welfare assist us to get those men to continue on the road of reformation once they are out of the gaol. Many a man, when his employer discovers that he is an ex-convict—I do not like that term myself—is immediately dismissed. Where the man has been punished and sentenced it is necessary for the Department of Justice and every State department to combine to save him, because it is an appalling fact that we have so many people in this country going to gaol. The more we save from going to gaol as first offenders, the smaller our problem will become. There are many directions in which social welfare can help Apart from statutory offences, take the huge criminal class that we have created in this country by sending people to gaol without the option of a fine. The law has been changed now, but formerly even first offenders went to gaol. This is a matter which will have to be considered. No one wants the native community in this country to be debased, on the other hand you do not want to create artificial criminals. It is not only the man who goes to gaol who suffers, his whole family suffers. Then there is this further question: Can we continue in this country to use the liquor laws to create artificial discrimination? Ultimately we shall have to deal with that very delicate problem also. I merely mention this fact to prove how difficult the task of this commission is going to be, and I sincerely trust and I am confident that we shall get an efficient and competent commission, consisting of men who have the necessary experience to deal adequately with this problem. Again I want to express my appreciation to the mover and the seconder as also to all the other members who have dealt with this matter in such a reasonable manner as they have done today, and I can assure them that as far as I arid the department are concerned, we will avoid any delay and get on with the job as soon as possible.

I think the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) have done nothing to promote this cause. They acted as advocates of crime by getting up here and openly advocating crime. It is far-reaching not to look upon the use of dagga as a crime, and that is what the hon. member for Pretoria (City) said. I say they have not in any way promoted this good cause. We have reached a stage where crime is increasing tremendously. We have already heard on the floor of this House that in the northern province, namely the Transvaal, and even here in the city, one can scarcely leave one’s house. Crime is increasing at a tremendous rate and we therefore welcome this gesture on the part of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). We want to help him and we are pleased that the Minister is willing to accept his motion. Crime is a world problem and is increasing tremendously. It will be of no avail to deal with the local aspect of crime only. My contention is that since we so often hear of international world conferences, it is of importance that there should also be a World international conference to devise the best methods of combating crime. Every State follows its own methods of combating crime. I think it is a world problem and the time has arrived for South Africa to think about a world international conference in order to seek for the best methods of combating crime. When we come to the criminal himself, we find that crime is a disease, an ailment. There is a mental confusion in the mind of such a person and it encourages certain impulses. I think we are doing too little to have the criminal in the gaol treated by providing specialists to diagnose the disease in the gaol. When the best specialists are used to examine the criminals in order to ascertain what ailment they are suffering from, what their impulses are, what the basic causes of crime are, then we shall get nearer a solution of this dire threat, especially to South Africa. We have noticed that crime is increasing in this country. Crime threatens our country and I feel therefore that we must pay attention to this matter before it goes too far. I believe in reformation in the gaol. I do not believe in exonerating the prisoner of criminal, as certain hon. members have suggested. I believe that crime should be punished. Then, too, I do not believe that we should build hotels for criminals to give them comforts in gaol. If we do that, we shall eventually have the whole native population in gaol or in the hotels. I believe in punishment and that the convict should be made to feel that he has transgressed. But I also believe that when the convict has served his time we should come to his aid. What happens now? He comes out of gaol. I would like the Minister to pay attention to this. The convict is released from prison. He curses himself, he accuses himself, he has lost all self-confidence; he has a guilty conscience; everyone looks down on him, and no one wants to give him employment or a refuge. What happens? The next day or a few days later or a month later he is again in gaol. We do not pay enough attention to the people who come out of gaol and who ought to get help from the State. They should not be left to their own devices. The convict who has no haven should receive financial aid in some way or other as long as he behaves himself and as long as he does his work properly. He must be given employment. That is what he needs, employment at a small token wage. That is simply not done; nothing is done for the ex-convict; the State gives him no assistance. Even in the case of a small infringment of the law, he is not taken back into the Civil Service. I think that is scandalous. Why should the Civil Service be closed to anyone who has been in gaol for ten days or a month? He is lost for the future. In the application form which he has to complete, he is specifically asked: “Have you ever been before the Court?”, “have you ever contravened the law?” “have you been convicted?” If he has been convicted he is debarred from entering the Civil Service. We say: Reform the criminal, help him to obtain employment, give him a token wage as long as he behaves himself well, give him an opportunity to get employment in the Civil Service like an ordinary citizen; do not unnecessarily punish the man or woman, who has gone astray, for the rest of his or her life. I want to make a final appeal to the Minister to help people who have not served a long sentence, to obtain employment on the farms. On the farms they will be given food, and no one gives better food than the farmer. Instead of the convicts being fed by the State, they can get their food on the farms; they can earn their wages there. The farmers do not want them to work for nothing. In this way it will help the State, and it will encourage production. If a man has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months, give him an opportunity to do useful work on the farm. The farmers do not want to pay them 6d. or 1s. per day, but the full wage. There is a great shortage of farm labour; the gaols are crowded and the State has to incur additional expense. I hope the Minister will also give his attention to that.

To a great extent, but not entirely, I am in agreement with the proposals set out in this motion. The State must maintain discipline or else it will go under. We are already beginning to advocate something which will cause lawlessness and licentiousness. I feel that the whole system should be approached from a different angle. I believe that 90 per cent. of the people who are in gaol are honest, but that circumstances brought them there. I agree to a very great extent with what the hon. member said, namely, that if you pay better wages to the people and keep them out of trouble, only a few will find themselves in gaol. I know of perfectly honest people who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment owing to some small financial difficulty. They had a family to support and probably committed a small irregularity. I feel that the 10 per cent. who are really criminals should be treated entirely differently to the 90 per cent. who go to gaol through some small misdeed or other. In my constituency there are natives who have gone to gaol because they were unable to pay the poll tax. They were probably getting a meagre wage, were not able to support their families, and got into difficulties. They are not really criminals but they come into contact with real criminals in the gaol and they learn to become criminals. I think that is completely wrong. The 90 per cent. who are not really criminals must be treated differently. These people also learn to lose their fear of the gaol. A sound system should be devised. If anybody should be punished, he must be punished; and I am not strongly opposed to solitary confinement because if one reflects in solitude over one’s sins, it often has a salutary effect.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 23rd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I think in considering this matter we should perhaps look at the genesis of this particular Act, and find out why it was ever put on the Statute Book. If my recollection of the subject is correct, it was due to the fact there was redundant native labour in Johannesburg and Cape Town, and it was necessary to make provision for checking the flow of labour to the larger centres. It was never in my view intended to apply to those much smaller municipalities, and yet we find there is hardly a municipality or a local body anywhere in the country which has not applied for the application of its particular area of the provisions of the Act. It has affected the whole native population in every urban area throughout the country. An interesting aspect of this situation is this, that when a committee was appointed to report on the extent of this redundancy of native labour in the big towns, it was found there was no redundancy; there was only sufficient labour to meet normal requirements and to replace wastage. It does seem to me that from that time we have built up in this Act something which is not only irritating to the native people, but that is doing a great deal of harm to the country itself. It is wrong, in my submission, that people should be forced by economic circumstances to come from the reserves to the urban areas to obtain sufficient funds on which to be able to live, and then to find themselves faced with the situation that unless they have a permit to look for work they will be deemed to be there illegally, and when they are given a permit they are unable to find any accommodation in which they may live. That, I submit to the House, is a condition which is not desirable. In view of the possibility of industrial development it seems to me that is a situation which must stand in the way. We on these benches have repeatedly stated that unless there is stabilisation of the labour force which is to carry on the work, you cannot have an efficient industrial development. The alternative is that industry will have to rely on a wasteful type of labour, travelling with great loss of time and money backwards and forwards between the reserves and the industrial areas, and there are a hundred and one circumstances under the Urban Areas Act which, in my view, will make it impossible to carry out any real industrial development along these lines as long as this legislation is enforced. We have a situation today whereunder not only do the municipalities fail to provide the housing for the labourers, but even sections of the Defence Department engaged in carrying out extensive works at Cape Town and other large centres have adopted the attitude that no obligations rest on them to supply anything in the way of accommodation for those employees who work for them, and as a result we have the serious position which has arisen in urban areas. There is not sufficient accommodation in the locations for these native labourers; the industrial people who engage native labour are not required to meet the housing needs of the native people, and the situation generally is, I think, an impossible one. I take the line that if these people are forced to leave the Transkei by economic forces in order to have sufficient earnings to live, it is not right that we should have an Act which makes it impossible for them to find accommodation. I shall go a little further than that and say that if you today were to take a referendum from the commercial and industrial people of this country in order to ascertain what their views are in relation to the consolidating and continuance of the Urban Areas Act, I believe you would find a very different answer to that question than when the Act was first brought into force. I think it is being brought home more and more to the commercial and industrial people of the country every day that this attempt to segregate the native population is completely inconsistent with the establishment of industrialism in this country on a permanent and payable basis. It is interesting to note that in our view the dice are often loaded against the Africans who come to Cape Town simply because it is not in keeping with the policy of the mining industry that industrial employers should take away from them the type of labour they want. They want it both ways. They want to be able to carry on their mines on a certain economic level and they want to prevent the industrialists from paying to the native worker a wage on which he can live. We can have no more convincing proof of that fact than the speech we recently heard from the Minister of Mines. He was quite clear on that point. There was to be no encouragement of industrial development. In effect he said that if the labour force is hardly big enough for the minés and for industrial development, there must be no competition between the mines and industry. In our view the prevention of this competition will affect the future development of South. Africa. Are we going to accept the statement of the Minister of Mines that the only hope of prosperity in the future is the mines? Are we to blind ourselves to the fact that the day may come, and will come, when we can no longer rely on the mines? Are we to build up our industrial development on the lines of the Minister of Mines? Or are we to prepare now for the future when we can no longer depend on the mines and will be forced to depend on the industries of the country, not only on the Witwatersrand but elsewhere? As far as I recollect, the voice of the Minister of Mines has been a voice crying in the wilderness in relation to this matter. I can recall no statement of policy by the Government as a whole as to what its views are. If in fact we intend going in for a policy of industrial development, and the Government once makes the admission it is going to support the idea of industrial development, I assert that one of the biggest obstacles in the way of that development is this very Act that we are asked to perpetuate. It may be asked why we have gone to all this trouble to oppose this Consolidating Bill. Let me say at once we are grateful for the consolidation. But we do not wish it to be thought, for one moment, that we subscribe to a continuance of this legisation. I hope that the Minister who is responsible for this particular Bill will not think it a personal matter, and that we are trying to cause him unnecessary trouble. We appreciate what he has done for the African people very much indeed. We think he is sincere, but even a sincere Minister may make mistakes. As far as this particular Act is concerned, it has been of no real value to the country, it has indeed failed completely in its purpose, and is caclulated to clog the wheels of industry.

