Mr Chairman, yesterday I commenced discussing an issue relating to the internees who were being held in Mariental in South West Africa and I stated certain of the facts. During the course of my speech the hon the Minister interrupted me and asked me not to proceed with the matter as he believed that the case in point might be sub judice. It subsequently has come to my attention that an application of some sort, I do not know the details, has been lodged in the Windhoek Supreme Court and that a date for the hearing has been set. I would like to ask for a ruling on this matter before this debate commences. I believe, and I would just like to argue the point, that if a hon member discusses a matter in general terms so as not to prejudice any court proceeding this then would not necessitate the invocation of the sub judice rule. Mr Chairman, I refer you to Hansard of 1983, volume 31 col 880, in which a point of this nature came up. The Deputy Speaker said at the time—and it is a decision which has stood the test of time—the following:

In this connection I also want to refer you to your handbook, page 47, which deals with exactly the same topic and in which this particular case is quoted. This means that if a matter is discussed in general terms the sub judice rule is not applied provided the member does not refer to the matter which is sub judice in such a way as to prejudice the case. I want to say that it is not my intention to deal with specific legalities of the matter, but merely to deal with it in general terms on a political basis. I do not want to question in any way the technical legality of the hon the Minister’s decision.

There is a second point which I would like to make. This is an extremely strong point which, I believe, you cannot ignore. The point is that in order to declare a matter sub judice in this Parliament, it must relate to an action or an application which is pending in a court which is in South Africa. In other words, the sub judice rule does not apply—I again refer you to page 47 of your handbook—to matters which are sub judice in courts of law which are outside South Africa. I want to quote from the 18th edition of Erskine May, page 328. I think it is on page 333 in the 19th edition. It reads as follows:

We are discussing the sub judice rule now:

My view is that whereas in May no mention is made of a South African court, this is translated into your handbook as you have it before you. No mention is made of a case which has to be in a South African court or a court administered by South Africa. The words are “a court which is not in South Africa” or “a court which is in South Africa”. This is a peremptory invocation. As I see it it is not really a question of your discretion. Certainly, I agree that South West Africa is a territory administered by South Africa, but in every world forum South Africa has denied that South West Africa is in fact in South Africa and has always, in every single argument from the hon the Prime Minister down, stated that South West Africa is separate from South Africa and not in South Africa. I say South West Africa is not South Africa. I know that the court application of which the hon the Minister has given me insight is being held in the Windhoek Supreme Court in South West Africa. I aver that, in terms of the two points that I have mentioned, but particularly in regard to the second point, the sub judice rule does not apply at all and that this is an overriding factor and that I should be allowed to discuss in the general terms that I have stated the matters relating to the internees at Mariental. I ask your ruling.

Mr Chairman, may I, with your leave, reply to the point of order?

You may advance a further argument on the point of order.

Mr Chairman, a further argument on the point of order is that I ask—and I feel this should be the form the point of order should take—that you would please take note of Mr Speaker’s decision of 30 September 1974 (Hansard, vol 51, col 4053). I quote:

Mr Chairman, I suggest that the same principle should be valid in respect of any civil case. Surely it is obvious that the same would apply there. So much then for the first point dealt with by the hon member for Sandton.

Mr Chairman, as far as the second point is concerned, I ask, firstly, that you should please take note of the fact that the Minister of Justice of the RSA is involved in the case on account of powers which were exercised in terms of legislation of this Parliament which is still valid there. Secondly, I ask that you take note of the fact that the Supreme Court of South West Africa still forms part of the court system in that it was established by the State President in terms of powers granted to him by this Parliament, and that its judgments can be taken on appeal to the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein. I refer to proclamation 222 of 1981, 6 November 1981, in Gazette 7909.

Mr Chairman, I would like to raise another point before you give a ruling.

The hon member may make a further inquiry on the matter.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. In regard to the first matter which the hon the Minister mentioned, I have no objection to that ruling and I think the 1974 ruling is a correct ruling. However, it does not override the statement that I made and the quotations I gave you relating to discussing a matter in general terms and, in fact, not infringing upon the legal technicalities of the case. The second point the hon the Minister made is that the Minister of Justice is properly and legally, in terms of statute, involved in this particular matter. That is correct; he is. The hon the Minister exercises certain functions in South West Africa which are in question. There is no difficulty over that. The hon the Minister says that the South African courts may, in fact, in due course be approached on appeal as a result of actions which take place in Windhoek. That is also correct, there is no dispute over that, but there is no appeal pending to any South African court at this particular time. The overriding factor to consider is the clear injunction in May that the sub judice rule does not apply to any court action or application which is not taking place in any court in South Africa. Mr Chairman, if you want to rule that South West Africa is part of South Africa, I think it will be world news, particularly in the light of past statements. I think you are bound by the injunction contained in May.

I have considered the matter since it was raised yesterday and I have made substantial inquiries on this issue. On 30 September 1974 Mr Speaker ruled as follows:

I might add that if I, as presiding officer, might err, I would rather err on the strict side than on the lenient side.

I further have given consideration to the other aspect. I agree that South West Africa is not part of South Africa. The hon member has pointed out that the sub judice rule does not apply to matters which are sub judice in courts of law outside South Africa. However, I have consulted the Chief State Law Adviser who has concluded that since the hon the Minister is himself a party to the case and the South West African court is instituted under the Administrator-General who derives his authority from this Parliament this matter which is sub judice in South West Africa should also be regarded as sub judice in the Republic and I rule accordingly.

Mr Chairman, may I just point out that the hon member for Sand-ton has no intention of discussing the actual case or the legalities thereof, his intention is to discuss the political wisdom of the hon the Minister in invoking section 103ter(4) of the Defence Act in order to stop the court proceedings in this matter. That is the subject under discussion, not whether or not it is legal or otherwise for the South African Government to continue to detain those persons at Mariental.

On a previous occasion Mr Speaker ruled recently that he would not allow any discussion which might infringe the sub judice rule.

On any matter?

On any matter where the sub judice rule can be instituted and in this case any aspect which can influence or affect a possible sub judice contravention, it is preferable to rule that that matter should be regarded as sub judice. Even though the hon member for Sandton does not wish to discuss the legality involved, but other aspects relating to the case in point, I, as presiding officer, would prefer to rule that such discussion should not be allowed, because it might affect the implications of the court case.

Mr Chairman, abiding by your ruling I will not deal with the internees at Mariental at all.

I would like to refer the hon the Minister to the report of Mr Justice Diemont. I understand that the hon the Minister is going to say something about this a little bit later and obviously for me now to call upon him to make certain decisions would be some-what fatuous in that I am sure that he has already made several decisions relating to that report. However, that report was tabled in August 1980, or somewhere around there, a long time ago, it was signed in August 1980, and I must say that it has taken a rather long time for the hon the Minister to get round to implementing its decisions.

You will be reported as having said that, but you know that I have implemented whatever I could have implemented in terms of what was feasible and practical and possible.

You can make your speech and you can, by all means, come back at me. What I wanted to say was that I am glad that the hon the Minister is going to make announcements and that it is better to be late than never. There was a recommendation that a Deputy Judge President be appointed to the Witwatersrand Local Division. I think that this would be a very good decision if the hon the Minister has made that. I hope the hon the Minister will make an announcement in this regard. If this action is taken it will lighten the Judge President’s load, it will assist the Registrar to re-establish and maintain efficient order in the courts and I believe that that appointment, the appointment of a Deputy Judge President for the Witwatersrand Local Division, would, in fact, give leadership to that whole division.

The second point that I think was important was the granting of appeal jursidiction to the Witwatersrand Local Division. I believe once this is implemented it will save attorneys and counsel large amounts of costs, avoid commuting and it will also save on costs of litigation for clients.

The third matter which Mr Justice Diemont reported on and made a recommendation, was that the Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark areas should be incorporated in the Witwatersrand Local Division. These areas he to the south of Johannesburg, far from Pretoria, and virtually all the attorneys are in favour of the step. I believe it would be a cost saver if this is done. Particularly in the light of the support of the Law Society, I hope that the hon the Minister will give favourable consideration to this recommendation and, in fact, to all the major recommendations in the Diemont report as soon as possible so that there might be certainty.

I would like to turn now to the question set out in pages 24 and 25 and later on page 44 of the Hoexter report. Paragraph 3.4.2.1 of the report reads as follows:

This is a very firm recommendation of Mr Justice Hoexter and his fellow commissioners. We all know that in recent years administrative staff, prosecutors and even magistrates who are not White, have been appointed and that, thereafter, they have been sent off to Coloured areas, to Indian areas and even to Black areas to serve their own respective communities. This is in line with what I see as the policy of vertical differentiation or separate development, whichever phrase one likes to use. However, this is not what Mr Justice Hoexter recommends and this is not what his commissioners are recommending. They are saying that the department should recruit, educate and incorporate in an active manner everyone from whatever race group into the general administration of justice. That has always been, and is, our view. Ironically the commission has put its view somewhat more strongly than I have done in the past, if one reads the words very carefully. It speaks, for example, of a collapse in the administration of justice, and I would perhaps not have put it as strongly, but I do believe it is an important principle that justice should in fact be colour-blind and that people administering justice should be included in the department of the hon the Minister without reference to race or colour.

The reasoning of the Hoexter Commission is based on pragmatic rather than ideological grounds. I believe it must be admitted by the hon the Minister that to date, except at the very lowest levels and slowly moving to higher levels, and then only in restricted racial townships and areas, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians play only a small role in the work of the department. I am now talking in terms of a judicial role. I am not now discussing the question of whether we have interpreters or junior clerks of other race groups active in the department. They play only a small role in the judicial functions of this department. I say that this must come to an end if the Government is serious in its declared intention of moving away from race discrimination. The question is whether this very specific recommendation is to be accepted or whether it is to be rejected. If it is to be accepted, what does the hon the Minister propose in the short, in the medium and in the long term to do about it? I hope that we will today be given an answer on that aspect.

The last point I would like to mention relates to the proposed system for magistrate’s courts, which the hon the Minister spoke about late yesterday afternoon. I would like to welcome the announcements he made. I think that he has made a good start in implementing the recommendations of the commission. I believe that by progressively relieving magistrates of extraneous duties, this will increase the efficiency of the courts. I also believe it will increase the efficiency and the quality of judicial output. I also agree with the hon the Minister that this cannot happen overnight and that this change which is coming about is a change that will have to be phased in from month to month.

The hon the Minister did not react to the other aspect in the same set of recommendations made by the Hoexter Commission, except to say in passing that he believed in the independence of the judiciary—that is the lower courts’ judicial officers—from the executive, when he said that he believed, if I read his statement correctly, that this already existed but that he felt that the Hoexter Commission was talking about the image of judicial independence more than the substance of it. However, the Hoexter Commission made some very specific recommendations. While I welcome the hon the Minister’s general attitude towards those recommendations as evidenced in his statement yesterday, I do believe that a few questions arise which the hon the Minister has not, during the discussion of this Vote, dealt with. In respect of these three matters the hon the Minister has been just a little bit vague and I do hope that he will give clarity to us so that we know how he feels about them.

Firstly, there is the recommendation that the judicial officers within this department should be separated from the Civil Service. I am quite certain that the hon the Minister is not in a position to make an announcement on this issue this morning, but I do believe that he should give us the benefit of his thinking, to let us know whether he approves of this recommendation and whether its implementation is to be investigated and whether this aspect will be dealt with.

Secondly, it was clearly recommended that appointments, discipline, discharge and promotion of judicial officers, should be governed by advisory boards and not by the Commission for Administration. This would give certainty to their employment and I hope we will have an answer on that.

Thirdly, the commissioners recommended that the conditions of service of judicial officers should be governed by statute and not by the normal regulations within a department. All these recommendations are designed to give independence to judicial officers and I ask the hon the Minister to respond to these three recommendations in some detail.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton raised quite a few matters and put his case very well. I want to refer briefly to just a few of them.

He referred to the Diemont report, which deals with the Witwatersrand Local Division and the Transvaal Provincial Division. If I remember the Act correctly, it provides for two Deputy Judges President. If I remember correctly, it also provides for appeal jurisdiction should the Judge President announce it. In this connection I think that the discretion of the Judge President is decisive and not the Minister’s instruction to the Judge President. Perhaps the Bar Councils and the law societies should get in touch with the Judge President in that regard.

We would like to know what progress has been made.

The second point made by the hon member for Sandton was that justice should be colour-blind and that other racial groups should be treated accordingly, with the innuendo that the administration of justice would only then be colour-blind. That innuendo cannot be correct. [Interjections.] I am very glad that the hon member calls it that, because I do not think that it is a prerequisite at all to make the judiciary impartial. However, on the other hand we should also remember that we say that there are too few magistrates and that there are even too few people with experience in the commissioners’ courts. The hon member says that we must appoint people of other racial groups from the private sector. To my mind the important recommendation in this regard is that these people should come from the private sector. This is something which one should consider very thoroughly. If the hon member looks at paragraph 3.4.2.1 of the report, he will see that it actually deals here with people of all population groups in the private sector who should be involved. I think that we should discuss this for some time in that it will not be so easy to do it because people, and judicial officers in particular, should very definitely have experience. When one sees this recommendation in the Hoexter report in its totality, it seems to me as if the crux of the recommendation lies in the fact that magistrates should be appointed from the private sector, and then one cannot argue in both directions. One is then dealing with people who are totally inexperienced in the administration of justice, although they might have practised as lawyers for a long time. Those are two completely different things.