I was one of those who served on the Select Committee which originally reported on the first Native Urban Areas Act. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then. In connection with the development of this Act there is a good deal of ground for misgiving as to any benefits that it has conferred on the natives. I must say that the policy of the Government seems to be neither one thing nor the other. They do not seem to have made up their minds what the real business of this Act is. They are always willing to go and legislate, in what direction does not seem to matter very much. They are willing to legislate in two opposite directions at the same time if they are moved to do so by two different municipalities. There is no definite policy in the mind of the Government in regard to the development of native life in the rural areas. The only valuable work that has been done in connection with life in the urban areas has been done by the municipalities. There have been faithful and devoted servants of the people in these areas, and a great deal is owed to the officials who have worked impartially, or I should say, wholeheartedly in favour of the reasonable and rightful developments of native life in these areas. But what is their position? The control and administration of native affairs is vested by the Act of Union in the Union Government, and the Union Government sheds itself of these responsibilities in regard to the urban areas by thrusting its responsibilities on the shoulders of the town council. The town council can only be the agents of the Union Government which is vested with the control and administration of native affairs. I must say that the growing consciousness of the natives in the Native Representative Council seems to be in the direction that their people who are living in the urban areas will look to them, and do look to them, for some views in regard to the burden which they feel to bear upon them in the native urban areas. I have noticed, Sir, that resolutions, unanimous resolutions, have been passed demanding that there shall be no proclamations of an oppressive character under this Act without the consent of the native representative in the native urban areas. What the attitude of the Government is towards these resolutions has never been disclosed. We have, however, been able to say that the Government has neither noticed them nor paid any heed to them. They have certainly been passed by an official body, which was intended by the Native Representative Bill to be the representative of the natives of the Union as a whole, and I think the time has arrived that the Minister would do well to take more notice of that body than he has done in the past. I believe, Sir, that that body is growing in knowledge of the problem and effect which torment the natives. I believe that increasing discontent with the policy of the Native Affairs Department is going to make it necessary to take more notice of the resolutions emanating from that body, and I hope that the lighthearted manner in which the Government avails itself of powers which they have no right to take, of governing by proclamation, is a form of experiment which shall have to be abandoned. I do not think it was intended that almost every turn was open for the Government to bring in legislation and imagine that they are doing justice to so large a body of the community. It is only fair that if legislation can be put on the native, it should be done by this House, and I intend to strive for that to be done and to get the system of government by proclamation abandoned. I hope everything in this Act which savours of government by proclamation will be discussed in the House and I hope the Minister will be reasonable enough to meet the objection there is.

How can I meet it on a Consolidating Bill?

The Consolidating Bill, or whatever it is, goes further than the original Bill. There is a firming up which I am bound to notice. It may be called a Consolidating Bill, but there is no possible objection to the mitigation of burdens in the Bill which the representatives of the natives will doubtless draw attention to when the committee stage is reached, and I shall support them in that direction. I have just one word to add. I do not believe, Sir, that any good is going to be obtained by the haphazard method of legislation by proclamation which has become so customary in the Native Affairs Department, and I hope that whatever the future of the Department is to be, we shall have done with the idea that we have the right to legislate by proclamation in regard to the natives, submitting them as the only section of the population to a very unfair legislation in regard to the laws which the peoples of the Union are not obliged to submit themselves. I think they have just as much right as any other section to have the laws passed in this House, and I hope we shall obtain this policy.

Mr. Speaker, the original Act was undoubtedly a good one indeed. It was designed to eradicate slums. There can be no question that the housing and overcrowding of natives in urban areas was a social condition which definitely required very drastic social legislation. But you will remember that it was incumbent upon any municipality who desired the elimination of slums, first of all to make adequate provision for the natives whom they wished to evict from the houses which were proposed to be proclaimed as slum areas. The whole basis of permitting a municipality to take advantage in many cases of being a proclaimed area was that they had to provide homes for the natives they wished to evict. There can be no question that there were cases in the large urban centres where it was found absolutely impossible to provide homes for the natives they wished to evict, and so amendment after amendment, and tampering with the original fundamentals of the Native Urban Areas Act occurred. There can be no question about it that the original concept of the provisions of the Native Urban Areas Act was the adequate housing for natives, and that was the thing in mind. So we have this particular provision in the legislation which authorises a municipality to require the eviction of natives who reside within an area of five miles of the boundaries of their municipality. One of the most drastic provisions is that municapilities should have made no provision whatever for natives residing in their boundaries, and yet they could utilise the provisions of the Native Urban Areas Act to require the eviction of natives residing within five miles of their boundaries. Take, for example, the application of the eviction laws by a municipality such as Bellville, which all over the Cape Flats and in and around those areas which contain slums and slum areas, is invoking the aid of provisions of the Urban Areas Act which requires the courts to evict natives who reside within five miles of their boundaries, whether or not that municipality has made adequate provision for housing of natives in their areas. They are doing it repeatedly, and that is one of the evils of the constant amendment of this Act, and I agree with the Minister that a consolidating Act is obsolutely necessary. It is almost impossible for anyone advising natives or defending them from the tremendous amount of offences which have arisen out of the authority of the Native Urban Areas Act, not to have this forcibly brought to mind. I wonder if the Minister is aware of the number of criminal offences which are created in terms of the regulations of his own Act. If a municipality has been sufficiently considerate of the social conditions under which these natives are housed, and provides more or less adequate living conditions for them in an area, and they go through the formality of having it made a proclaimed area, they get all the benefits which flow from these provisions. They enable the Native Affairs Department to proclaim legislation which makes for criminal offences out of ordinary civil acts. The Minister knows it well. It has been brought up repeatedly by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that a criminal penalty is prescribed for what is really not a breach of the law but merely a civil act. Those are things which people interested in native welfare abhor. We have an assumption from the benches of the native representatives that they are the only people who are at all considerate of the difficulties.

There is no assumption against your interest in the matter.

We repeatedly hear the accusation “that we from these benches” as if they were the only people.

Speak for your own party.

No, I can speak for the conditions the natives have to contend with. I say that I agree wholeheartedly in the criticism which comes from those benches, but I want to tell the hon. member that they have a great measure of support in this House which they do not give credit for.

No, no, that is not so.