The hon member also talked about the fact that magistrates’ courts should become independent of the Public Service, and the hon Minister replied to it very well yesterday. He said that the independence of a judiciary depends, in the true sense of the word, basically upon the quality of the judicial officers. In my view the only independent part of the State machinery, when one looks at the Legislative Authority, the Judicial Authority and the Executive Authority, is the Legislative Authority. The Legislative Authority is the autonomous authority, and to the extent that it is autonomous, the Judicial Authority can never be completely autonomous, but certainly autonomous in its function as the Judicial Authority. One should therefore be very careful when one talks about the autonomy of the Executive Authority and the autonomy of the Judicial Authority because, with respect, it is not really correct to put it that way.

I believe that our magistrates are at present totally independent of the Executive Authority, totally independent of the Legislative Authority, when it comes to the judicial function they perform, because there are at least a few Acts which protect them. The first Act I want to mention in this regard is the Public Service Act. Then there is also the Magistrates’ Courts Act, the Criminal Procedure Act and others. All these Acts contain provisions to protect magistrates. As a matter of fact, any interference with a magistrate because of the fact that he has delivered a judgment, and any pressure that is brought to bear on him as a result of it, can be nothing less than contempt of court. Even in common law the independence of the magistrate is protected by the common law transgression of contempt of court. One thing is therefore very clear to me, namely that our magistrates’ courts as they function at the moment are absolutely independent, and that all the necessary machinery has been created to give them total independence when it comes to the administration of justice, but that as the hon the Minister has rightly said, the independence of the Bench depends in the true sense of the word basically on the quality of the judicial officers. This is something which the department tries to put in the right perspective to the best of its ability.

Yesterday I talked about commissioners’ courts which will now be transferred to the Department of Justice, and I dealt with the subject of punitive jurisdiction. I should like now to deal with the civil law aspects which will now also be taken over by the department.

The hon member for Barberton also discussed this yesterday. I apologize for unfortunately not having been able to be here because I was busy elsewhere. If therefore I do not associate myself with what the hon member said, he must please forgive me.

When one looks at the report of the Hoexter Commission, one sees that the following is said in paragraph 5.3.1 on page 407:

The first point I want to make in this connection is that the transfer has obviously become desirable as a result of the process of rationalization announced by the hon the Prime Minister and the Government. The second point to which I want to refer, is that we in South Africa do not just have one Black judicial system. In paragraph 4.3.8.7 on page 402 Prof Kerr says that Black law may be retained as a system. The fact of the matter is that there is not one Black law but at least ten Black laws. In certain circumstances the law even differs from tribe to tribe. It is therefore a great asset to this country and something of which the Government can be proud that when we emerged as victors from the battle and when authority was transferred to us by Britain, we did not repeal these at least ten different systems. On the contrary, we allowed them to go on. It is also not the intention to repeal the rules of customary law now because customary law is one of the strongest laws one can have and it is valid in today’s Roman-Dutch Law, because if a person can prove a customary right, then that law applies in civil law. All that this will now mean, is that this civil law jurisdiction which will now also devolve on Blacks in respect of their common law circumstances, depending on the people or tribe, will be able to be proved on every occasion. In fact, Mr Chairman, in my younger days I often appeared in commissioners’ courts, and legal representatives actually always ask the oldest of the witnesses what the custom is and what they do under such circumstances. This happens for the very reason that there is no codification of Black law, of Black tribal customs or of popular Black usage. There are writings and books, but if hon members peruse them they will see that there is a large measure of difference and a large measure of customary law that has to be proved in every case. The Blacks of the Republic are therefore actually in a privileged position in that they, unlike the Whites, can choose and can prove which law or what legal system applies. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it gave me pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon member for Pretoria West, particularly the last part of his speech. I also want to tender my apologies to the hon member for Barberton for my absence yesterday, because I should like to continue with the theme touched upon by the hon member for Pretoria West.

In the first place, however, it surprises me somewhat that the hon member is not aware of the fact that, in spite of the differences that do exist in the legal customs of the various Black peoples, a great part of that law is in fact held in common by at least the South African Black peoples. It is precisely because of the work of the appeal courts and the commissioners’ courts and the recording of those judgements that we were able to distinguish those aspects of Black law held in common in South Africa from those that are peculiar to a particular people. I just want to add that we know that the law of a people is inherently and inseparably part of the cultural heritage of that people. If we try to negate that law, we not only do them an injustice, but we also create the consequence that either the law continues to exist despite action taken on the part of the authorities, or the people concerned resist when a foreign legal system is applied to them. As the hon member for Pretoria West indicated, we have in our own history examples of this. In the fifties of the previous century, for instance, Sir George Grey in fact refused to sanction the indigenous law, yet in spite of that, the indigenous law followed its own course and the Blacks by-passed the courts that were established. Like the culture of a people, their law is something that continually adapts itself to the requirements of the day and it also borrows from other legal systems. Our own Roman-Dutch Law is a good example of that. That is a legal system which developed over centuries and adapted itself to the particular circumstances of the day, but at the same time it had no qualms about borrowing from other legal systems where there were found to be shortcomings in our legal system. I refer, for instance, to the law of negotiable instruments borrowed from English law and also aspects of constitutional law etc.

As a result of the contact with Western civilization, the integration with the Western White-dominated society and especially the integration with the business world of the Whites and the tremendous urbanization, it goes without saying that the same process is at work amongst our Black peoples. While many of the basic principles are retained, there is, therefore, a continual adaptation to the changed milieu in which the Black peoples find themselves and also a continual borrowing from what we can call White common law or the law of the country to provide for the shortcomings which exist in their own indigenous law. The tempo and extent of that process of adaptation, change and borrowing is actually determined by the specific circumstances in which a Black finds himself. In the traditional tribal areas the old traditional customs still apply to a considerable extent while in the cities changes have been effected in many respects.

As the hon member for Pretoria West indicated, from the earliest times the authorities were confronted with the problem of deciding what standpoint they should adopt in respect of the legal system of the Blacks. The breakthrough finally came in 1927 when it was stated that the courts established to try civil cases between Blacks would in their judicial discretion apply Black law in so far as it was applicable to the parties which appeared in court. Here, therefore, it was finally confirmed by way of legislation that Black indigenous law, as legal system in South Africa, would be recognized. Therefore it was no longer necessary on every occasion to produce evidence on aspects of customary law in respect of any particular point. As the appeal court developed, it indeed became less and less necessary for that court to hear evidence concerning that law. We can see that very clearly if we look at marriage laws, for instance. Section 11 contains the qualification—and I am sure I do not have to repeat it—that that law must not be in conflict with the principle of natural justice and also that it should not be repealed. Lobola is also specially protected. Looking at marriages, one actually sees exactly how this situation works out. The majority of Blacks in the rural areas still marry in accordance with the traditional lobola system. We find, however, that in growing numbers the Blacks in the rural areas—and particularly in the cities—are marrying in accordance with civil law. They are therefore church and civil marriages. In many marriages, however, there is still a transfer of lobola in one form or another, even if in our urban areas it takes the form of money. We would therefore be guilty of an injustice if we were to move away from this judicial recognition of the indigenous law as legal system. I can add that, despite all my appreciation for the Hoexter report, I was disappointed to find that nowhere in that report was there really appreciation expressed for the fact that the majority of people in our country to a lesser or greater extent feel themselves committed to their own indigenous, traditional legal principles as adapted and altered. For that reason I also find it a pity that, as I read the report, in my opinion it honestly does not evince proper appreciation for the work done by the appeal courts over the years. On another occasion I said that those people, some of whom I have known personally, have contributed a great deal in this field. Therefore I want to say that I find totally unacceptable the recommendation of the Hoexter Commission that the Supreme Court judicially need not take note of the indigenous legal system. I think that that is wrong and that thereby we are doing the Black people of South Africa an injustice. For that reason I welcome the standpoint of the hon the Minister that, while he is making provision for the transfer of those courts to the Department of Justice, he is thereby granted the time to give further unhurried thought and consideration to this whole thorny problem.

As regards the courts, the time will come when we will also have to reconsider the decision in respect of the chiefs’ courts, because, in the case of commissioners’ courts we accept the principle of the division of functions, as the commission does, then that applies a fortiori to the chiefs’ court, particularly in the light of the new duties the chiefs have to take upon themselves in our society. They are today as much lawmakers as instruments in the implementation of policy. I believe that sooner or later we shall have to consider establishing—particularly in our urban areas—what one can call community courts, thereby moving away from the system of chiefs’ courts. I welcome the recommendation that the separate courts for Blacks be done away with and be replaced by a single hierarchy of courts. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Sandton said and add that I, too, do not believe that it will be of assistance if we burden the magistrates’ courts with the sort of implementation of laws that made the commissioners’ courts so unpopular with and unacceptable to the Blacks. There is quite a bit more I would like to say, but my time is running out.

There are three points I should like to emphasize. I think it goes without saying that in the new system all our judicial officers will in some way have to be trained in indigenous law. That does not apply only to civil law but, equally, if a Black man appears before such a person, even on a criminal charge, it is just as important to understand why he did those things as it is to apply the law and impose a sentence. I want to say to the hon the Minister that in the new dispensation that dispensation, in so far as it concerns the Blacks, will not work satisfactorily if we do not ensure that our judicial officers receive proper training in connection with indigenous law and the background of the Black people. Secondly I notice that the list to which the hon the Minister referred does not make provision for consultation with Blacks. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as far as the trend of the debate is concerned, I should like to associate myself with the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Pretoria West and the hon member for Barberton.

It is true that we did not accept the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission in regard to the indigenous law. We did not adopt a standpoint in that regard. The decision that was made known yesterday namely that 1 September would be more or less the date and time for the taking over of commissioner’s courts, divorce courts and appeal courts, has the further implication that in respect of those courts we will now in fact be dealing with a substantive legal system—not adjectively or by way of procedure. It will therefore be a legal system which has in fact been founded in indigenous law, and accordingly I welcome the wisdom that has emanated from this Committee because it strengthens me in my point of view that we must deal with this matter with great circumspection. If I read the signs in Southern Africa correctly, then there is a renewed interest in indigenous law. I speak subject to correction when I say that faculties at universities in neighbouring states are increasingly going to concentrate upon the study and process of the common law. If I may repeat myself, I indicated at the law conference at Port Elizabeth that we would act wisely in seeking liaison with these states, formally or otherwise, as part of the co-operation package in Southern Africa in order to ascertain what degree of recognition ought to be given to specific facets of indigenous law or the whole system of indigenous law, and what measure of fusion or even integration there could be in respect of certain legal principles, because that is in fact how the law develops. In association with this I want to refer to a very interesting article written by Prof D P Visser that was published in Codicilus in October 1981. In it he makes out a strong case for indigenous law to be placed on a very much more permanent footing than is at present the case. He refers to the interesting anomaly that exists, namely that specific courts—these courts that will now fall under our jurisdiction—are inherently competent to take note of indigenous law. In the same way too the Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa which has concurrent jurisdiction in respect of specific civil cases, or the Appeal Court of South Africa, to which the right of appeal from for example a chief’s court lies, have in the lastmentioned case to take note of the indigenous law as though it were part of the law. However, where the same court acts as court of first instance in a civil case, the anomaly exists that in the case of a civil case the law has first to be proved. This anomaly will definitely have to be investigated, and I want to thank hon members for a very meaningful debate in respect of this matter.

I want to refer to the fact that it is provided in the Small Claims Courts Act that indigenous law will have to be proved and that evidence will have to be led in that respect. I want to agree with the hon member Prof Olivier who raised a very meaningful point today. For example, he said that community courts should also be established in urban areas. If it should so happen that anyone were prejudiced as a result of this provision, I would be prepared to consider not the repeal of that section but its application. The small claims courts will in no way be inhibited or delayed thereby because there is a very clear provision that one or more sections need not be made operative simultaneously. I want to give the undertaking that no action will be delayed in any way. The hon member’s view in regard to community courts operating on a small claims basis is very interesting. I want to thank him for his fruitful standpoints.

I have therefore noted what the hon member for Barberton referred to, and he can deduce from that that the executive and legislative authorities are very much in favour of the recognition of indigenous law. The question is however whether a court should take cognizance of that as part of its inherent jurisdiction or whether evidence should first be led before the court in order to enable the court to determine what the valid law is. The hon member has a knowledge of the Swazi indigenous law and the Swazi customary law. However, where there are various practices in various spheres, it will not always be possible to expect a court to have the inherent knowledge to be able to determine itself what that law is and to take cognizance of it judicially, and it would be wise to lead evidence in regard to the multitude of practices that may be relevant, such as, for example, in the case of the girl to whom the hon member referred and whose position apparently differs in respect of every group. In the days when I myself was still studying indigenous law there was a Sehantlo ox, and, if I remember correctly, it was the sort of ox that often found itself in a different kraal, but cases of this nature did not always result in a fine having to be paid because every now and again it was an orchestrated and arranged thing. I want to say therefore with the greatest respect that these three hon members made a very meaningful contribution to this debate and that further attention will undoubtedly be given to this matter.

†The hon member for Sandton referred to the Diemont Report. I do not intend to make a statement about this now, but I will tell him what is about to happen. In its report, which was published on 12 August 1980, the commission made certain suggestions which were held in abeyance pending the report of the Hoexter Commission. That explains the “apparent” delay. The latter commission, however, made no recommendations regarding the Witwatersrand Local Division. That we discovered when the report was received. I have therefore already taken steps to promote the implementation of certain recommendations contained in the Diemont Report which had been held in abeyance since the last time we dealt with this report. I think the hon member for Sandton was very happy with my last action regarding the Diemont Report when I created the possibility of appeal to the local divisions. I amended the relevant sections in the Supreme Court Act and the Appeal Court Act to his satisfaction. However, that was merely coincidental because it amounted to good administration.

After discussing the recommendations with the Judge President of the Transvaal Provincial Division, the machinery has now been set in motion to give the Witwatersrand Local Division appellate jurisdiction in respect—at this stage—of the Johannesburg magisterial district only. Out of 10 magisterial districts, Johannesburg handles the largest quantity of work. It will be a real challenge to meet the work load which will be flowing from that district. The necessary directive by the Judge President to give effect to this decision will be issued with effect from 1 August 1984. The reason for confining such jurisdiction to the magisterial district of Johannesburg at this stage, is that it will afford the Directorate of Justice the necessary opportunity of accurately assessing the personal implications which will result therefrom in the office of the Attorney-General and the Registrar of the Supreme Court and to effect the necessary adjustments in regard thereto. It follows that the inclusion of the remaining magisterial districts which comprise the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction, will be considered in due course with due regard to the availability of the necessary personnel. The Judge President and I have also agreed that the magisterial districts of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark will in regard to civil matters be incorporated in the area of jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division.

As regards criminal matters, the present position will however remain unchanged in that the two districts will, as in the past, continue to be served during sessions of the circuit court.

The proposal that the Judge President should have the necessary assistance of administrative staff has already been dealt with to his satisfaction. These facilities have already been provided.

An important recommendation of the Diemont Commission which has not been implemented is that a senior judge permanently resident in Johannesburg should be placed in control of the Witwatersrand Local Division. It has now become possible to deal with this aspect and it is receiving my attention at this point in time. It means that an announcement can be expected in the near future. This aspect, together with the extension of appellate jurisdiction to include other magisterial districts on the Witwatersrand, is a matter which will now also receive our attention.

Is the hon the Minister aware of any arguments against the appointment of a Deputy Judge President for the Witwatersrand Local Division, because if there are none...

That recommendation has been accepted and it will be dealt with; it is not a matter of considering it. I will make an announcement in the near future as to who that Deputy Judge President will be.

*I want to refer now to a matter that was raised by both the hon members for Sandton and Durban Central. This deals with the separation of the judicial and administrative functions as well as the supposed dependence of magistrates that has to be changed. I am sorry the hon member for Green Point is not here. He was here a moment ago but now he has left.

Do you want him?

Yes, please. I shall delay my argument for a moment.

I made eight points yesterday as being the standpoints of the Government in regard to this whole matter. If the hon member had read them carefully he would have found that he could not dispute one single point that I put. I want to refer him particularly to point No 4.

†In this point I dealt with the recommendation that they should also be visibly independent. I said that the Hoexter Commission made recommendations on steps to render the separation between the judiciary and the executive more clearly by greater administrative independence, but that the said recommendations—that is the Government’s view—are not necessarily the only alternative.

Can the hon the Minister then clarify the situation as I am not sure what the hon the Minister’s view is on how this is to be achieved?

That is why we have appointed an implementation committee. That is the very recommendation of the Hoexter Commission itself. I want to refer the hon member to paragraph 5.1.8 of the Hoexter Commission which says:

It is pointed out that this is extremely urgent. I quote further:

It is therefore very clear that the way in which it is to be done, is left completely to the executive.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, not at the moment. I just want to finish saying what I have in mind. As the hon member is aware, there were two gentlemen who dealt with an investigation, namely Messrs Thompson and Hohls. They submitted certain recommendations. Paragraph 5.4.2 says the following:

This is a division into areas of jurisdiction:

This whole process of creating new judicial districts is seen as a prerequisite before there can be independence. This point of view is likewise subscribed to by the commission. This is the reason why I am very clear when I say that we see the separation of judicial and administrative functions as the beginning of an evolutionary process.

I support you there.

Yes. We say that how that is to be done, will not necessarily have to be according to the Hoexter Commission’s point of view, because that commission leaves it to the Government. This can be seen in paragraph 5.1.8 of Part IV. That commission leaves it to the executive, and I quote:

What about the specific recommendations?

Therefore, I conclude that the report of the Hoexter Commission, from my point of view, is not the only answer to the situation. It is not conclusive and it is not exhaustive on this issue.

There are other hon members here who have argued about what the elements are of real independence. We may arrive at a completely different solution than the Hoexter Commission. Therefore, I am not even prepared to say that we accept his recommendations in a qualified way. What I am prepared to say, is that our judicial institutions should also be seen to be independent. As a starting point we have the separation of judicial and administrative functions. We do not know where the investigation is going to lead us, but we cannot concede that, in this process, the judicial functions as executed at the moment are dependent on the executive. I reject that point of view completely.

Mr Chairman, now I want to take the hon member for Green Point to task. I think it has become time for certain gentlemen to be educated.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question before he goes on with the hon member for Green Point?

I think what I have to say, may perhaps cast some light on your question. I am not going to react now. I still have the floor.

You are not prepared to accept facts which the Hoexter Commission stipulated. Your proposition is directly contrary to that.

A question appears on the Question Paper of this morning in the name of the hon member for Green Point. I quote:

1. (1) How many persons who were required to give evidence before a magistrate in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, and who subsequently refused to do so,...

Then the hon member goes on to ask:

1. (3) whether he will instruct magistrates to consider the advisability of conditionally suspending the sentences of persons convicted in terms of this Act for refusing in terms of the said section to give evidence; if not, why not; if so, when?

I understand now what the hon member for Sandton’s problem is. I also understand now what the hon member for Durban Central’s problem is. They are under the impression that the Minister has the authority under the administration of justice to issue instructions. That is an absurdity; it is an absolute misconception. I want to accept the fact that the hon member did not do this deliberately; I want to accept the fact that he did so in the utmost innocence.

Then he was negligent.

Mr Chairman, if he did so in the utmost innocence then I want to say that as a senior spokesman of that party in regard to various matters in Parliament he has not left the slightest doubt in our minds now that his party is of opinion that in the present dispensation a magistrate ought to be prescribed to. As against that standpoint I want to state unequivocally that this Government has not done that. The Hoexter Commission raised one point which possibly borders on this and which, if I remember correctly, was suitably repudiated. This Government does not prescribe to the judicature in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I believe in the spirit of what I have just said that it is scarcely necessary for me to deal any further with the hon member for Sandton.

What about the other matter?

I shall come to that; I am still talking about this one. If the hon member for Durban North...

Durban Central.

At this rate he will find himself completely to the north of Durban one of these days. If the hon member still wishes to ask me a question, he can do so now.

Mr Chairman, I should like clarity in regard to a certain aspect with which the hon the Minister dealt just now. I am referring to the statement that he made available yesterday. I want to refer to paragraph 1 on page 5 of the English version where he sets out the standpoint of the Government. I quote:

That is a factual statement as the Government sees it.

Yes.

However, when one looks at paragraph 1.1.4 on page 56 of the Hoexter report, one finds the following:

It is accepted as a fact in the Hoexter report that they are indeed officials of the executive authority. Is it not then the problem that the Government does not accept this fact? The report of the Hoexter Commission dealt with the question that it was the problem of the appointment of officials of the executive authority that had to be dealt with, is that not so?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Durban Central is a lawyer with particular insight on that side of the Committee. However, the hon member has missed this point: On the grounds of this statutory situation, the Hoexter Commission has nowhere found that the administration of justice is thereby in fact dependent upon the executive authority. What the commission says is that there are various factors that can create the impression that these officers can be manipulated. I think those were the words the commission used.

I accept that.

The hon member accepts it. The Commission then says that attention must be given to those facets. However, the commission goes on to say that it cannot offer them the blueprint of the Supreme Court in this connection. They have to seek their own identity. The Commission asks the Executive Authority to take the necessary steps and to use its own discretion in this connection. What is the commission telling us by so doing? It says that here we have a situation of which we must take cognizance. They suggest that certain things should be removed but they do not say that the judicature is dependent upon the Executive Authority; nowhere do they say that. We agree with that. We say that the proposals of the commission are not necessarily the solution or the final alternative. What we do say is that we accept the fact that through the separation of judicial and administrative functions a point can be reached where the question of the unclarity in respect of dependence or independence can be dealt with. However, the point of departure is the separation of the judicial and administrative functions.

Mr Chairman, the report of Thompson and Hohls, upon which the whole classification is based, states that this is a prerequisite for any further step. I wonder whether hon members know how long it is going to take to implement. I cannot say precisely; this is something which the Van Niekerk Committee must consider. It is not as though we want to make a further investigation, but what is stated in the next paragraph? This is a very interesting point, and I should like to draw the hon member’s attention to it. It is stated that the situation which they investigated is already three or four years old. They say:

It states “all considerations”.

Mr Chairman, I want to assure you that we are not deviating from the spirit of the Hoexter report namely that the independence of our judicature should be retained and reaffirmed. I want to give you that assurance. These eight points cannot be faulted. All the answers are to be found in them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton dealt with a number of matters, and I think that in all fairness to her I should say that most of the points have already been dealt with. I am sorry that I cannot do it in the normal courteous way by replying to her directly. However, I think that I have already dealt fully with all the points raised during the debate. During yesterday’s debate the hon member caused me to think that a certain judge was right after all when on one occasion he reprimanded an advocate by saying:

†I should like to enlighten the hon member...

I can give you a lot of other differences between you and me.

Perhaps one should be thankful for those differences. However, I want to confirm that, whatever the hon member has said, will nevertheless be referred to the Law Commission once the Penal Reform Committee has been incorporated with the Law Commission.

*The hon member Mr Schutte spoke about the masters’ offices, and I just want to make it clear to him that it is our intention in respect of the particulars that are received from masters to monitor them. This was in fact a voluntary action on the part of the chief and other masters, and is being done with their wholehearted co-operation. Nevertheless I thank the hon member for his handling of this question.

The hon member Mr Theunissen will understand if I do not reply any further to him immediately because I think that he discussed matters that have already been disposed of. The hon member for Roodepoort made many valuable inputs in regard to judicial discretion, and with his experience as a prosecutor in various courts, he undoubtedly made a valuable contribution.

The hon member for King William’s Town asked me about a few matters, among others the question of rape. As far as this matter is concerned, I want at the same time to reply to the hon member for Bloemfontein East. It surprised me somewhat to note from the annual report of the Law Commission that a low percentage of the questionnaires that had been sent out, were replied to. On page 33 of its annual report the commission had this to say:

This disturbed me because we referred the investigation into sexual crimes as far as the woman was concerned to the commission with all due haste. The hon member for King William’s Town had a real share in this as well as the hon member for Newton Park. At first glance therefore it was a rather disappointing reaction, and I made inquiries in this regard. However, on further analysis it appeared that the bodies which did in fact react to the questionnaire included those that were really of any importance. According to an additional member of the commission who is for these reasons seeking contact with persons who are in touch with women’s organizations nationwide, he is convinced that the responses that were received were in fact representative of women at every level in South Africa. I also just want to point out that those who replied to the questionnaires included Black people, Coloureds and Indians, and I believe it is as well to take cognizance on that fact.

However, I want to state now that the Law Commission is making an extremely comprehensive investigation on a medical-legal basis in regard to the incidence of rape or in fact sexual crime. There is virtually no facet of this sphere that has not been deal with, and I ask hon members please to take cognizance of the fact that, for example, the material right, the right of proof, the right of process, that is to say the protection of the complainant’s identity, is relevant here, as well as the treatment of the victim, the laying of a charge with the police, the attitude of the court and the court officials and medical and psychiatric aftercare. All these matters have been investigated thoroughly, and we have made it widely known. I want therefore to ask that persons and bodies should make use of the channel that has now been created by the Law Commission, and to follow this channel in their research and investigations. In this way we will have an assurance that we will not be dividing our energies, knowledge and interest in respect of this very important subject. In this way we will be assisting the Law Commission and making a meaningful contribution.

The hon member also asked me about the Black marital property law and wanted to know what stage this project had reached. It is true that we have asked that this project be given high priority, and it is at present receiving the most urgent attention possible. In this connection I can inform hon members that we have appointed Prof Joan Church of Unisa and Dr C R N Dhlamini of the University of Zululand as additional members of the commission for the purposes of this project. I think that this also links up with earlier arguments that were advanced.

I want to give the hon member for Port Elizabeth North who discussed the Supreme Court the assurance that the particular project is receiving high priority. To tell the truth, the tender date is at this stage November 1985, and the tender will be attended to immediately thereafter. The completion period is 36 months.

The accommodation at the magistrate’s court has in the meantime certainly been supplemented, and the hon member can therefore feel very satisfied in this connection.

This brings me to the hon member for Yeoville who advanced a number of interesting arguments here. As a former practitioner it is a privilege for me to be able to tell another practitioner that we have always regarded him as a man who has ordered his professional life in such a way as to merit the necessary respect everywhere, and for that reason he is also equipped to discuss this matter, precisely as a result of his professional image. In regard to his concern about the question of legal costs, in the first place about 29 recommendations have been made by the Hoexter Commission which only affect the professions. However, the variety is such that I do not wish to deal with them now. I feel that the hon member will agree with me that the best thing to do is to leave those matters which they are able to deal with, to themselves, and to remain in contact with them on an ongoing basis. There are matters to which they themselves can give attention, and I can assure the Committee that we are already having these discussions and that we will continue to remain in contact with them.