Let us be sincere, that when anyone gets up and says that we from these benches advocate a certain thing, the only adequate interpretation is that we and only we do it. That is quite wrong, and I would like the hon. member to know that they are three, and there are probably 33 here who are prepared to endorse the criticisms they make, and I think they would strengthen the position of the natives if they would not so often say “We from these benches” and “we on this side of the House”. I want to say that I agree with quite a lot of the criticism directed not against this Act, but against the policy of the Minister to legislate by proclamation. The hon. Minister takes powers by proclamation to legislate, and the Minister has no powers under the Native Urban Areas Act to preclude as he has done by proclamation, the natives from coming to the towns. He gets his proclamation in by reason of this Act, and I want to emphasise the criticism of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that there are great numbers of natives who do not know where they are, which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction. There are thousands of natives in these areas, and there is no provision for their social conditions to be bettered under his Urban Areas Act, and while one congratulates the Minister for bringing in a Consolidating Act, one wants to prevent the abuse of this by the municipalities who have not assumed the responsibility of the Native Urban Areas Act.They have never made decent social provisions for the natives, but have invoked the Native Urban Areas Act to clean up the areas contiguous to their boundaries, although they know there is no provision in the Native Urban Areas Act for the natives to enter their area. However, all these criminal sanctions are being enforced and they make the life of the native who resides in the native areas, worse than it is. We could quote from the speeches of those who spoke on these benches that the Minister is a very sympathetic Minister, but is bound by the limitation of the regulations which he is called upon to administer. I do not think the Minister has any limitations unless it be in his appreciation of the fact that certain local authorities are utilising the Urban Areas Act to make things very difficult for the labour force we require, and I bring this criticism to the notice of the Minister in the hope that he will force such local authorities, who are utilising the provisions of the Native Urban Areas Act, to provide the natives in their area with decent social conditions.

I have not risen to condemn this. Bill of the Minister of Native Affairs. On the contrary, I want to welcome it because in recent years things have so shaped themselves that we must admit in regard to native legislation amendments have been so frequently introduced, especially in the case of the Acts affecting urban natives, and there are so many Acts that one has great difficulty when looking up something in the law. As this is a consolidating measure, we can congratulate the Minister that he has amalgamated these laws so that the position has been simplified for us. I want to take advantage of the opportunity, however, to condemn the amendment that has been proposed by the native representatives. At the same time, I want to warn the Minister of Native Affairs that many of the difficulties that he has to contend with from the side of the natives are the result of the attitude of those native representatives. These native representatives have never taken action here and have never proposed an amendment when they have not conveyed the impression to the natives outside that they are being unjustly treated here in South Africa. The native is not so badly off with us. Here we have a typical illustration of their conduct. In this motion they ask that the investigation that they propose should be regarded in the light of the progressive industrialisation of the country and the development of the permanent urban native population for the labour needs of industry. We all stand on the threshold of great industrial expansion. There are thousands of Europeans in the country anxiously awaiting the time to arrive when they will be able to find a niche in those industries. Now these native representatives come here and they deal with the whole matter in such a way as to give the natives the impression that all industrial development is going to take place with the object of assisting the natives to employment. The natives have to be the labour force in those industries. I say that in every respect they are the people who are making the difficulties as far as the natives are concerned. I want to warn the Minister that he is going to have a lot of trouble in South Africa by the action of those members. I am glad to see that the Minister now and again has the courage to bring these people to their senses, and I hope he will continue to act in that way. At the same time I want to tell the Minister that many of the native laws that are consolidated in this measure have not kept pace with modern development. The Minister will realise, after the speeches we heard here yesterday in connection with this matter, speeches from both sides of the House, that these laws have not kept pace with the development of the country. It is not the Minister’s fault. We know what crimes are committed in the country, and that they have occurred mainly during the last few years of the war. Nevertheless I want the Minister not to pass lightly over these matters that were brought to his attention yesterday, but to give them his full attention. When we think of the position in which the natives find themselves in the reserves, and we look at the reserves that they live in near the towns, we realise that the natives have been wrenched from their tribal associations, and that this has had disastrous results. It seems as if we want to make of the native a half-civilised white man, and if we are going to do that we are going to create a creature that will be useless to the country. In the native reserves near the towns we find that the native children are no more disciplined than they are in the reserves under the tribal system.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. This has nothing to do with the reserves.

I accept that. I only want to ask the Minister this, that he should bear in mind the position that yesterday was brought to his notice in connection with the towns. I hope that he will give serious consideration to that, and that as a result he will take stronger measures against the people in this House who endeavour to make the natives outside believe that they are much worse off than they really are, and who are in that manner incited to adopt an attitude of enmity towards the white man.

I should like to move the following further amendment—

This side of the House is to a great extent responsible that the Minister of Native Affairs has come before us with this consolidating Bill. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the past few years this side of the House has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that native legislation is in such a state that consolidation has become an absolute necessity, and as the Minister has produced such a measure he is to be congratulated on it. Beyond extending that congratulation I cannot unfortunately go further in regard to this measure. When we spoke of a consolidating Act we went much further than the Minister has now gone. In consolidating the laws, as he is now doing, it was not necessary for him just to take all the old laws and to paste them in the one statute book. He could have consolidated, but at the same time introduced modifications. Apparently his fear was that the Bill would then have difficulty in passing through the House. We on this side of the House have nothing to do with that. Matters in connection with the natives have developed of late so quickly that a consolidating Bill is long overdue. It is right of the Minister to have brought up a consolidating Bill, but at the same time there should be much more in it than this, namely, drastic provisions in connection with the natives, especially with those who comprise the great stream into the towns. The position in our country is entirely different to what it was last year. War conditions have changed things. Government works, such, for example, as war fortifications in various parts of the country, that have been undertaken in the coastal towns, have definitely attracted the natives, and that is one of the causes why so many of the natives have migrated to the towns. There are also other reasons. The fortifications have now been disposed of. The principal attraction for the natives is now absent. The Government are doing nothing. The natives are now here.

And others come back out of the army.

Yes, as the hon. member says, others are returning. I mention this to show that circumstances have appreciably altered even since last year. During all that time the Government, I will not say they have done nothing, but they have made no forward step to really stop this influx of natives. I take particularly this Cinderella province, the Cape Province, under this Government. The Minister surprises me, particularly when one remembers that he is from Cape Town. He will not look the circumstances and facts in the face. He is absolutely satisfied with the Transvaal and the other provinces such as the Free State and Natal having passed laws whereunder a certain measure of control can be exercised over the natives. But as soon as one of those natives comes to the Cape Province, yes, as soon as he comes to the Cape, the Minister refuses to budge and he will not apply those pass laws. There is an old law, namely that of 1877, which gives the right to the Minister to demand of the natives coming into the Cape from the Transkei a registration pass, but he does not even apply that law. No, the Cinderella province has been treated shabbily in connection with this matter. When we come to the Transvaal and the other provinces we find the pass laws applied there. The members who come from those provinces can be satisfied, because the pass laws enable them to exercise a certain measure of control over the natives.

That is not correct.

But here the Government is inactive though a little while ago it laboured under the delusion that it was so strong. Perhaps no longer during this Session, because it has to admit that it is on the defensive on all points, but last year it fancied itself very strong. Now it is sitting there quite powerless in face of the problems, and it will do nothing to rectify matters. I ask the Minister whether he cannot make a plan to regulate the influx. All that he has told us during the last few months and longer is that he is going to establish a depôt. In connection with the extra 60,000 or 70,000 natives that have come to the Cape Peninsula the last few years, he is now going to establish a depot just outside the Peninsula. And then? Then he is not quite certain, but presumably the plan is that he will send back some of the natives at State expense. Where to, I don’t know. A large proportion of the natives who come from the Transkei do not board the train in the Transkei, but they come over the Kei and walk considerable distances beyond thê Transkei and then they board the train, where there is no control because no permit is demanded by the railways. The hon. members who come from towns outside the Transkei can confirm this, that the Transkeian natives who are streaming in here board the train for Cape Town just over the Kei, or in some instances even a considerable distance outside the Transkei, as far south as De Aar. The further the native can walk away from the Transkei, the easier it is for him to hide where he comes from. Now my question to the Minister is this: With all the powers he has under the existing laws, cannot he devise a plan to compel the natives who are coming out of the Transkei by the thousand, to show some certificate or other before being allowed to board the train? Surely, that is quite easy. If the Government is in earnest in regard to South Africa the Minister and the minister of Transport could agree that no natives should be allowed on trains to the south unless they can produce a permit. The present legislation permits the Minister to do this. He has not availed himself of that at all. I should like to call the Minister to account. The people of South Africa are entitled to ask why he has not done that.

How many passes must the native carry now?