It is true that in specific institutions and provinces the two rule advocate ought in the meantime to receive attention. I am convinced of the fact that those Bars are dealing with this matter at present. The question of high legal costs as far as the professions are concerned should therefore be dealt with by them themselves to a very large extent because it is their practices that are at stake, it is their institutions and so forth. A great deal of this is therefore own initiative, but there is also this aspect of the matter that we should raise. In the first instance I believe it is important for South Africa to take cognizance of the fact that we have professional groups of the highest standard. For example, I myself was interested and pleased to note the recognition that Adv Kentridge received in England recently in being awarded silk. In my opinion this is an achievement, and I want to congratulate him in that regard. One need only read Rumpole to realize how difficult it is to be able to take silk in Great Britain. Therefore my congratulations indeed to Adv Kentridge.

As far as the professions are concerned I want to make an appeal to the general public to accept the fact that they will have to pay for quality services. If we want to harm the administration of justice in South Africa we must make it impossible for the legal professions to be able to make a reasonable and fair living. For this reason I want to be the first to issue a warning against a scale that tips too far, against the syndrome of too high legal costs or unfair legal costs, because that is relative. We must therefore not begrudge the legal profession a reasonable and a fair living because they form the basis of our administration of justice together with the other legal institutions.

As far as the rules are concerned, it is true that Mr Justice Galgut made a number of recommendations. As the rules and the specific legislation read at present, the Chief Justice is the chief functionary in the application of rules. The Hoexter Commission has recommended that this should be given attention in the meantime until such time as the Rules Council has been set up. That then is the situation as far as the Rules Council is concerned. I have discussed the matter with the Chief Justice and he is in the meantime giving urgent attention to amendments to the rules. To tell the truth, the Chief Justice himself said—I asked him whether I could mention it here—that Mr Justice Galgut had recommended that certain matters, judgment by default and so forth, should be handled by the Registrar. He agrees with the principle that the method that is at present being followed namely that an advocate has to appear in the Supreme Court, will perhaps have to be changed so as to make it possible for an advocate to appear before a judge-in-chambers which alone will have a considerable influence on costs. After having said that, the hon member for Yeoville has still not been given a complete reply because we still have a great deal to discuss in regard to the question of procedure and the rules that may obtain. The hon member asked me to take specific initiatives in this connection, and he regards the question of the appearance of an attorney in the Supreme Court as part of the process of evolution to bring about an eventual integration of the professions. He says that a really considerable saving in costs can be brought about by this means. However, the hon member is also aware of the fact that, for example, the standpoint has emanated from Natal that where it was possible previously for a legal practitioner to maintain both kinds of practices, it did not necessarily lead to a saving in costs. Taking all this into consideration, it would appear to me that the recommendation of the Hoexter Commission that this matter should eventually receive the attention of the Rules Council is a sensible approach.

What is the basis on which we are going to build? The basis on which we are building is the following: Attorneys are already going to receive higher jurisdiction. We recently raised the amount to R5 000 in respect of civil cases. It is therefore now being made possible for attorneys as such to do the same work as advocates. In regard to the fact that an attorney can be called in to appear in certain pro Deo cases, this is already within the authority of a Supreme Court. According to the proposals in the Hoexter report in regard to the family court, it will for example also be possible for an attorney to appear in that court. At this stage therefore we are considering the matter, and I believe the hon member must in fact give us the opportunity to refer the matter to any particular body we may deem fit for further consideration.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? One of the things which, to some extent, disappoint me about what is a very good report in so many respects, is the fact that the Hoexter Commission did not actually go into the position overseas in respect of many of these matters. Does the hon the Minister intend to have any investigation made into the situation overseas in order to get comparisons in respect of various matters, for example, the divided profession, the cost structure and so forth? That seems to me an important matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked whether we will be taking cognizance of other systems. As has been pointed out in the report of the Hoexter Commission it is only in South Africa and Britain that there still is a system whereby the professions are divided.

Also in some of the states of Australia.

Naturally, when this matter comes up for reconsideration, we shall have to take cognizance of all other systems. We shall have to do just that. However, I want to ask the hon member not to pressurize us into a fixed and firm undertaking that we shall now arrange for another commission to go into this matter. In a way I agree with the hon member that perhaps the Hoexter Commission should have brought more clarity on this issue. It spends a great deal of its report on this very issue, and then in paragraph 6.2.4.19 it just says:

It then suggests that the matter should be referred to the Council of Justice.

*I want to ask the hon member to leave the matter at that. This is a sensitive question for the professions. One profession is in favour of it and the other is not in favour of it. I want to give him the assurance that this matter will come up again for reconsideration once it is justified.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East also made certain requests in this connection. He asked the pertinent question whether attorneys could not be appointed to the Bench. The official attitude of the Government—and I have made this very clear on various occasions—is that the Bar must be seen as the primary source from which appointments to the Bench are made. When I talk about a primary source it does of course not mean that that will be the only source. We would find ourselves with a manpower problem if we adopted a fixed point of view in this connection that appointments should only be made from the Bar, because up to now we have succeeded in making these appointments primarily from the Bar, which I feel was eminently acceptable to all the professional groups. In saying this I do not exclude appointments from other sources, and I use the world “sources” deliberately because we cannot paint ourselves into a corner when we in South Africa are going to require members of the judiciary in so many more spheres. It is obvious that if for example we establish family courts, we shall have to consider judicial officers from various sources. Hon members will appreciate therefore that as far as the sources that we can use are concerned, South Africa cannot allow itself to be hidebound by saying that these appointments will come exclusively from the Bar.

The hon member mentioned the ideal of an LLB degree for members of the judiciary. I agree with him. The department has encouraged its people throughout to obtain that qualification. At the same time we on our part will give all judicial officers the necessary encouragement to obtain the highest possible qualification. We must not accept the fact that the LLB degree is the only and final qualification for a judicial officer. There are also other legal qualifications which, together with experience, give us our best administration of justice in the lower courts. In fact, the Hoexter Commission reaffirmed this fact. However, the ideal continues to remain the highest possible qualification. I know too that the Law Society is becoming increasingly interested in negotiating the highest possible qualifications for itself. For example, I am aware of the fact that their training programmes are in fact aimed at the improvement of their own ability, and practically boil down to in-service training, but I also understand that they may cherish an ideal in regard to the LLB degree.

The hon member for Sandton asked me another question namely what our staff policy is. I have already stated on various occasions that we have to supplement the manpower position in the Department of Justice on the widest possible basis. The simple fact that considerable publicity was given to the fact recently that Mrs Pamela Sickel was the first Coloured woman to be appointed a magistrate bears witness to the approach of the department. I want to state unequivocally that she was appointed on merit. It must be and remain the ideal that judicial officers are appointed on merit irrespective of race or colour, and on no other basis. I think the hon member will agree with me immediately in this regard.

As far as supplementary staff are concerned, the question arises as to what the policy of the department is. Without spelling it out in detail for hon members I want to tell them that we have a large number of people of colour on the supplementary services in the directorate. However, as far as key posts are concerned, there are 22 Coloured prosecutors. I must tell hon members immediately that I will welcome the fact if more people of colour can be appointed as judicial officers on merit. In order to bring this about we are in close contact with the universities concerned, and we are promoting the granting of bursaries in order to make all of this possible. Therefore, I think the hon member must accept the fact that the spirit of the Hoexter Commission is in effect being implemented and that it is departmental policy.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. In the light of the remark of the hon member for Sandton and the thought that was expressed that every judicial officer ought to have an LLB degree, and in the light of the fact that there are at present 942 judicial officers in the lower courts, the magistrates’ courts, the regional courts and the commissioners’ courts while according to the Hoexter Commission’s report there are only 23 magistrates including five regional magistrates in the directorate who have LLB degrees, are the theory and the ideal really reconcilable in that respect?

I see what the hon member for Roodepoort has in mind. That is why I made the point that the legal qualifications should after all not influence the quality of the administration of justice. However, it is also the policy that merit plus a legal qualification will be decisive in regard to appointment to the Bench, and it cannot be otherwise. However, in this connection I want to tell the hon members for Roodepoort, Sandton and Bloemfontein East that if we do not make it our ideal and aim at having the maximum amount of legal training at our universities in support of our legal professions and various professions as far as the administration of justice is concerned, we shall certainly not be able to achieve this wonderful and grandiose model that we want to build in terms of the Hoexter report, and it may therefore take years before we will have reached the stage where we will be able to say that a man has so much academic background that he has been trained to think independently because he has an LLB degree. If we are going to set ourselves this ideal, we are going to fail. That is why I issued the warning yesterday against any vestige of a syndrome that in terms of their qualifications, the legal qualifications that they have, commissioners cannot be acceptable as judicial officers. On the contrary, I want to say once again that they are welcome at the Directorate of Justice. I think that the point made by the hon member was very realistic.

Therefore, I want to assure the hon member for Sandton that it is a fact that we want as far as possible to broaden the basis of our skilled manpower, and that we will appoint technical people—and this holds good for all groups—on merit and on the grounds of efficiency. I want to say that bursaries for academic training are made available irrespective of race or colour on an ongoing basis for programmes of in-service training in order to achieve our ideal.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister the following question? When people who are not White are taken into the department in a judicial capacity, whether it be as prosecutors or as magistrates, does vertical differentiation apply in that they are sent only to their own areas where, say, Coloureds or Indians live, or do they fit into the general pattern of the department? In other words, in the case of magistrates who are not White, are they sent to act only in courts in their own group areas or do they fit into the normal general pattern of courts in, for instance, a major magisterial district?

As a general principle and in view of the fact that we have a manpower problem the hon member will agree with me if I make the statement that any judicial officer should be used where his talents and his particular qualifications can be best utilized.

I would have no objection to that.

You have no objection to that?

As long as it is not linked to race.

Of course it is, what else?

As far as the general principle is concerned, does he agree with me or not?

On the general principle, yes, as long as it is not linked to race.

As a general principle this has applied and will apply in the Department of Justice.

What is the answer to the question then?

Well, I have given the hon member the answer that regardless of race or colour a person will be allocated to serve where his talents and qualifications peculiar to himself will be best utilized.

I will not comment on the reply as it is ambiguous, but could I ask the hon the Minister...

The hon member agrees with me.

As long as it is not linked to race the answer is: “Yes, I agree with you”, but the question I should like to ask is whether, firstly, race plays any part, and secondly, there is any single or any group of White, Black, Indian or Coloured magistrates who serve in the normal magistrates’ courts within the ordinary cities of South Africa outside of their own group areas.

In view of the fact that the numbers of these officers have so far been very limited the effect has been that they have been allocated to areas where they have been serving, in this particular case, their communities. This has been the result of the policy. However, it does not mean that if the manpower base is broadened that the situation will change. As a matter of fact, it has changed already. We shall not hesitate to use members of these other groups in these capacities if we need them elsewhere. I want to state that unequivocally and I also want to state that the hon member will not find us falling short on this issue.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr Chairman, I rise simply to apologize to hon members who have participated in the debate thus far but to whom I shall not be replying.

In accordance with an arrangement with the Whips we are now going to discuss the next Vote, namely Prisons. In any event, I will reply to those hon members in writing. That includes the hon member for Berea and the hon member for East London and other hon members. I apologize, but we shall reply to them in writing.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask for the privilege of the second half-hour.

Mr Chairman, I said yesterday when the hon the Minister informed us that he had “opened” the prison system more to the Press than previously, how much we welcomed that. I think, too, that the prison system can only benefit by opening its door to greater access by the public and hon members. I intend to deal with that in a little more detail later.

I am going to leave detailed discussion on the Van Dam report to the hon member for Green Point who will be talking later. What I want to say about that report, what really concerns me, is whether the measures contemplated to prevent any further incidents, those very deplorable incidents which the Commissioner of Prisons, the hon the Minister and others have all stated are very bad indeed, are sufficient. I accept at once that the Commissioner of Prisons is very anxious to prevent any further occurrences. By the way, I would like to say at this juncture that we wish Gen Willemse the best of good luck in his new office and I would like again to send my condolences to the family of the late Gen Otto.

Now, Sir, it does not seem to me that the so-called incident reporting system which is mentioned by the Commissioner in his memo on the Van Dam Committee report is really working very efficiently. I say this because I am the recipient of numerous letters from all over the country, from prisoners in gaols throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and of course most of these letters are smuggled out of gaol, which makes it very difficult for me to hand them on to the authorities for further investigation. I did mention this to the late Gen Otto and he said that if I would give him the actual incidents, he would have them investigated. It is very difficult to do so and I may say in the past when I have simply generalized, by summarizing the major complaints and sending them in to the then Commissioner, the reply I had was that the matter had been investigated and that there was found to be no truth in the allegations. I want to say that I have had letters from Leeukop, Groenpunt, Witbank, Grahamstown, Middelburg and other gaols. That is right across the country, so I do not really think you can ascribe this to the concerted actions of “Kilimanjaro” which is mentioned in the Van Dam report. There cannot be a conspiracy right across the country and in all these different gaols. The prisoners complain of various things; they complain of rough treatment by the warders—I know this is not permitted in terms of the prison system, but it certainly does occur—they complain of assault, they complain that the food is bad and often insufficient, that they do not get their full rations, that the medical treatment is inadequate and that senior officers often ignore their complaints. I know that there is a departmental investigation into the functional efficiency of, for instance, the nursing service, there is to be an investigation, according to the Commissioner’s memo on the Van Dam report, into medical services and so on. What I want to point out is that all these investigations take place within the system itself, by the very people who themselves really are responsible for the prison system. I can only say that if the incidents at Barberton could take place and the hierarchy was ignorant of those conditions until four prisoners had actually died, can one assume that a really adequate watch is kept over the other gaols?