The hon. member comes from the Transvaal and he knows very well how many passes they have to carry. As regards the natives in the Transvall, he is perfectly agreeable to them carrying a pass there, but as soon as they cross the border into the Cape Province, they are not asked for a pass.

Must they not have a pass to leave the Transkei?

That is not demanded of them. We on this side say that the whole country realises that something radical must be done to turn off the tap that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about yesterday. Not only that, but those who came here and who are no longer required here should be sent back. A few days ago the members of the committee came to interview the Minister. It was not comprised of only Afrikaans-speaking people, but it was comprised particularly of English-speaking people, and the committee appealed to him and said that in the Cape Peninsula there is not room for more than 25,000 or 26,000 natives while there are 80,000, and they put the question as to what the Minister is going to do with the surplus of natives. I understand that the Minister just shrugs his shoulders.

Who brought them here?

There was special war work here, and there was the attractions of the city and in addition a weak Minister of Native Affairs.

And what about the Railways?

Well, we are talking about the Government as a whole. If the Government is so divided we cannot help it. If the Government is so divided that the Minister of Native Affairs cannot agree with the Minister of Transport, it is a sorry outlook for the country. We then ask that the Minister of Native Affairs should adopt a stronger attitude. He now assumes the attitude that he is powerless against the Minister of Transport in this matter. This matter could easily be solved if there was only co-operation between the two Ministers. What did the Minister say? That he was powerless as against the Minister of Transport. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not here, because apparently we have to call him to account together with the Minister of Native Affairs. They are both responsible. One can well ask what sort of Government South Africa has when the one Minister has to charge the other that he does not want to help in a solution of the problem. The Minister of Native Affairs does not hesitate to say in this House that he is powerless in connection with the influx of thousands of natives because his colleague the Minister of Transport declines to assist in preventing natives from boarding the trains. Is that not the position? Consequently I maintain that we have not to deal only with one Minister, but with the Government as a whole. This is a position that the country should take cognisance of. The position can still be remedied if there is only some disposition to help and to take action by the Government. What is the position here in the Cape Peninsula? I hope that hon. members who do not reside in the Cape Province will listen to us sympathetically. We have now an amazingly large number of natives, not only in the Cape Peninsula, but in the Western Province towns, in actually every place along here, and they are taking away the work from the coloured people who are still here, and are taking away the work from the coloured people who are returning from the war.

Crocodile tears.

This is the result. The Minister will therefore be compelled by necessity to return the great majority of the natives to where they have come from. There is another serious result. Only a few years ago there was in the Cape Province a total of 27,000 coloured voters on the voters’ roll. Now a few years later, the number is no longer 27,000 but 55,000. Will you say that I am wrong when I assert that the doubling of the number of voters on the voters’ roll, in respect of the coloured vote a few years ago, is not only to be attributed to the fact that all the coloureds are going to school and can now sign their name, or have suddenly become occupants of a house of the value of £75, or draw a wage of more than £50?

That is so in many cases.

I am prepared to admit that it is so in many cases, but not in so many that in five years the 27,000 could have been doubled. There are other reasons, and a big reason is that the influx of the natives has had a dual effect. The Xosa or Shangaan or other native who has a somewhat lighter skin, is hardly in the Cape Peninsula before he is looked up by a representative of one of the political parties and he is told that he will be able to figure in the voters’ roll within a short time. I allege here today that there are more natives on the coloured voters’ roll than the House realises today. That is my first allegation, and I challenge any hon. member to stand up and refute it. Another effect is still more serious, because it is a long-range one. The natives who come here in such numbers arrive here in the main without their families. The Transkei natives arrive here mainly without their families. Now in the western parts we have the big coloured population, and you can well realise what the result is. Talk to the police on the street and hear what they have to say about the position between the natives and the coloureds here in the western parts and you will get a fright. I think the Minister knows because his Department is acquainted with the relationship between the male natives that stream in here without families and the coloureds. It is such that we are creating an entirely new problem, one of coloureds born in circumstances under which the native is the father and the coloured woman the mother. No hon. member can deny that this is the position. We must look those facts in the face, and the facts must in the first place give us food for thought, and in the second place move us to action. In regard to this amendment that we propose, we should like to have the consolidation of this legislation, but we cannot approve it unless the Minister undertakes to exercise proper control over the arrival of natives in urban areas. Will the Minister not accept that? Will he not tell us that he would like to have the consolidating Bill put through, and that he will undertake to do everything in his power to exercise proper control? If he will accept our advice we shall help him. Our counsel is that there is still time this Session to enable him to come with the legislation in regard to the pass system for the Cape Province, so that the pass system of the Transvaal and Natal and the Free State can be extended to the Cape Province. Then we shall have no difficulty in connection with the influx of natives and the ousting of coloureds.

The Nationalist Party accepted this legislation.

I should like to repeat what I said last year, and that is that we as Europeans, must make up our minds once and for all what we are going to do with the natives. Last year I stated that we had to make up our minds. Now apparently all that is necessary is that the Government should make up its mind, because this side of the House has already made up its mind. After the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition it should be clear that this side has made up its mind. It is now only the Government that still has to make up its mind. I said last year that we should be realistic, that we should look facts in the face. There are in the Cape Peninsula some 8,000 natives that have been living here for a generation and more. These are natives used for certain work, natives who are permanently here. They fall into a separate category. I would like to agree with the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) that we should always start from the standpoint that the native comes from the Territories, and that he must stick to the Territories, but in the Cape Peninsula there are also a number of natives, perhaps between 8.000 and 10,000 who have had their families here for years and generations. You must take those into account. They must be put in their area outside the town where they are cut off from the Europeans and there they must be properly treated. We do not want to oppress them, but we have to take those natives into consideration. Further, we should only admit so many of those natives into the towns temporarily or otherwise, as are necessary for the work to be done. I take it that we all accept that we require the services of the natives in connection with our mines and industries and in connection with our farming. For years and for generations this has been the position in South Africa, especially as far as concerns agriculture and the mines, and I think it can also be stated that industries require native labour to a certain extent. Now I regret that industrial development in South Africa has struck out on an entirely new course. Though the mines have proceeded from the standpoint that the natives come to the compounds and return when their work is completed, the industries—and here I would blame Iscor among others—have proceeded from the standpoint that the natives have not merely come into those areas or that they are remaining in the compounds with the idea of coming to work there and then going back, but industries in all parts of the country have proceeded from the standpoint that the natives come there with a view to staying permanently with the industry. That is the cause of the difficulty of the surplus natives.

What about the natives who are not in the native territories? There are a couple of million on the farms.

I have now endeavoured to make it clear to the Minister that the Nationalist Party proceeds from the standpoint that natives must be used on the farms and derive a decent living there, and that they must be properly treated on the farms. That has been done in the past. They are properly treated on the farms. Must we again wait till we get another big shock, as we did in 1918? When in 1918 we had the epidemic of ’flu in South Africa the people woke up after years and noticed what conditions had developed in the cities under their nose. When the ’flu epidemic visited the slums of our cities the Europeans went in for combating it, and then for the first time the country discovered what was going on. Are we to have another shock like that, before we wake up and realise what is the actual position in the country and especially in our towns? The Minister of Native Affairs stays there in the Transvaal, near Sophiatown, Johannesburg. Recently I had the opportunity to look round there, and he can go and look. It is one of the sores of Johannesburg, a slur on the name of Johannesburg. What is he doing with areas like those inside the European area? What are his intentions in regard to Sophiatown. I mention only that one. What is his plan with the natives here in Windermere and in these parts, about whom the police have told us that they are cooped up with the coloureds, with Europeans alongside in the same place. What does he plan about them? Presumably the Minister is with us in wishing to maintain a white South Africa. In that case the sooner he removes those sores the better. Allow me to say this, I believe should the Nationalist Party come into power there will within a few months, be no Sophiatown left in Johannesburg. A few years ago we discussed the matter in a Select Committee and the Nationalist Party took up a very firm attitude; we stated that if we got the reins into our hands such places as Sophiatown would be wiped out.

You are talking now just like Oom Kaspaas.

It is not impracticable. People do not desire that natives working in industry in Johannesburg, and other towns and who are not in compounds, should live in areas outside the town not easily accessible to their work. There are areas outside Johannesburg, just as there are at Cape Town, that are easy of access and to which transport can be arranged so that natives living there can easily be conveyed to their factories. It is unnecessary for Europeans to run the risks which we are running at the moment by allowing these native areas to exist inside European areas. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is prepared to take action in relation to the large number of surplus natives and to send them back. And what is the Government’s policy in connection with native areas now inside European areas? I should like to make these few observations. There are 70,000 and more natives who have flocked in here and that is one of the results of your manner of conducting war. If that is part of the price South Africa must pay for this war we shall have to pay not merely in pounds, shillings and pence, but we shall have to pay a much heavier price and posterity will also have to pay heavily for the war that is now being waged.