It seems to me that something has broken down in the line of communication and accountability in what ought to be a very highly disciplined service. I believe we need a permanent monitoring body, appointed from outside the service, to make regular inspections. The Krugel Committee, which is a continuing committee, investigates the overcrowding of our goals and is investigating methods to reduce this overcrowding—a subject to which I shall return later. But as I ascertained this morning its terms of reference do not really include an investigation into the actual conditions that exist in prisons. Now the Commissioner mentions in his comments on the Van Dam report that he relies also on the visits of judges and magistrates to the prisons. I do not think they are adequate. Only judges, I understand, have the right of access to gaols at any time. The number of visits paid by judges to gaols has gone up from 42 in 1979-80 to 54 in 1982-83. That is not many when you consider the number of gaols that we have in the Republic. I wonder whether these figures refer to the individual number of judges who visited. In other words, have we had 54 individual judges visiting gaols or is this an aggregate of visits paid by perhaps a few judges only? Then, too, is mentioned the 296 magisterial visits paid to prisons in 1982-83. That appears in the departmental report. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether those include mandatory visits paid by magistrates to detainees held under the Internal Security Act, or are they visits paid by magistrates visiting gaols in the ordinary course of events? I would like to know that. I do not believe that these visits suffice. I believe that prison visits should be encouraged from members of the public who take a special interest in criminology and prisons, and there are a lot of such people. Visits should also be encouraged as far as Members of Parliament are concerned.

I want to know why there is always such a hassle when I ask for a prison visit. I have got to nag and nag and nag the Minister before I finally get a visit. Last year it took me six months.

It is so nice to have you visit me.

Hang on a minute...

It is so nice to have you visit me.

Oh, is that what it is? Well, we can do that on another basis. Last year it took me six months to get a visit to Pollsmoor to see Mandela, and that was only after there had been some very unfavourable reports published in England which I was able to refute, having visited him. As I have told the hon the Minister, it is no good if he says that these things do not happen because he has not got much credibility. It so happens that I have a little more than he has, over there, in any case.

It is true we have had prison visits with members of the prisons groups of the parliamentary parties. Last Friday we had one such visit to which I will refer. But these are not enough. We have had one to Robben Island and I might say I nearly drowned on the way back, intentionally or otherwise, I am not too sure. The hon member Mr Schutte was with me and he nearly drowned, too. Maybe that was intentional, as well. Anyway, we have had visits on a group basis, but it should not be made so difficult for me as an individual who has taken an interest in prisons for the last 20 years, to always have to go to the Minister or the Commissioner of Prisons and say that I want to visit such and such a prison. It should be easily arranged, just like that. But not at all; it takes weeks and weeks of, as I say, nagging and letter-writing and phone calls. I do want to say right away that my comments about bad conditions in gaols do not apply to the gaols or the sections of gaols where the so-called “political prisoners” are being held, the 10 or 11 who are in Pretoria Central, the three women who are in Pretoria Central, and certainly also those on Robben Island which is a much improved gaol, believe me, since the days I first visited it in the sixties when everybody slept on the floor on mats and was driven by dogs to the sand pits to do hard labour and where things were very tough indeed. Now the conditions are different. I must say that as far as a maximum security gaol is concerned, it is satisfactory, and certainly the same thing applies to Pretoria Central where the Whites are kept.

Since conditions inside the gaols have improved and one does not have to go on nagging about that, what is needed now, is a much more flexible attitude regarding remission of sentence. That is the major issue, certainly as far as the so-called politicals are concerned. They have been included in the category of prisoners who are eligible for remission or for parole, which is conditional release. I hope the hon the Minister will be more generous in granting remission to these prisoners. I want to point out that there are 44 people serving sentences of life imprisonment for crimes against the State. These are figures which the hon the Minister gave me in Parliament. He does know more about some things than I. I do not think that he knows more about simple justice, however, than I do. I just want to point that out to him. There are 44 lifers serving sentences for crimes against the State, and some of them—I give you only a few examples—Mandela, Goldberg, Sisulu, Mbeki, Kathrada—I think all of those, have served more than 20 years in gaol. Even the most retributive society must surely admit that they have been punished for their crimes.

Why do you draw a distinction between these and others?

Why do I draw a distinction?

Yes.

Because it seems to be much more difficult for them. But I would like all lifers after a certain period of time...

That is a fair attitude.

Yes, absolutely. No, it is not only these. But I have been very concerned about these people.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Houghton a question?

Well, I have so little time. If I finish before the time I promise you, you can ask a question.

Sir, it is just, that until recently these people were not even eligible. Now that they are eligible I know three or four Whites have been let out before their sentences expired. In some cases just a few months of the sentence had expired, not an awful long time. Perhaps Rabkin had a longer period of remission and also Kronin. A few Blacks have also been let out, but not very important men, not the leadership cadre. I want a more generous attitude. I cannot emphasize sufficiently how much good this would do for South Africa if we showed a more generous and compassionate attitude towards people who have spent, as I say, 20 years, irrecoverable years, of their lives in gaol.

Now I want to turn very quickly to the question of overcrowding of our gaols. The departmental report contains some very interesting figures, some very alarming figures, I might say. The daily average prison population continues to rise, except for one year when, by the way, we cut out arrests for pass offences in two main centres. In every other year there has been a rise in the daily average prison population. Pro rata we are the highest in the Western World and in absolute figures, I am sure, we are also the highest in comparison with certain countries. Table 7 tells us that in 1982-83 we had 131 302 prisoners.

On 6 March this year in reply to the hon member for Sandton the daily average was given as 105 509. The Hoexter Report gives an even higher figure of 107 122 for 1983, quoting the Krugel Committee which is a continuing committee examining overcrowding. Hoexter says this represents a 46% overcrowding of our gaols which have approved accommodation of 73 383. I want to take issue with the hon the Minister over this question of overcrowded gaols. His so-called famous one-day survey of people in prison revealed that only 7% of the people in gaol on that day, I think it was in December last year, were there for pass offences or influx control offences. Did he do a survey of all the prisoners or just the Black prisoners? That is number one, because that—i.e. taking Blacks—is the only way you can do it, of course, to get any accuracy. Would he allow us to look at this survey so that we can submit it to statisticians and criminologists to see just how significant it is, because I simply cannot believe this figure? The report negates the conclusion arrived at by the survey. If you look at the departmental report, you find that awaiting trial prisoners in July 1982 to June 1983 numbered 267 995, of whom 214 261 were Blacks, that is 80% of the awaiting trial prisoners. It is true that we do not know how many of those were arrested in connection with pass offences, but we do know that there were over 200 000 convictions for pass offences in the year 1983. Is it not reasonable to assume that a high proportion of the 214 261 Black awaiting trial prisoners were pass offenders; and that of the 14 827 awaiting trial prisoners in custody on a certain day 14 167 were Blacks, ie 77%, and certainly more than 7%, were pass offenders? The figures for sentenced prisoners are even more revealing: Blacks sentenced up to one month—80 781 out of 221 366, ie 36%—Blacks sentenced to one to four months—80 436 out of 221 366 ie 36%—and the total number of Blacks sentenced to up to four months—161 217 out of 221 366: 73% of sentenced Black prisoners are sentenced for sentences of up to four months. I am sure one can assume that a large number of those convictions are due to pass offences. The Hoexter Commission says a material fact in regard to the overcrowding of our prisons is that hordes of Blacks land in prison as a result of influx control. I refer to page 580. I quote:

Then it commented on the psychological effect on Blacks—

We ought to take it very seriously. A further effect, says Hoexter, of overcrowded prisons is premature release as a result of lack of accommodation rather than being deserving of parole. That is an interesting comment too. And yet another is the formation of prison gangs. Finally, the Hoexter commission concluded that—

What is the hon the Minister doing about this, especially as it is nothing new? It was said years ago in the forties by the Smit Commission. It was said by the Viljoen Commission in 1976.

What would you have him do?

I would have him consult with his Cabinet and even with the hon member for Mossel Bay to see what can be done about this. It is no good saying it has nothing to do with the hon the Minister responsible for prisons. It has everything to do with him, because he is left with the net result.

You are just throwing the ball back at him.

No, Sir. He is a Cabinet Minister. He has joint responsibility. He must go to his colleagues and say “I cannot put up with this any longer”. Hoexter says it cannot be allowed, Viljoen said it is no good, Smit said it is no good and Fagan said it is no good. For heaven’s sake, how many more learned commissions do you need...

Certainly nobody is in favour of that. How do you solve it? The hon member is not suggesting any solution.

One depenalizes, one repeals. The Government was quick enough to put laws on the statute book. Now it must get a move on and take some of them off the statute book.

Yes, that is the point; that is exactly what I want.

But I have said that a million times over 30 years in this House. I have been pleading in this House for 30 years for the revision and the repeal of the pass laws. Now it seems as if it is something that the hon member very brilliantly has extracted from me under cross-examination.

No, no! No cross-examination.

No, nothing like that. Mr Chairman, what happened? We go on arresting and convicting over 200 000 people. Most of them are breadwinners, malefactors looking for work. That is absurd. A man goes to gaol for the crime of looking for a job in an area in which he is not supposed to be, even though he is a citizen of that country. This does not only apply to Black foreigners, to aliens and to citizens of independent states. It applies to citizens of kwaZulu, Gazankulu, etc. We do nothing about this. It goes on and on. We were supposed to have the third Koornhof Bill this session which we hoped would bring some relief. It has disappeared, sunk without trace.

Is the hon member for Houghton not sitting on the select committee?

The committee is abandoned for this session. Does the hon the Minister not know? He was a member of the select committee too. It has been abandoned. We are not meeting again. The Government are first going to consult with homeland leaders, with town and urban councils and interested bodies and then it will come back with some new idea. There is a simple solution. Treat mobility as an elementary right of the citizen. That is all. Build houses, create jobs. If all the people in this country were White, the Government would not give a darn if urbanization took place.

Are you suggesting that the thousands of people are all there on account of immobility?

I did not say all.

Please be specific and say how many.

I cannot say how many. Surely, I cannot go further than Hoexter or Viljoen who both said that the vast majority—why should I be expected to do the hon the Minister’s job for him—are there because of immobility. I say what the hon the Minister should do is to take the Hoexter report and shove it under the noses of his colleagues and say to them: This is something that is urgent. It cannot be allowed to drag on. We cannot go on from year to year having our prisons crowded, jammed to bursting point, with people who are not really offenders. Bigger and better goals are not the answer to this problems. The hon the Minister seems to think they are.

Did I say that?

You said you are building more goals, during the Hoexter debate.

When did I say that? When did I say that that is the answer?

You said you were building more...

It cannot be. Go and fetch it.

The hon the Minister must go and have a look at Diepkloof.

I challenge you to show me. Go and collect it.

There goes my precious time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to express the sympathy of this side of the Committee with the next-of-kin of the late Gen Otto on his sudden death. I want at the same time to associate myself and hon members on this side of the Committee with the words of welcome addressed to Gen Willemse yesterday. During our brief association with Gen Willemse we have already gained sufficient proof of his eagerness and willingness to co-operate with hon members in order to make it possible for all of us together to do the best we can in the interests of the Prisons Service as a whole. We have the fullest confidence that this sincere co-operation will continue during the term of office of Gen Willemse, and we should like to thank him in advance for his personal contribution in this regard.

The hon member for Houghton has just tried once again to develop an argument—and I state this as a fact—based on the overpopulation of our prisons. Let me put this categorically and unequivocally now to the hon member: Nobody on this side of the Committee, least of all the hon the Minister, is in favour of the overpopulation of prisons. Nobody wants this state of affairs to continue. As far as feelings are concerned we are in full agreement with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Houghton. I did, however, ask her by way of interjection to indicate how this problem could be dealt with and solved. All the hon member for Houghton did was to throw the ball back to the hon the Minister by saying he should find the solution. That is really very easy.

When I confronted the hon member for Houghton further about this her reply was that we should remove certain legislation from the Statute Book. In saying that the hon member exposed her real motive for this attack. She rises in this Committee to talk about the Prisons Service. She brings a charge against this hon Minister. Her objection, however, is not really aimed at the Prisons Service or at this hon Minister. Her objection is aimed at the policy of the Government. That is what it is about. Then, however, she should raise her objections in a political debate in the Assembly. Then she should not attack the Prisons Service, which is charged with the administration of prisons. If she does not have the courage of her convictions to rise in the Assembly and name those laws and say which of those laws should be repealed, she should refrain from raising objections here. Neither has she as yet clearly stated which laws should be scrapped. She may perhaps have said it in her own inimitable way but I do ask the hon member unequivocally now: Should there be no system of control whatsoever for the regulation of the communities in South Africa? Should there be no laws? The hon member expects the Government to carry out PFP policy in South Africa. I can give her the assurance now that that will not happen, and that she will sit here growing old protesting about it. It will not happen.

The hon member also referred to “certain deplorable incidents” referred to by the Van Dam Commission. I just want to put the matter into perspective. It is true that there were “certain deplorable incidents” but the hon member unjustly insinuated or intimated that the Prisons Service was to blame for these “deplorable incidents”. In order that there should be no doubt about this I want to state unequivocally that the Van Dam Commission stated expressly that these “deplorable incidents” had been the result of gang activities at the prisons in question. The incident at the farm prison was an isolated case, according to the finding of the Van Dam Commission. According to the findings of the Van Dam Commission there is no question of “deplorable incidents” that can be laid at the door of the Prisons Service; on the contrary, the Van Dam Commission’s finding was that the situation that had arisen could not have been handled effectively in any other way than that in which it had been done.

Go back and read it.

It is up to the hon member for Green Point, who is going to take part in the debate, to submit evidence to the contrary. If the hon member is referring to the initiations, I should point out that the initiations played no role whatsoever in the incidents that took place. It was a completely isolated occurrence. Why then did the hon member for Houghton not refer to initiations? Why does she refer then to “deplorable incidents”? That is exactly the same sort of thing they did in the debate yesterday. They say one thing and create a different impression. Then they deny having said it. The hon member for Durban Central, who has just made an interjection, spoke yesterday of “a certain perspective” or a view which was said to exist. He is correct when he states that a certain view exists. I do, however, accuse him of not doing anything to rectify that incorrect view. The same applies to the hon member for Houghton. She creates certain impressions and subsequently denies having done so. Last Friday the hon member for Houghton, accompanied by myself and other hon members, visited the prison in Pretoria, and also that in Johannesburg. Immediately thereafter, or even while the visit was still in progress, the hon member granted an interview to the Pretoria News.

You were there.

Yes, I was there and the truth is that the hon member gave a very positive account of our findings during the visit. The hon member has just repeated it. With further reference to this matter I want to refer to the reprehensible attack—and for lack of Parliamentary adjectives to put it more forcefully I want to content myself with the use of the word “reprehensible”—which the hon member made on the sentences imposed by some judges, particularly by Mr Justice van Dyk in respect of Barbara Hogan. My charge against the hon member for Houghton is that that reprehensible attack on the judge was the result of the fact that in her interviews with Barbara Hogan and the other detainees she could find nothing she could use as a weapon with which to attack the Prisons Service or the hon the Minister. Out of sheer frustration she came along here yesterday and attacked the judge because of the sentence he had imposed. That is the background to the attack by the hon member yesterday. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Green Point must wait his turn. He was not present there; I know what the attitude of the hon member for Houghton was. [Interjections.] I know how she made a bee-line for Barbara Hogan, how she sat down next to her and attempted to elicit certain information from her which she in turn could use as a stick with which to beat the hon the Minister.

This is the most idiotic speech you have ever made, and that is saying something!

Order! I am sorry but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely in order to give the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip. I know too that when we talked with other security prisoners who were not left-wing but right-wing, the hon member showed no sign of interest. That I also know because I was there. I charge the hon member for Houghton with misusing these debates year after year when she rises to speak on the Prisons Vote. Then she does not address herself to the Prisons Service but to the policy of the Government. The officials charged with the administration of the Prisons Service are not responsible for Government policy. That is what the hon member is doing instead of—and she had sufficient justification for doing so last Friday—expressing a word of appreciation for the attitude and the approach of the staff of the Prisons Service. We found evidence there of the very best disposition, of the greatest degree of understanding, of the utmost empathy and of the best human relationships between members of the Prisons Service and the prisoners in their custody. From the hon member, however, we do not hear a single word of gratitude and appreciation in this regard. [Interjections.] The hon member misuses this opportunity year after year by launching attacks on legislation relating to influx control.

You are a twister. You twist everything.

Order! The hon member for Durban Central must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Houghton says further:

Then she asks for a permanent body to be set up with a view to monitoring the position. I do want to remind the hon member, however, of the complaints of prisoners we visited on Friday. There were, inter alia, also complaints about a judge who had visited them and who, they said, had not carried out a proper investigation. I am not going to mention the name of that judge because I believe those allegations to be unfounded. If the hon member thinks that we can introduce a system by means of which all grievances and all complaints on the part of prisoners can be met or prevented she must really be the most naïve person in the country. It seems to me the hon member has no idea of who the people are who are involved here. When we read the Van Dam report we see that the finding was made that the prisoners who had been involved in the incidents in question were hardened criminals, people who were prepared to kill others simply for treading on their blankets. They are, however, the people this hon member expects to be handled with kid gloves.

The hon member also referred to the question of the remission of sentences.

You are talking nonsense.

“Jy praat kaf” is the best Afrikaans you have spoken so far.

I can speak Afrikaans very well.

The hon member asked for the release of 44 people who are serving life sentences. I saw her that day making a bee-line for Goldberg, and that was the topic of their discussion.

So what!

That is a clear indication of that hon member’s attitude. She is proved wrong time and again. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon member that when I spoke to some of those people I also showed understanding for them and had sympathy for them as fellow human beings. When, however, one asks oneself why they are there and why they have to serve life sentences, one realizes that they are not being punished for nothing. In South Africa one does not receive a life sentence for no reason at all. Yesterday the hon member spoke very highly here of the prestige of our judicial system in South Africa that should be upheld. However, when the hon member makes statements such as those she made yesterday in connection with sentences passed by some of our judges and in connection with leniency that should be shown to people serving long sentences of imprisonment, she personally makes the greatest contribution to casting suspicion on the image of the administration of justice in South Africa.

The Van Dam report did in fact give rise to a lot of favourable publicity for the Prisons Service and for the hon the Minister himself. I want to quote from a report in Rapport of 2 October 1983, which showed clearly that the whole point at issue related to individual prison warders and not to the Prisons Service as such. I want to quote part of that report, as follows:

It goes on to say:

I also want to quote from the Pretoria News of 22 September 1983, as follows:

I submit that the shocking incidents at Barberton to which the hon member for Houghton referred led ultimately to more positive publicity than negative publicity for both the hon the Minister and the Prisons Service as a whole.

Mr Chairman, after experiencing the peaceful atmosphere that prevailed in the Defence debate earlier today it came as something of a shock to walk in here and have to listen to the terrific altercation going on. I was not always sure who was speaking, the hon member for Mossel Bay or the hon member for Houghton. I do, however, want to suggest that you do what was done in the Defence debate yesterday, Mr Chairman. Anyone who cannot control himself should be ordered out. After that you will have no more problems, Sir.

My colleague the hon member for Barberton will quite correctly have a few words to say later in connection with the problems affecting Barberton. There is another subject to which I want briefly to devote some attention. Before proceeding with that, however, we should also like to express our congratulations to the Department of Prisons. We have no problems with the department. We are satisfied. We are proud of them. We support them and we congratulate them on their good work. At the same time we also want to congratulate the hon the Minister on a good year and we want to wish him well for the future too. We have come to know the hon the Minister of Justice as a man who always does his best to rise above politics, and who is a worthy Minister of Justice and also of Prisons.

I want to refer to a matter that is causing me concern. I refer to the opportunity afforded political prisoners of spreading propaganda. I do have a problem with that. Various groups of people visit our political prisoners. In that way they are given free and unlimited opportunities of conversation. I was a member of a group of Parliamentarians who visited Robben Island recently. I should like to thank the hon the Minister and the Commissioner of Prisons for that opportunity. I want to thank them in particular for their hospitality and for the delicious meal. I would rather not say whether everything we ate was legal or illegal, or even how many of us nearly remained on the island. If it had not been for the hon member for Houghton I would probably have stayed behind there. I am grateful for the assistance we received and also for the fact that Robben Island was really opened to us. That simply means that there is nothing to hide there. We compliment the hon the Minister and the Prisons Service on that. We were allowed to talk freely with political prisoners. It was both exciting and informative—informative in the sense that it convinced one yet again of the unbridgeable chasm which exists between ourselves and the Communists. That chasm is unbridgeable. We became aware of the fact that the future was going to require great ingenuity, patience and spiritual strength of us in order to enable us to regulate the approaching conflict. The visit and our discussions with political prisoners were therefore extremely fruitful, and were also a good investment, at least in so far as a better understanding was concerned. The various conflicting parties will reach a better understanding in the event of a possible conflict. What does worry me, however, is the fact that the prison authorities possibly go too far in trying to prove that they do in fact treat the prisoners fairly and properly. One thing that upset me was when a number of political prisoners, under pretext of airing valid grievances, were allowed to spread blatantly false propaganda about the prison authorities.

Were they prisoners within that very same prison?

Yes, they were prisoners within that very same prison. They were political prisoners with whom we had conversations on Robben Island. The competent way in which these political prisoners formulated their objections and the smooth manner in which they presented them caused me to deduce that they had also been trained for this type of eventuality. I believe that in the process of training their soldiers our enemies make special provision for the eventuality of their arrest at some future stage. I believe they are trained even in that event still to pursue their goals with cunning. This is something against which we have to be on our guard. We have to be watchful lest political prisoners arouse sympathy which they do not deserve. Therefore there is also a duty on all those, including Parliamentarians, who visit political prisoners not to allow themselves to be caught off their guard. They should not allow themselves innocently to be caught up in a situation in which they will be grist to the mill of political prisoners. During our visit to Robben Island a certain prisoner, I am sure, fabricated a whole series of complaints. It became quite clear to me very soon that his allegations were false and that he was merely trying to create a certain climate. Very nicely and skillfully he complained about the food and about certain other privileges. The hon member for Houghton was particularly sympathetic towards him. However, I shall come to that a little later. I asked him pertinently what his prison group classification was. He was in the D group. When I asked him what was wrong with the food, it was evident that he did not want to reply but that he was trying to get himself off the hook. I asked him then to tell me what was wrong with the pumpkin and what was wrong with the rice and with the potatoes. He was unable to talk his way out of it. I told him then that I was not prepared to side with him against the prison authorities, and that he should just remember that he was after all in prison and not in a five star hotel. What upset me was that Parliamentarians were keenly asking questions and making notes, possibly creating the impression among prison staff that they were adopting a standpoint, possibly even against the prison authorities.

I have a suggestion to make in this regard. In terms of the Prisons Act a clear distinction exists between rights and privileges. Privileges are instruments of rehabilitation and are in terms of the law left exclusively to the discretion of the Prisons Service. The rights of prisoners are of course enforceable. I suggest that this distinction be explained very clearly to visitors and that they be not allowed to discuss privileges with prisoners. It has nothing to do with me as a visitor to Robben Island or any other prison whether the warder allows a prisoner to leave his light on until 11 pm or midnight, and whether he allows him a little extra time. That is purely a prison matter. When they limit his rights, when they do not feed him, when they do not allow him to take exercise, when they deprive him of rights to which he is entitled by law, I can take cognizance of that, but otherwise I do not have the right to interfere in any other way with the duties of the prison authorities. By the way, I believe they do their job very well. However, when they do have at their disposal any information that proves or indicates that the rights of prisoners are being adversely affected it is the right of visitors to divulge such information and it is also essential that serious attention be given to such a matter. I ask people therefore to be more circumspect so as to prevent political prisoners abusing the goodwill of visiting groups so that those groups will not also be used as an instrument by means of which they can achieve their propaganda goals.

I do not want these few words I have spoken to be in any way interpreted as criticism of the prison authorities. Insofar as it may be construed as criticism, it is intended to be positive criticism in the sense that the prison authorities, to my mind, are trying to do too much. It is also not caustic criticism aimed at my colleagues, but I do feel that we are duty bound to draw this distinction between privileges and the rights of prisoners. Visiting groups must not interfere with the privileges of prisoners and should simply watch out for possible violations of the rights of prisoners.

You want to cover up everything.

I do not want to cover up anything. I am not in the NP. I am in the CP. We do not cover up. I am merely saying that the privileges of the prisoners have nothing to do with me as a Parliamentarian. If the prison authorities try to rehabilitate a prisoner by granting him certain privileges, that has nothing to do with us who are simply visitors there. I go there to find out whether a prisoner’s basic rights are being violated and not to listen to a D group prisoner talking a lot of nonsense about the prison authorities and the medical treatment he has received or ought to have received but which he has not received while the facts are in fact quite the opposite. It is not right that this sort of thing should be bruited abroad. In this regard I adopt an unequivocal attitude in favour of the prison authorities. We are quite satisfied that what is happening at Robben Island is correct and that the department deserves to be commended for it. I hope these few words of mine will be brought to the attention of the prison authorities.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Jeppe has stated his problem but I am afraid that I cannot agree with his solution because what use will it be if we are allowed to visit prisons and, when we get there, certain matters are censored so that one will be allowed to ask certain questions but not others? What then is the sense of our visiting those places? It will only create the impression that the prison authorities want to cover up something. I cannot therefore agree with the hon member’s solution.

†The hon member for Houghton complained about the prison population and said, inter alia, that this number had increased every year. I should just like to refer the hon member to page 51 of the report. There it is clearly stated that the prison population dropped over certain years. From 1973 to 1976 the prison population dropped consistently. During the first two years it dropped by 1 000 and during the second two years it dropped by 4 000. From 1978 to 1979 it dropped again. From 1979 to 1982 it dropped each year and in the last instance by 13 000. This is clear proof of the fact that the prison population is linked to our economic well-being in this country. At this stage we have a high prison population because of the simple fact that economically we have not had it too good for some time.

I do not really wish to refer to the other aspects the hon member mentioned in regard to influx control, but if she wants to be straightforward with this Committee she should tell this Committee that she wants the same circumstances in South Africa as obtain in the rest of Africa, namely cities like Ibadan in Nigeria with an 85% squatter population and Addis Ababa with a 90% squatter population.