I second the amendment.

I have always liked listening to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). He is definitely one of the most pleasant speakers in the House. And like the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) he is one of the best actors in the House. He and the hon. member for George remind me much, when they talk on these questions, of the walrus and the carpenter who shed so many tears as there was such a lot of sand. They kept on shedding tears. So, when my hon. friends shed tears for the coloured people because the Bantu has come in here, then I know they are good old crocodile tears, because they have not done very much for the coloured people during the last few years, except exploit them. When you once shackle any nation to the chains of industry, you have to pay for the result, and in 1892 the Cape Government imported the Bantu into this part of the world to complete the docks. Well, the Bantu came and he stayed here. A little later, after the last war—you cannot blame this Great War —the railways brought them in, and the late Mr. Charlie Malan, under pressure from the Labour Party at the time of Col. Cresswell’s idea of a white labour policy, said: “Let us try the white labour policy,” and the natives were sent back and we employed whites. But what happened then? The railways brought them in again, for the reclaiming of the land, and high wages were paid for the work. Mr. Madeley, the Minister, then went so far as to say they must be paid 10s. a day for building labour, believing the white man was going to be employed, but instead of that the builders in the town employed the natives because they were more docile. So you laid down a system in the Cape Peninsula that 8s. to 9s. a day was the ruling wage for the Bantu worker. What was the result? He came to the Cape. He did not bring himself there. The white man brought him here, and the white man and nobody else is responsible for the slums around the Cape. The white man brought in the native worker and did not have homes for the worker to live in. Now what does he do? He says there are too many native workers that they will become criminals, and everything we have heard from the young men who have been speaking is that we are making too many criminals, that this law makes more criminals. On the one hand they get sentimental and ask the Minister of Justice not to do these things, and on the other hand they get hard and ask the Minister of Native Affairs to do them. That is what is happening in South Africa. They will forgive me if I begin to look down my nose, and sneer and say: “Are you in earnest, are you in real earnest when you make these speeches where on the one hand you encourage the policy of high wages, and on the other hand you treat these people as criminals when they come in to obtain these high wages?” I am very unhappy about this native position in towns, and about this particular question we are debating here today. I am not so certain that we are approaching it in the right way. I should like to see another National Convention called to go into the whole question of our native policy and the way we should proceed to do something to save the country.

Not so long ago a young native man came into my office and told me he was the organising secretary of the African Mineworkers’ Union, that he had just started, and he said—

—and it will. I do not call the Minister a reactionary. That was the term he used. I said: “But you would be acting against the law.” He said: “I know; I do not want to do it. But you cannot put three hundred thousand of us in gaol. If you work with us and give us our own home and give us our own town council and segregate us”— there I agree with the Nationalist Party— “put us apart from the white man, let us live under proper conditions with our own hospitals and our own schools and our own teachers and our own clergy and our own cricket fields, then we will become a part of the country, and we will become a strong part of the country; we will become the miners of the country, and our children will be brought up properly and we will work your mines and become part and parcel of South Africa.” I would like to know how any member in this House can answer that question. You cannot carry on in this country if you have the black man and the white man living cheek by jowl as they do in Johannesburg. The black man wants separation, but he wants fair separation. I say that the black man is as much entitled to swim in the sea as I am, and what is more he is entitled to a decent pavilion, and he is entitled to a decent piece of the beach, but he has not got it. We are putting the coloured man and the European cheek by jowl, and what is the result? The result is chaos. Yesterday a very able correspondent of “Die Burger”, Mr. Malga, and myself went down to Muizenberg and we looked at these things ourselves. I saw an extraordinary sight there. I saw a small piece of land, probably half the size of this House, and I saw a large number of European women lying there. I believe it is called the Snake Park. I saw European women lying there and I saw black men walking up and down making cynical remarks at them. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious position, and on the promenade I found a section where coloured men and Europeans were freely intermingled. I said to myself: “Is this South Africa?” It is not the South Africa that I know. I am becoming an old man and I have lived here for nearly 70 years. This is not the South Africa that I know. It is a new South Africa. But is it a good South Africa? I would like both sides of the House not to quarrel about this matter, and to see how far we can meet one another. I believe our Natal friends can do a lot to meet us. How can we settle the question of the black workers who come to work for us? I went into a factory here the other day. There were 500 natives employed there at good wages—five hundred natives and not a single European. Only a little while ago I spent more than £2.000 on a certain project in Cape Town. I asked the man to get skilled labour for me. I asked him to bring no one but Europeans to work for me. He could not do so. But what do we find in Cape Town? The white man is disappearing from Cape Town. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was right when he said to us yesterday: “Waar gaan SuidAfrika?” Week after week we have complaints that the natives are not getting fair treatment. When hon. members on my right tell us that, I do not agree with them. But when I hear the Minister say, as I heard him say the other day, that these three members here representing the Natives were only out to do South Africa an ill turn, then I must say that he is doing a great injustice to them.

I did not say that.

You said they were endeavouring to do everything to take away the natives’ confidence in the Government. I made a full note of it. I am an old newspaper reporter, I cannot be bluffed. I take these things down and you cannot bluff me. If you want it transcribed, I will have it transcribed. Here it is; I do not want to quarrel. I only want to say that when my three friends here say that type of thing, I am sorry for my friends, because I have an enormous amount of confidence in the hon. Maj. Piet van der Byl as a Minister of Native Affairs for this country, and my friends on the other side have an enormous amount of confidence in him, because nobody approximates more closely a Minister of Native Affairs for the Nationalist Party, than this Minister of Native Affairs. He is on the wrong side of the House. But I am asking this House to take this Bill and to pass it as it is, and I am asking my friends to go a little bit more slowly. I am asking young men like the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) not always to get up in this House and to put the native in the same position as he was put in the days when we were in the old republic. I am an old republican myself and I agree with the old republican ideals. But those things are gone; we move forward. You cannot blame the British for doing it, because they used the natives in the Boer War. When you talk about the history of this country, tell the true history of this country. Do not hide the true history of this country. One of my best friends was shot by a native, and I think the natives who shot him were fighting under the father-in-law at the time of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) can tell us all about that. Because he saw the blacks fighting in the Boer War with his own eyes. I say that the time has come for us to stand by this Minister. He is doing well. He has the South African outlook on the native question. A South African outlook on the native question is the only thing that is going to solve the South African native problem, and when I read books, as I continually do, like “South of the Congo” and other books published in England and America about our South African native problem, I see absolutely red, because I know that our Native Affairs Department under the control of Mr. Smit, and the other capable Afrikaners who are there, are doing their best for the Bantu people. I know that every man in this House is doing his best for the Bantu people and that the feeling between the white and black man has never been so good as it is today. I cast aside the aspersions from America and I cast aside the aspersions from England that we are ill-treating our blacks. And here I say to our friends on this side that it is time they said the same thing. They take all the wrong things out of the newspapers and they publish them in the English and American newspapers and the result is that we are given a bad name. When a Minister of the Crown gets up, as the Minister of Mines did yesterday, and says that if migratory labour would stop, it would close the mines, then I say he is not fit to be Minister of Mines, and I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is looking at a book and pretending not to listen to my speech, whether he should not turn back and repudiate the Minister of Mines, because what he said is just the opposite of what he has been preaching to us at these Sunday schools and other places. I am not going to keep the House much longer. It is a ticklish question. But for goodness sake do not do what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) did namely to get up in this House and say—because then I do get annoyed—that it is due to the fact that we arm the black man in this war that we are having all these people trekking into the towns. This is not the first time the black man has been armed by the white man. The black man was armed by the Boers to fight against white men.

Nonsense.

I say the black man was armed by the Boers to fight against white men.

Where?

I can give the hon. member chapter and verse. In 1852 the Maatskappy said to Moshesh who was then the chief of the Basuto nation: “If you will come along and help us we will stop the British column coming up from Natal to Bloemfontein, and the Rev. Dr. Andrew Murray …”

It is no use saying these things; you cannot prove it.

I am going to prove it. I know my history. The Rev. Dr. Andrew Murray who was then the incumbent for Bloemfontein in 1852 remonstrated with them, and if my friends on that side want to find it in print, let them read the Rev. Du Plessis’ life by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Murray. They will find it in the library. That is number one. That is the history of South Africa, just as it is the history of South Africa that Van Riebeeck, within a few yards of where we are sitting, attending the first wedding which ever took place in South African between a white man and a black woman, when a Burgher married Eva, the Hottentot made a speech and said: “This is the new South Africa.” I do not agree with Van Riebeeck. That is not the new South Africa I want. My friends on my left are annoyed because I said the British armed the natives in the Boer war, and my friends on my right are annoyed because I say the Maatskappy used natives to fight against the British column.