*I should like to thank the department and the hon the Minister for the opportunities we have had from time to time to visit prisons and to talk to prisoners. I see this as willingness on the part of the department to expose itself to criticism and to enable it to play a better role in the community of which it forms an integral part. This attitude was again confirmed by the action of the department in the Barberton matter. On the basis of the reports we received on that matter and on the strength of the department’s action in that case I am convinced that nobody can say that the department wanted to cover up something, that they did not simply expose everything and that they did not complete the investigation swiftly and did not hesitate to institute preventative measures. One only has to look at the visits of the hon the Minister and the Commissioner there and the fact that the entire matter was handed over to the Police. Internal investigations also took place and, in addition, a commission of inquiry was appointed. No human organization is free of problems or faults, but the test is how that organization acts in eliminating those problems and rectifying the faults. In that respect the department has succeeded very well.

I should like to refer to the visit we paid last Friday to the maximum security prison. It served a very good purpose. I think that quite a number of problems were solved in the presence of the head of the prison, particularly in respect of security and treatment. A number of misunderstandings were also cleared up. In the prison we found representatives of from extreme leftists to extreme rightists. Without exception everybody expressed their satisfaction with the general treatment received in prison. Without exception everybody said that the food was very good. One woman described the food as being unbelievably good. One woman who was certainly accustomed to everything, said that the medical treatment she received there was better than the medical treatment she had received before. I must tell the department that when the hon member for Houghton says that the conditions are satisfactory, that is definitely a big compliment.

I should like to discuss the general treatment of prisoners. There are three considerations that play a role in penalization in a court: Firstly, the punishment must fit the crime; secondly, the interests of the accused must be considered; and, thirdly, regard must be had to the interests of the community. On the one hand the interests of the community determine that the punishment, the imprisonment, must be a deterrent to people in society to commit crimes. On the other hand the punishment serves in certain cases to remove the person involved for a very long time from society and in that way protects society from him.

I want to suggest that, where possible, sentence be used to make a person a better human being when he returns to society. It must be said very clearly that a prison is not a rehabilitation factory. A prison cannot guarantee that a man will emerge from it better than he was when he went in, but someone who wants to rehabilitate himself should at least be given the opportunity to do so. This is a team effort. Every member of the Prisons Service is involved in it, even those whose primary function is that of detention. They are in direct contact with the prison and must therefore play a role in this.

The four sections that play a major role in this regard and to which I want to refer in particular, are the four professional sections, namely the clinical psychologists, the social workers, the educationists and the spiritual workers.

The clinical psychologists are responsible for finding out as soon as possible, particularly in the observation stage, what the man’s personal deficiencies and problems are and then prescribing treatment for them. According to his personality, emotional maturity, intelligence and prognosis he can also be grouped in an in-depth classification system. The purpose of this classification is effective treatment. For this purpose there are two prison hospitals where certified psychopaths receive treatment.

Social services must compile a complete biography of the prisoner during the observation stage, again with the purpose of being able to provide the prisoner with very effective treatment. The welfare department also plays an important role in the preparation for release. This is a very important aspect. In 1981 a special section was created, namely the Social Integration Division, which operates independently of social services. The task of this division is to render material aid especially to persons who are released, for example, tools, clothes and accommodation. Co-ordination in respect of employment is also undertaken.

Training services are an integral part of rehabilitation. During the observation period of the person’s educational qualifications, his aptitude and his interests are established, and whether it is as a result of his lack of education that he is prone to crime. There is a primary education project too, a read and write project, which has shown much progress and which has already been completed successfully by 8 140 persons.

It is very interesting to note what is provided by regulation 109(1) of the Prisons Service regulations. It provides that if the Commissioner is of the opinion that poor or inadequate school education or no school education on the part of a prisoner may cause him to commit crime, such a prisoner should be encouraged to follow a suitable course of study in his free time. This is a very good regulation and there is obvious proof that it is being carried out properly. Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to say that we at least have had a lively debate here this afternoon thanks to the hon member for Houghton.

I am sorry that the hon member for Jeppe has left. I wanted to say to him that I was on that visit too and that he obviously does not know what the word “empathy” means. Obviously he does not have any tolerance and patience whatsoever. Perhaps his colleague can take this message to him.

I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on his appointment and wish him a happy and fruitful sojourn in office.

Among the responsibilities of the hon the Minister is the very sensitive area of prisons and the welfare of the prison population. Furthermore, one must not lose sight of the fact that a fair number of these prisoners are real tough cookies. This is quite evident from the Van Dam report. In this regard we found the report very constructive and certainly it pulled no punches. It also highlighted the shortcomings of the Prison Department in a very forthright manner. To refer to some of the shortcomings, there is the position of the health service supplied by the district surgeons, the rank of the nursing sisters and male nurses, particularly the lack of single cells and facilities for inmates to watch sports as well as the broadcasting system for music. I think this is a very important aspect, especially as regards the Blacks, because a large part of their life revolves around music. I think this is something that should be seriously looked at because I think it would make quite a big difference. Then there is also the matter of the buildings at the maximum security Barberton prison farm and also the medium term prison.

Then we come to the irregular action of certain staff members contrary to standard laid-down procedure. It is very encouraging to see the outright condemnation by both the hon the Minister and the Commissioner in this regard. In the memorandum of the Commissioner to the Van Dam Commission he equally pulls no punches. He uses such forthright language as “deplorable incident” and “irregular conduct will not be tolerated”. This is terminology that everybody can understand and appreciate and it leaves no doubt about the feelings of the Commissioner.

In respect of the beating of new prisoners at Barberton, I should like to say that I think that those commanding officers who turned a blind eye to this practice or who may have suggested that they were unaware of the fact that these beatings were taking place, should be carpeted irrespective of whether they knew about it or not and either be reprimanded or punished in the usual departmental way. The Commissioner has also shown concern for the welfare of the prisoners. I quote from page 10 of the report:

I believe these words have real meaning when used in the prison context and situation. The fact that the warders and staff are working with hardened prisoners should never be forgotten or lost sight of. I quote from page 6 of the report:

We must take cognizance of this. With this in mind we on this side of the Committee do not believe that this report should be politicized in any way at all; on the contrary, it should be judged constructively and without bias. We also do not believe that because of the irregular action, contrary to standard regulations, of a very small minority of prison staff, the entire staff should be condemned. Generally, we believe that the staff should be complimented on the disciplined approach to the general handling of the prisoners often under trying circumstances considering the overcrowding and the type of people they are responsible for.

The fact that the hon the Minister has seen fit to make available to the public the report, as well as the Commissioners memorandum and comments thereon, is to be welcomed. This shows a complete openness, but more important in my opinion, a confidence by the department to accept criticism and public scrutiny. It augurs well for the department’s prisons, that have shown that they are prepared to act on criticism and shortcomings immediately where possible, and to set in motion plans to rectify other areas where criticisms have been levelled.

I now wish to deal specifically with the prisoners who are awaiting trial and the social services afforded them. These prisoners live in a state of limbo and uncertainty. They are not small in number and if one looks at page 52 of the report one sees that 267 995 awaiting trial prisoners were handled in the department last year. On 20 June 1983 there were 18 427 awaiting trial prisoners. They are the responsibility of the police who do not employ social workers and are as yet not the responsibility of the prison department, so they are denied access to the department’s social workers. The only access to the social workers is from external agencies, that is probation officers and organizations. Many of these prisoners are held in custody for long periods before coming to court, through no fault of their own, and often upon coming to court are either acquitted or found not guilty. These particular prisoners, in many instances, are first offenders. For them it must be a traumatic experience. They particularly need the service of a social worker to help them in the predicament they find themselves in. There is the question of legal aid. The chances of getting legal aid are very remote, if they can get it at all, without a social worker’s assistance. What is the position where bail has been granted? There must be somebody to arrange bail in cases where families do not even know where a person is being held. What about liaison between the prisoner and his family, wife and parents? What about the position of his employer? In many cases, if the employer knew where his employee was, he would most probably stand bail. Loss of employment and family break-ups are serious factors for the awaiting trial prisoner and can militate to make one bitter towards the system. The services afforded these people are totally ineffective.

One social worker cannot cope with more than 40 cases and possibly 50 cases a day. We know the problems of the probation officers. There are not enough of them. Equally so, there is a shortage of social workers in the external organizations. Even the Prisons Department have only two-thirds of their complement full when it comes to social workers, but they are at least doing something about it. They are giving in-house training to those members of the staff who have at least a Std 8 education and a flair for social work. These members work under supervision of qualified social workers and are designated auxiliary social workers. I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister: If the Department of Prisons can use auxiliary social workers under supervision why can the external organizations, who are faced with the same problem of staff shortages, not do the same? I want to refer to page 32 of the report which reads as follows under the heading “External social work aid”:

In other words, they are down by 165 workers.

The external organizations can muster volunteers such as teachers with degrees and other people who are vitally interested and who have been vetted by the responsible organizations. These persons can with a sense of responsibility work under supervision and can be successful in augmenting a much needed service. I am making an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister and the Commissioner to consider seriously my plea in the interest of the welfare of the prisoner awaiting trial. I accept that this category is not the responsibility of the department, but here I suggest that a little empathy could be used. The department has the power to assist in and make a worthwhile contribution towards closing this very important gap in the welfare of the prisoner awaiting trial.

Another factor which I would like to refer to is re-integration into the community. I refer to page 34 of the report:

A very important facet of rehabilitation is having some form of identity, especially if you have just come out of jail. Without identity documents it is often difficult to find work. This is an area where the Department of Prisons could provide a service which could only improve the rehabilitation programme. The department should ascertain from a prisoner whether, in fact, he has any identity documents and, if not, I believe the department should take the necessary photograph and see to it that application is made to the necessary department. This will ensure that when the prisoner is discharged he has some official identification. I believe my suggestion has merit and should be standard procedure six months prior to a prisoner being released. I say six months, because on average it takes three to four months for documents to be obtained. A comment from the hon the Minister in this regard will be appreciated.

Lastly, I wonder whether the hon the Minister could advise us on what progress has been made with the position of community service orders. I believe the possibility of amending section 279 of Act No 51 of 1977 is investigated. Could the hon the Minister tell me whether any progress has been made in this regard?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast has, as usual, made a very positive contribution to this debate. There is something I find a little strange, however. When I took the hon member for Houghton to task yesterday, his colleague who sits next to him said to me: Well, that has nothing to do with the Vote. The hon member said that I should rather talk about the Vote and that I was wasting time. Today the hon member did the same to the hon member for Jeppe.

The hon member expressed his concern over those awaiting trial. I want to associate myself with the hon member in that regard. The numbers involved are cause for grave concern. I believe that our judicial officers, together with the police, can release many of these people with a warning. I think that examining officers and magistrates can exercise their discretion and should rather bring to court those people guilty of minor types of offences in some other way than by taking them into custody.

The hon member for Houghton objects to the high prison population resulting from arrests for pass offences, etc. I think we all share that concern with her, but attacking the system to the extent she does is not going to help. I think that the hon member would make a far more positive contribution if she were to help us find solutions to those problems. With the greatest respect, it does not help for the hon member, because she differs with us politically, to attack a judge about a sentence he has imposed which has nothing to do with the political system. I think that in that regard we should really try to join hands. An unlimited influx of workers from all over cannot be tolerated. We must really try to find solutions to those problems in other ways.

In the short time at my disposal yesterday because of the interruptions I had to endure, I committed an oversight in that, while congratulating others, I did not also address myself to the hon the Minister. I want to say here today that I greatly appreciate the patient and remarkable way in which this hon Minister handles the department. I also appreciate the remarkable grace with which he fulfils this very difficult task. We greatly appreciate the manner in which the hon the Minister has defused so many problems. The hon the Minister follows a straight course and does not attempt in any way to withhold sensitive information.

Particularly in a department like the Prisons Service in-service training must form a very important part of the training in that department. There are large shortages in the two components he is concerned with and particularly in the specialized fields. I referred to these shortages earlier today in a question I put to the hon the Minister. That problem is also referred to in paragraph 1.2 of the department’s report. It reads:

That is a matter for concern not only in the prisons department but also in the Department of Justice. Further to the question I put to the hon the Minister recently in connection with the LLB qualification, I want to say that it is significant that in the period 1975-1982, 682 officials obtained a LLB degree within the department and that in the period 1978-1983, 268 people with a LLB qualification were recruited. However, in the period 1977-1983, 559 of those people with a LLB degree resigned. As a result and with reference to what I have already said in connection with paragraph 1.2 of the report, I want to suggest that as far as those highly qualified people are concerned we must look afresh at the remuneration packages. We must really try to get a sufficient number of qualified people in the department to be in a position to supply the specialized services that are required.

I have the greatest praise for what the Prisons Service, particularly under the leadership of the Commissioner, achieves on a tremendously large scale, especially with regard to the in-service training and qualification of a large number of officials. In the last year reviewed there were 1 801 appointments in the department, 24,7% fewer than in the previous year. That was the position in spite of the fact that there were 44,3% fewer resignations than in the previous year. All this is also related to the economic climate. In spite of everything there was at least a staff gain of 945. As there is a very real shortage in this department, I want to request that the position of the officials should be looked at afresh.

Before referring very briefly to the question of the new philosophy with regard to classification, I should like to refer to page 13 of the report where reference is made to the SA Prisons Service medal for faithful service which has been awarded to a number of prison officers. A total of 883 medals were awarded for 10 years’ faithful service, 317 for 20 years’ faithful service, 57 for 30 years’ faithful service and 6 for 40 years’ faithful service. I do not believe we can appreciate highly enough the contributions these people made in the course of a lifetime to the activities of the department. I believe that the Commissioner will put his individual stamp on this department. I should, however, also like to say to the officers of lower rank that the proud record their colleagues are building up and have built up over many years is done an injustice by isolated incidents which occur from time to time. The image that creates of a wonderful group of people does not always complement their true worth.