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with the question before the House?

In all humbleness and respect, I beg leave to contest your ruling on that point for this reason? We are discussing the present native position. I am endeavouring to prove that it is through our action as white people that we have brought the natives into the town. May I proceed?

The hon. member may proceed.

It is through our action that they have clashed with us, and it is now for us to accept to a large degree the advice given to us by the hon. member for Piketberg and to say: “Waar gaan SuidAfrika?” If we are going to be afraid of our history and hide it, we are going to be a contemptuous people who will end up like large numbers of States on the other side of the Atlantic. We must face these things and we must face them properly, because out of our 800,000 coloured people in this country, they all come out of the loins of the white man, not the loins of the black man, and the danger to this country is not a black danger, it is a white danger and that is why I support the hon. member for Piketberg. He says: “You white men must wake up and take the black man out of your cities.” I say take them out of the cities and put them where they will be allowed to be separate and segregated, where they will be allowed to have their own homes, their own wives. Under this Bill the black man cannot have his own wife. Under this Bill the native living in the cities today cannot allow his wife to come in and live with him unless he has been there for two years. I ask hon. members: Is there any man in this House who would tolerate such a position, who would be prepared to be separated from his wife for two years? That is what this Bill provides. That is not the way to govern the country, and I appeal to my hon. mends: I want to help them; I want to take the hand of friendship that was thrown out by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). With the great brains on our side and the little brains on their side, we ought to be able to do a lot. I am not afraid of my hon. friends on the other side when it comes to dealing with the black man. I am an old republican and I know that no country in the world treated its natives better than our old republic. The republican black was a good fellow and a decent fellow as was shown by the way he stuck to his country during the Anglo-Boer war.

When we deal with an important matter such as this, a problem which deals with the future of the European race in this country, then it is painful to listen to the remarks of an hon. member like the one who has just sat down. One moment he indicates that he agrees with us that this problem ought to be solved but the next moment he levels accusations at this side in connection with things that happened in the past. If in the past certain things were done that were not right, is it fair to refer to them now when we want to co-operate? I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that unless the Minister exercises control, and proper control, over the influx of natives to the cities, then we are in a hopeless position; we are powerless. That is why we ask that the Minister should keep an eye on this. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the remarks in the House give rise to the fact that the native adopts an attitude towards the European which does not behove him at all. We know from experience that if you give your little finger to the native, he grabs your whole hand. We are not satisfied with that. It is not necessary for the natives to flock to the cities. There is work for them on the farms, and they get good wages there. Last year I gave the Minister examples of what farm labourers were earning, and I am convinced that today there are many Europeans who do not earn what some of the natives earn on the farms. But they flock to the cities. There is no control and they want more and more privileges. Here in Cape Town especially they want equal rights with the white man. I think the time has arrived for us to call a halt and I want to affirm what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said: “Where is South Africa going?” We must put our foot down and see to it that justice is done in the country.

I am still hopeful that although the hon. Minister may not withdraw this Bill, he will at least accept the spirit of our amendment and make us some promise that the background of this Act will be reviewed for the purpose that we had in mind. I think it is quite clear from the course of the debate in this House today and on the earlier occasions on which the matter has been before the House, that an increasing number of members of this House are as persuaded as we are, or nearly as persuaded as we are, that this measure does not meet the conditions of the present time. I have been struck with the requests from all sides that the Minister, once he has passed his consolidating measure, should take under review the whole content of our urban areas legislation. The basis of that request has been essentially the ground on which we have continually and consistently fought this Urban Areas Act,, i.e. that while it has not achieved the obvious purpose for which the original Act was intended, viz to clear existing slums and prevent the growth of new slums, it has cut across the economic development of the country and is increasingly blocking the natural growth of our industrial system; and that it has done that on the basis of an interference with the liberty of the native population which does not square with our professions as a democratic country. As I say, I am hopeful that the Minister will take the whole Bill under review from that direction. It is a fact that we are not happy about this consolidating measure. That is merely because the consolidating measure itself does not clarify the extremely complex issues of this law. From our point of view there is no particular virtue in this consolidating measure. The basis of our contention is that the existing Act is so complex that no consolidation of it can make it any clearer to the people who have to live under it, and I contend that no consolidation will make it much clearer to the bulk of the members in this House. I wonder how many members of this House have ever read the Urban Areas Act, and I wonder how many of those who have read the Act, have understood it. I say that without any reflection on the intelligence of the House, for the simple reason that I have read it on many occasions, and there has never been an occasion when I have read it without finding some restriction or control I have missed before. For that reason we have no particular interest in this consolidating measure. We feel that what the Government should have done was to review and revise the whole law. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) was quite right in saying that the initial impulse behind the Urban Areas Act was to contend with the slums which had grown up in our native cities. But he is not entirely right in suggesting that that is the whole purpose of the Act brought in to deal with that situation. The Act that was brought in to deal with the situation, did more than attempt to impose an obligation on the municipality and, behind the municipality, on the Government for the clearing up of slums. That Act attempted to control the slum position by controlling the type of population that could come into the towns. It attempted to lay down who should be in the town and who should not as the basis for dealing with the slum position. It laid down from the beginning that when a man was not employed in the town, he should be turned out; and that is the point at which, in our submission, this legislation went wrong and can never work From that point forward the municipalities were contending with the problem of housing, without any guarantee as to the basis on which they were to provide housing. They were faced with a fluctuating body of labour the claims of which they were never in a position to valuate and it is for that reason that the sort of situation which has developed here has developed, that at every point under this Act those who were given the responsibility of dealing with the housing situation, were given an opportunity of evading their own responsibility in the matter by saying that they did not know what the extent of the obligation was upon them at any one time. They could claim that they had no guarantee that the housing apparently needed would be needed permanently. From there onwards, there has developed a lack of balance in the whole urban situation, where the instability of the population confuses the obligations placed on the shoulders of the municipalities. And we contend that the progressive strengthening of these sections of the Act which deny the native the right of permanent residence in the towns has more and more aggravated that lack of balance. It has, in fact, made it practically impossible for the anti-slum purpose of the Act to be altered. It has also had serious economic effects. By laying down that only the number of people necessary in a town to meet its labour demands should be allowed in the town at any one time and that any man falling out of employment should be turned out of the town it has done two things: it has maintained the casual character of the population of the towns, and, at the same time, it has prevented that fluidity of labour which is necessary to develop industry. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) was quite right the other day when he said that problems behind this act are not only the problems of the big towns. They are also the problems of every small town in the country. In every one of the smaller towns a problem has developed under the Act. He is perfectly right; a problem of the smaller towns has developed under the Act, because of those clauses of the Act which have prevented the development of a stable urban population. Under this Act, particularly as amended in 1930 and again in 1937, the possibility of a native worker getting an establishment in the town has been progressively narrowed. Today the municipalities have the power to turn anybody out of the town who falls out of employment, unless he has lived all his life in the town or unless he was born in the town or has lived in the town long enough to have stablished his claim to be a permanent resident that is more or less for his generation. The result is that the populations which have got themselves established into our smaller towns, even where there has ceased to be any occupation for them, are desperately afraid to move from those smaller towns to any area where work exists for them because they know that once they have moved out and into a new area, they will not only have no permanent claim on the new area, once they cease to have a job there but they will find it practically impossible to get back into the area from which they have come once they have lost their foothold. That is the effect of the Act in damming up that fluidity of labour which is a most essential condition of a sane and healthy industrial development. That, coupled with the background of the whole of the Act, which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) seems entirely to ignore, has kept the whole of the native population in a complete state of flux. The hon. member for Moorrees-burg insists that the influx into the towns Shall be controlled more effectively by the Minister than it has been up to the present. It is a signal fact that every amendment of this Act, since it first came on the Statute Book in 1923, has been in the direction of attempting to exercise stronger and stronger control.

But you will admit that there is no control at the moment.

No, I do not admit that. There is plenty of control at the moment. The whole range of native movement bristles with control. The native has to get a permit to look for work, and when he gets to the town, he has to get a permit to work and when he applies for that in a place like Cape Town, he gets turned out.

I refer to the influx. I say there is no control in connection with the influx.

There are controls in every direction. When the native comes out of the Transkei he has got to get a permit to go and look for work.

He joins the train outside the Transkei.

That is not my information. What we have heard from the hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) is quite correct;, he joins the train at Umtata like anybody else. The point that we are making is that you cannot deal with the situation by the type of control we have had in the past. It is entirely impossible and I have no sympathy with the proposition put up by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). It has proved to be an absolute failure. What particularly disappoints me is the change in the attitude of the member for Moorreesburg himself in this matter. Last year, the hon. member took the much more reasonable attitude that there should be a permanent native population. Today he has gone back to the old attitude of more and more control, instead of facing the arguments, which are not our arguments, but the arguments of every responsible committee which has enquired into this matter.

I repeated today what I said before.

No, the hon. member did not. Last year he stated that we had reached the position where we should have a stabilised urban native population to subserve the needs of industry. This year, I think I am right in saying, he stated that you have here in the Cape 7,000 to 8,000 natives who constitute an old settled population, that you accept them, put them in an area apart and let them develop there. Apart from that, he declared, you will have to have more labour to meet the increased demands in industry, but he suggests that we will have to meet these needs on a casual or other basis. These were exactly his words. Then he went on to condemn the proposition that the mining industry should be developed on the basis of a stabilised native labour force and he blamed Iscor for their departure from the old policy. The point I am trying to get at is this, that the hon. member for Moorreesburg is now asking for more control than we have had in the past and for more of the same type of control, while my submission is that the repeated amendment of the Act here being consolidated is in itself a reflection of the failure of that policy. Now there seems to be some little misunderstanding about our attitude to the Urban Areas Act. That arises out of the complicated character of this legislation. What we want in this regard is the sort of legislation which will enable that section of our native population which wishes to find urban employment, and which can be absorbed in industrial employment, to come into the towns on a basis which will guarantee their stability, and through their efficiency in their occupation, which depends on their stability, will give them the hope of a decent standard of living. We are quite prepared to support legislation designed to abolish slums. We have always been prepared to support that. But one of our objections to this Act is that it has not abolished the slums, and the state of affairs at Windermere about which the Minister was so emotional last year is evidence of that failure.

Has it not done anything in Korsten in Port Elizabeth?

Yes it has.

Then why do you say it has done nothing?

It has not prevented the development of slums. On my knowledge of the situation and of this town, all it has done has been to push slum conditions out of the periphery of the town where they develop outside the local authority area. That has happened in many instances. In the smaller places it has not had any effect because those places have not been financially strong enough to cope with housing under a policy of slum clearance. We are prepared still to consider and support those sections of the Act which are aimed at providing decent housing for the natives. We have not even challenged the provisions in the Bill for separate residential areas. What we have challenged as absolutely unsound is the continual interference with the personal liberty of the native and the denial of his right to be a permanent part of the town’s population. This is an unnecessary, unjust and unsound policy, and in this connection, I want to submit these facts for the consideration of the House. When this Urban Areas Act was originally designed, I do not know how many members of the House know that it initially took its form from a commission on local government in the Transvaal, and that its terms were based on the special experience of Johannesburg, a very special experience where the bulk of the native population was then a single native male population, a people that had no part or lot in the local government of that area. The hon. Minister of Mines was Chairman of the Commission and I think he found it a little difficult to discover a basis on which he would be justified in excluding the native population from any rights under local government. He was a sufficiently good democrat to realise that the people of a particular area had the right to have a say in the government of that area. He found the answer by inversely saying that the natives did not belong to that town and therefore they had no claim to share in the local government of the city. That is the origin of the section in this Act which lays down that the native in the town does not belong to the town, that he is a labour force there only to subserve the interests of the European poplation; and then to go back to the reserves which cannot hold him, and find his home there. That is the point which the hon. member for Moorreesburg continually overlooks. The second significant fact which I think is not known to many members of this House is that this discriminatory policy which involves the instability of the native urban population has been strongly opposed by officials of the Native Affairs Department itself and other advisers of the Government on this issue. This issue was before the Native Economic Commission, and while it was prepared to support the 1930 Act, it specifically took its stand against any strengthening of the terms of the Native Urban Act which would emphasise the unstable character of the native population. The commission states in its report—

In 1935, when the Government was being pressed to put on the Statute Book the amendments that were subsequently put on the Statute Book in 1937 as the Native Laws (Amendment) Act, the Government appointed a departmental committee consisting of Mr. Barrett and Mr. Mould Young. The terms of reference of that committee included enquiry into the principle of balancing the native population and the labour requirements of the towns, and the effect of a policy of that kind on the native population. Now. Sir, the significant fact is that the report of that committee was never released for public consumption, and I submit that one of the reasons why that report was never released for public consumption was because these commissioners strongly opposed the extension of this principle that the native does not belong to the town in which he lives. I have reason to believe that because I knew both Mr. Barrett and Mr. Mould Young continuously supported the principle enunciated by the Native Economic Commission that the natives were now in the town and to legislate on the assumption that they did not belong there was highly immoral. In spite of what I am certain was the recommendation—I knew both these gentlemen and I was interested in native affairs at the time when they took their evidence and found that there was no redundant native population in the towns—increased restrictions were imposed under the Native Laws (Amedment) Act in 1937, and last year, I have only to remind the House, both the Native Representative Council and ourselves, as the spokesmen of the native population, were bitterly opposed to the extended controls incorporated in the Act, aggravating the instability of the native population and depriving them of even such slender hope as remained after the passing of the 1937. Act, that they might achieve a home in their own right in the town. On these grounds I trust that the Minister will give our proposal for the revision of the Act his serious consideration. Then my last point is that the Van Eck Commission and the Social and Economic Planning Council have recommended most emphatically that the native population must be integrated into the economic life of the country if we are to build up a stable economy on a basis of widening demand. In this regard I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what is to me a significant fact. In the last seven years the British Parliament has appointed no less than three commissions to deal with, and make recommendations, upon the redistribution of the industrial population that has taken place over the last generation, and is still in progress. This problem of the migration of the native population to the towns has certain facets of its own, in view of the colour bar, but basically it is a problem of western society. This migration has been taking place in every country over the last generation. It is a startling fact to discover that in England alone, one-third of all the houses that exist have been built since the end of the last war. That in itself is a reflection of the widespread movement of the population, and no people have been more concerned than the British about the direction of the movement of the population. They have been facing in their own circumstances the sort of problem put to us here last year. Last year we were asked how it was possible to build houses for all the natives in Cape Town when you do not know what the standard of industrial enterprise is going to be in post-war years. That is not a problem of South Africa alone. It is a problem of every industrial country; and I suggest that the Minister should be alive to all the aspects of the overseas problems which have any connotation with the South African problem and that he should take into his service and that of this country the experience of older countries in this regard. We have plenty of problems to handle here and we cannot afford to lose any assistance we can get from outside to solve these problems. We shall still be left with plenty to do. In the light of these facts I beg the Minister to consider our request that the whole urban native question should be reviewed in the light of all these facts that we have tried to put before him. I am sorry that the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) and other members of the United Party feel that we are not sufficiently appreciative of their interest in this regard. I can assure the hon. member and others that they are entirely wrong. The one thing we work for in this House is that members of other parties should give support to the propositions that we put forward to the Government. On the basis of the combined representations which have been made on this occasion, I trust the hon. Minister will grant us our request.

I have listened attentively to many of the speeches in connection with this Bill, and especially to the speeches of the three native representatives. But we must say candidly, if we wish to solve the colour question in South Africa, we will never get it solved so long as those three native representatives are in this House. If ever there was a disaster which overtook our nation then it was when legislation was passed which gave those native representatives a right to seats in this House. They are the biggest Communist propagandists that one can get. They make the natives out there believe things which do not concern them at all, and for which they have no need. Ideas are awakened in their minds of which they never dreamt. The result is that those natives are egged on and they are given ideas they then strive after, and which can never be carried out. It amounts to this, that the native gets the idea that he can and must place himself on an equal footing with the Europeans. He wants to raise his status from the kitchen to the Europeans sitting-room, and the European must then be relegated from the sitting-room to the kitchen. The native is just like a child. He lags centuries behind the civilisation of the Europeans. But just like a child you can convince him of all kinds of things. Thát is what the members on the other side are busy doing. If they continue to apply those methods, then I predict that we will one day experience a blood-bath between the Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa, and it will be those representatives, sitting in this House, who will be responsible for it. No, if we want to solve this question we must without delay do away with those representatives in this House. We must take the bull by the horns, get rid of them, and then we will be able to solve this problem. Let us afford the native every right to which he is entitled, but let us also bear in mind the rights to which our own people are entitled. We are 2,000,000 European people in this country, and we are carrying 8,000,000 natives on our shoulders. That is a fact which cannot be got rid of by any amount of reasoning. More than £7,000,000 is being spent this year in the interests of the natives, and that, nothwithstanding the fact that the natives pay only approximately £600,000 into the Treasury. That is merely the amount which is being spent by Government channels, not to mention the amount of things which are being done for the natives by the municipalities, and that has not been added. If we continue in this way, where is it going to end? On the other hand we have to deal with the problem of 300,000 poor whites. Where will it lead to if we give the natives preferential treatment over those Europeans? It would seem that we are in fact more concerned about the interests of the natives than about those of our own poor whites. After all, charity begins at home. But the native representatives would like to say that an injustice is being done to the natives especially in the rural areas. We can give them the assurance that there is a reserve in my constituency where 80,000 morgen of additional ground have been bought for the natives. That is some of the best ground, and thousands of morgen of that ground are lying idle. Those natives have had the chance and opportunity which many of our Europeans are crying out for, to get into their possession such a small piece of ground. Notwithstanding that, the natives abandon that ground and flock to the cities and towns to earn salaries and wages. What is the result? The natives who flock to the cities and towns remain very poor all their lives. They remain there for years, and when they return, they have only a suitcase and a few blankets. In addition to that their health has been undermined, and they are nothing but scoundrels and dishonest people, with whom the farmers then have to put up. I can speak with conviction on this. I have natives on my farm, and if I engage one, then there is a large number which follows too. It is a brother, a sister, the wife and children, and quite a string of those individuals who have been left behind by the people who have gone to the cities to work. I have ten natives in my employ, and I give food to 80 on the farm. They are rolling in fat. They all have the opportunity of attending school. They get firewood, water and everything free. But if one listens to these people talking one would swear that we treat the natives like slaves. They go away to work in the mines and elsewhere for so-called high wages. They return with nothing. They have simply become scoundrels, and they steal the native women from the natives who have worked on the farms and for whom they have paid cattle. Their whole nation is being torn asunder. The native folk lore has exercised a certain amount of discipline over them and has maintained order, but this is being torn asunder. And then these members come along and assist that by telling these people what a wonderful goal lies ahead! No, if we want to solve this problem, then both sides of the House must act without hesitation, and the first thing we must do is to see to it that those three native representatives must leave this House.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moor-reesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). The state of affairs on our farms is becoming very disconcerting. Our fodder crops, our maize crops and all our crops are standing before our doors, and we are in need of labourers. We have not got them. The influx of natives to the cities did not take place in a single day. It has happened gradually. It is still happening today. Now I would like to ask the Minister why that flow is still there today; why it is that we have this state of affairs today? The first reason is that the natives were taken into military service. Propaganda was made and the natives on the farms were told that they must join up, because they would get big wages if they did so. They simply set out for the cities where the recruiting offices were. The second thing which happened is this. The communist agitators came to our farms.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment, because he has already addressed the House on the 6th March in relation to the principal motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister what he has done so far to prevent that influx into the cities. Were those natives properly enlightened, and was it brought to their notice that there is no work for them in the cities? Were they told that they must not go there and that there is no existence for them there? I want to ask the Minister what measures the Government has adopted to prevent that influx? It is impossible for us to continue on our farms if that influx keeps on. I am speaking on behalf of my constituency and the agricultural population. I am making an earnest request to the Minister, and I what to tell him that it is creating an impossible position for the farmers on their farms, if that migration is going to be allowed any longer. The farmer can simply not make a living on his farm. That does not alone portend retrogression on the part of the European, but it is also to the disadvantage of the nation. The existence of the European is being endangered. He cannot reap his crops. The European families suffer thereby, but the natives will also suffer. If it continues like this, the Europeans will not be in a position to pay off the bonds on their ground and give their children a good education. If we do not bring an end to this migration of natives there is going to be a big revolution in the country. We have had proof in the past that this kind of thing can be controlled. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) correctly pointed out how the natives were treated in the time of the republics, and that there was proper control. We must alter our wartime outlook. The war is rapidly coming to an end. We must look to our own people and the continued existence of this nation in the future. For that reason I want to heartily support this amendment, and I appeal to the Minister to accept it.

I want to associate myself with the amendment, and I want to point out that the farmers in my constituency feel that if we continue to allow this matter to progress in the direction it has now taken, we are heading towards a state of affairs when there will be a shortage of food. That is practically the position today, that many people are going hungry and cannot obtain the necessary foods. Especially in regard to the maize industry, the position is that the farmers are without assistance. Fortunately the constituency which I represent has been fairly well blessed with a maize crop this year. A large maize crop will be reaped, but the farmers are already feeling concerned as to whether they will have sufficient labourers to reap the crop. Last year there was difficulty in getting, natives to do the reaping. The Italians were used, but the actual permanent sources of South Africa were not properly utilised. The position is that we have sufficient labour there. There are sufficient labourers but the difficulty is to bring about contact between the employers and the employees. Today we have the position that the natives are migrating more and more to the cities, and there they find difficulty in obtaining employment. There is no contact between them and the employers. We have the same position in the rural areas, that the employer is not in contact with the native employee. Once a native has gone to the city, it is difficult for us to get him away again, he will not readily return to reap mealies. The native has no sense of responsibility towards his fellow native. If starvation comes to the country the natives will be the first to suffer, and they will suffer most. Therefore, as a community, they have mutual responsibility and responsibility towards the whole population of the country. We would like to see the Minister devise a scheme whereby the employers and employees are brought into closer contact. Let me mention an example of what happened before the war, when means of transport were not so scarce and the farmer could take his lorry to fetch native labourers. It often happened that the farmer went with his lorry to Basutoland, and to other places, to fetch people to do the reaping. One farmer would not get more than he could-load on his lorry. The following day another farmer would come along and get practically nothing. A day thereafter another would come and get a full load for his lorry. The employers are there and the employees are there, but there is no proper contact. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot give consideration to the question of using the magistrate as a sort of labour bureau, to register the employer. If he allows the native men and women, who are prepared to go and do reaping, to give in their names to the different magistrates and the farmers also give in their names, to the effect that they are looking for labour, then the various farmers associations can contact the magistrate and the magistrate can send a telegram, after hearing from the farmers’ association, saying when there will be sufficient native men or native women to reap the mealies.

Which natives are you talking about?

There are such natives in the reserves.

The Urban Areas Act has nothing to do with those natives. We are dealing solely with the natives in the cities.

My argument is exactly that they should never even come to the cities, because then they are lost as a labour force to the farmers. If the magistrate can act as a sort of bureau where the farmers can make application for labour forces, then contact will be created between the employers and the employees. Today much money is being wasted in an attempt to get hold of labour forces. There is a lot of travelling about and labour forces are being sought everywhere. If the Minister does not want to allow the magistrate to be used, I shall be pleased if some other scheme can be devised. In the past large numbers of native males and females used to come through the river from Basutoland, and then the farmers went to fetch them at Ficksburg and other places, but if there were to be such a bureau where the natives can register their names, and where the farmers can make application, much expenditure will be avoided. The means are there already and it will involve the Government in practically no extra expenditure. It is only necessary to register the names, and that will facilitate the procedure of the farmers getting into contact with the labourers. This is a very serious matter. If only the Minister were to know how much maize was lost last year in Hoopstad alone because there were no labourers, he would be surprised. That is only one constituency, and the same state of affairs éxisted all over the country. A proper organisation must be created for the labour force, so that the farmers can contact them. I feel that in this period of food scarcity the necessary means must be found so that there will be no shortage of labour.

I want to heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). The amendment is actually a cry of distress. We appreciate the manner in which the Minister of Native Affairs manages his Department. We feel that he takes a practical view of matters and we rejoice in his action. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Minister will accept the amendment. It is a practical suggestion. I do not know how he can do otherwise than accept the amendment. If the Minister of Native Affairs does not appreciate the danger, then I want to tell him that the native problem is a danger to the United Party and its continued existence. It will be the death-knell of the Government if it does not act drastically now and face the danger. We have this influx of natives to the urban areas, especially to Cape Town. It creates chaotic conditions which never existed before. Thousands and tens of thousands of natives who were not here before are streaming in, and alarming conditions are being created. I mix with English-speaking families here, and I know that the English-speaking mothers and daughters in the Cape live in difficult circumstances today. They are worried. They are not protected against the natives who were at home in the native areas, and are not acquainted with urban conditions. They cannot even eke out an existence, and the result is that they turn to crime. Cape Town has become a dark city. This Mother City which previously was the centre of enlightenment and civilisation, has developed into a dark city and conditions have become unbearable. The Minister knows how crime is increasing. He must realise that it is an S.O.S. which is being sent out, in view of the conditions which are being created here.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th March.