I should now like to refer very briefly to the system of classification. Over the years a horizontal system of classification in particular has been relied upon, which is linked to the privileges of the prisoner and consists of grades from A to D. In the past few years a system of classification in depth has been concentrated on more and more in accordance with which classification takes place on a prognostic basis, differences between individuals are taken into account and a programme for the treatment of individual prisoners is prescribed. Here I also want to refer to the question of qualified officers. This system of classification in depth cannot be carried through with success unless there are experts available in that field. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure that the hon member for Roodepoort will excuse me if I do not react immediately to what he said. I should like to deal with a few other matters.

Firstly, I want to react to an attack on me by the hon the Minister this morning. I was very surprised at it and also amazed to hear that people had been looking for me in the passages. When I got here, I heard what was going on. The hon the Minister was terribly upset and I was very surprised about it. I think he was overly sensitive about the whole matter. With reference to me, he said, inter alia, that certain people should grow up. I can give the hon the Minister the assurance that I too have a reasonable idea of what happens in practice in respect of sentencing. I myself was an official in the Department of Justice for a time, and I think I know more or less what the role of the Executive as opposed to the role of the Judiciary is, and also what it should be in as much as these things do not always work out completely.

I should like to put the record straight. What was my question? I asked specifically whether the Minister would instruct magistrates to consider the advisability of possibly suspending conditionally the sentences of persons found guilty in terms of section 297(l)(a)(i)(cc) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The suggestion was not that the hon the Minister should issue an instruction that certain persons be sentenced. After all, he knows what the view of hon members on this side of the Committee is about that. I do not think that it amounts to interference if, for example, guidelines are suggested which should as a rule be followed. It often happens that a chief magistrate—and hon members who have practised law will know this—will for example recommend to magistrates acting under his authority that they should consider certain sentences for very good reasons. For example, when I was in the Department of Justice, it was recommended at the time that sentences for less serious transgressions should as far as possible be suspended and that, for example, sentences of less than three months should not be imposed for the very reason that it made the position of the Prisons Service so infinitely difficult. I am now talking about a good 14 or 15 years ago. Surely this was not improper interference. I think it is completely normal. If such guidelines are suggested by the hon the Minister I do not think that that will be regarded as improper.

It also further surprised me that the hon the Minister was so upset in view of the fact that he represents a government which have over the years never hesitated to prescribe minimum sentences by law, which surely boils down to direct intervention, not so much from the point of view of the Executive but certainly from the point of view of the Legislature.

Mr Chairman, without infringing your ruling I just want to say that a Minister who tolerates a provision such as section 103ter of the Defence Act on the Statute Book and sees his way clear to enforce it, should rather not be overly sensitive in regard to the question of interference in the independence of our judiciary.

I should like now to deal with a second aspect. This is something which has a more direct bearing on the Prisons Service. It relates to prisoners who are serving sentences for crimes against the State. The hon member for Houghton referred to it and then the hon member for Mossel Bay—I am glad that he is here—made the strange statement during the course of a very strange speech that it was a reflection on the courts if the hon member sought to suggest that the position of such prisoners should be considered with a view to a reduction of sentence or remission. This is a very strange point of view. Does the hon member for Mossel Bay seek to imply thereby that the Government cast a reflection on the courts when people like Breytenbach and Toivo were given a remission of sentence and because there is also talk that the same thing will happen in regard to Mike Hoare and others? Surely that was not what the hon member sought to suggest. However, that was what he said. I think the hon member will be surprised when he reads his own speech again. He will be amazed about everything he said here. Sometimes I cannot understand the hon member. He is a very fine and intelligent man, but he said things here of which he should be ashamed.

I asked the hon the Minister a question recently, namely how many prisoners serving sentences for crimes against the State had been considered for the purposes of reduction of sentence and earlier release. I have not as yet received a reply to that. Perhaps the hon the Minister misinterpreted the nature of my question and I hope that he will supply me with further information in that regard. It is only two years ago today that the announcement was made that the hon the Minister would also consider applying parole arrangements and reductions of sentence in the case of such prisoners. I think it is logical to deduce from that that there was a backlog at that stage. There were many people whose positions were not yet considered. It would, therefore, make sense to make up that backlog and give attention as soon as possible to the position of all these people to see where there were cases deserving of remission of sentence. I am afraid that until recently not much has come of this intention. That is precisely why I put the question on the Order Paper. Herman Toivo was of course released recently. Several other South West African prisoners were also released in South West Africa after they had been sent there from Robben Island. I have no problem with this because I think it makes sense, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the reasons for this are mainly politically strategic reasons rather than the normal considerations that would apply in the case of a remission of sentence. I want once again to place on record that I do not object to that. However, at the same time I want to say that it places a tremendous obligation on the hon the Minister and the department also to consider the position of other people who fall into that category as well so that no one will feel that there is unfair discrimination or that politically strategic considerations are becoming too important on the release of prisoners in relation to the ordinary considerations of reprieve, of good conduct, of assimilability in the community from which those people come etc. I want therefore to appeal to the hon the Minister to give us more information about this and, in so far as it has not yet been done, to give attention as soon as possible to as many cases as possible of persons who find themselves in those categories.

I should like to ask the hon member a question. The hon member qualifies his request by saying: “As many as possible.” Can he please tell me precisely what he means by that?

Perhaps I should not say “as many as possible”. Perhaps I should say “all cases”. I want to express the hope that as far as the work load of the hon the Minister and of his officials makes it possible, the individual positions of all prisoners in South Africa be taken into consideration for remission of sentence. I assume that this is the ideal, and I want to ask that that ideal also be the ideal in respect of prisoners in these categories. That is all I ask.

Unfortunately, I only have a minute left to deal with the Van Dam investigation. That was really what I wanted to talk about. I think that the positive aspects of this investigation are that this inquiry was ordered timeously and was ordered at a time when criminal investigations and post-mortem examinations were still pending or had not yet even been instituted. In other words, the hon the Minister instituted an inquiry which can perhaps duplicate other inquiries, but I think he acted correctly, in contrast with what so often happens in other cases where the Government hides behind the fact that an inquiry is pending and that it would be wrong to launch a further inquiry into another aspect. I am pleased that the hon the Minister adopted a more meaningful approach in this connection and that, in the process, certain facts came to light which will be useful in the administration of the department in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the speech of the hon member for Green Point but I could not establish what exactly he was getting at. I think that most of the time the hon member was trying to explain to himself what he had actually meant but had not said in his previous speeches. I believe that the hon the Minister will reply fully to the few points he did in fact raise.

I should like to return to the speech made by the hon member for Houghton because I feel that we must just place in perspective certain matters which she spoke about this afternoon and which she also raised in the debate on the Hoexter report. On that occasion and again this afternoon, the hon member mentioned that she questioned the accuracy of the figure of 7% to which the hon the Minister referred at that stage. In Hansard of 12 April 1984, col 4902, she said, inter alia, that if one examined the number of convictions and persons actually in gaol at any moment in time, one found that something like 52% had sentences of less than four months. She then went on to say—and this is the danger point—that with a woman’s sixth sense she felt that it was only logical to assume that the majority of these offenders were control offenders. In other words, Mr Chairman, the hon member is saying that approximately 52% of the people in prison are there for less than six months and that the majority of them are control offenders. The investigation to which she referred was carried out on 15 March, and a further investigation was carried out on 31 March. I do not think that the hon member gave attention to, or tried to find out, what ground the investigation covered, but the investigation was carried out at 242 prisons throughout the country by the commanding officers concerned. These commanding officers are all commissioners of oaths and they personally checked the warrants of the people in the prisons. I can assure the hon member that on 31 March the relevant figure was no longer 7% but had improved to 5,38%. I have proof of that with me.

Can I see that?

The hon member can see it and other hon members will refer to this as well.

*I just think that the hon member for Houghton owes the hon the Minister and the Commissioner of Prisons a sincere apology for having cast serious doubts upon the integrity of the Commissioner of Prisons and the commanding officers of these prisons, and I think that that was quite uncalled for and that her remarks were based on assumptions.

That is your interpretation and it is wrong.

It is not that my interpretation is wrong. It is just that the hon member for Houghton does not have her facts straight.

I have all my facts from your report.

Mr Chairman, I shall leave the matter at that for the moment, but let us just look at another aspect. Let us hold up a mirror to the people who find themselves in our prisons today. Who are those people? Let us divide them up in hundreds and take a group of 100 prisoners as representative of the average prisoners in South Africa’s gaols. According to this new figure five of those 100 prisoners will be control offenders. Four of the 100 will be people serving sentence of less than six months.

Why did Mr Justice Hoexter make the statement that the majority of people who are there and who are overcrowding our jails are pass offenders?

Mr Chairman, I think that the hon member must ask Mr Justice Hoexter that herself. The report issued by this commission is very much condensed, but we also have other figures available which put this matter in the right perspective, and the hon member must make sure of her facts before she starts talking about this. If we take that group of 100 people, five of them are control offenders. Approximately four of them are people on whom sentences of less than six months have been imposed. 42,8% of those people are guilty of an offence involving violence. Those are the people standing trial on charges of murder, culpable homicide, serious assault, indecent assault, sexual crimes and so on. A further 45% are accused of economic crimes. If one therefore says that 42% of these people are control offenders, that is ridiculous, and I do not think it is fair of the hon member to say that to the Committee.

Another matter I want to take up with the hon member concerns the fact that on various occasions I visited prisons together with her. I want to compliment her because it was very pleasant to be there with her. She acted in a very dignified manner. This afternoon, however, she says that that is not good enough. I want to ask the hon member if she feels inhibited when she goes there together with other hon members. She claimed this afternoon that she found it difficult to visit prisons, and it appears that she wants to visit them alone as often as she pleases and whenever she pleases. The staff of our Prisons Service are busy people and we know how difficult the hon member for Houghton is. Surely we cannot allow her to visit a prison in the country every day at will.

My time is running out and I should still like to touch on a few other matters. I want firstly to say that the Hoexter report has placed the so-called problem of overcrowding in South African prisons in the spotlight. I find that a pity for two reasons, the first of which I have just dealt with, namely the political opportunity the hon member for Houghton and the other hon members of her party saw in it to bring the control offenders to the fore. Secondly, it created the psychosis among some that the position is now critical, that it is unmanageable and that all kinds of malpractices are now appearing. We know that that is not the case except for the few incidents that have occurred and which have been thoroughly investigated. Nothing is further from the truth. On the contrary, I want to state here categorically that the Prisons Service deserves the highest praise for the manner in which, in the midst of the aggravating circumstances of overcrowding, the people concerned are acquitting themselves of their task. I want to plead today for a better understanding of the task of the warder. Our people do not always realize how enormous the task is they are shouldering. In carrying out their task as warders they are, on the one hand, responsible for the safety of society and, on the other hand, they are responsible for the personal wellbeing, the safety and the decent treatment of those placed in their care. We must always bear in mind that a considerable percentage of the people placed in their care represent the most criminal elements of society. Those are people who will most certainly even try the patience of an angel from heaven more than once. I want to ask that when incidents occur people do not overreact. I am not thereby trying to gloss over incidents. On the contrary, I condemn them in the strongest possible terms, but we must after all also guard against an exaggerated sympathy for the criminal and a lack of understanding of the task of the warder. When I ask for a better understanding of the task of the warder, I also want to ask for a better understanding of and greater appreciation for the actions of the Commissioner and the men in command in the Prisons Service. In this connection I want to point out that the Hoexter Commission made no great discovery or brought anything new to the fore of which the hon the Minister and the Commissioner of Prisons were not already aware and with which they were not already dealing to a lesser or greater extent. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Kroonstad for the efficient manner in which, citing the facts, he demonstrated how wild the allegations of the hon member for Houghton can sometimes be when she gets excited and talks about matters which apparently are of great importance to her. However, I want to ask the hon member not to judge her too harshly because the hon member for Sandton is their spokesman on Justice, and I see that he is so little interested that he is not even here now. Apparently his work is so poor that their own good old standby, The Pretoria News, has already given up on him. I see that in the leading article in The Pretoria News of 13 April he is referred to as “Dilly Dalling” and that finally they come to the conclusion:

That, Mr. Chairman, explains why they are becoming so desperate and one must have understanding for that.

If indeed any reproof stems from the Van Dam Committee’s report in consequence of the events at Barberton, then it is aimed precisely at people like the hon member for Houghton who are always so liberal and quick with their criticism of the Prisons Service.

That sort of criticism is permissible and you know it.

If it is fair, yes.

*They are, however, always liberal with their criticism and with allegations of the harsh maltreatment of defenceless people. It is probably true that a few individuals within the Prisons Service are guilty of misconduct. With a total establishment of more than 17 500 people of all race groups that is indeed to be expected. However, in each case that is not only directly in conflict with the established code of conduct but it is also totally at odds with the spirit of the Prisons Service and with what they consider to be correct conduct. That is why, when difficulties do arise like the case the Van Dam Committee investigated, the Prisons Service are the very first to set about a frank self-examination and immediately bringing to book the people guilty of misconduct. The fact that in general things are indeed so quiet in our prisons probably serves as the best testimonial of the dedication and competence of the Prisons Service and its staff.

An objective analysis in fact supports this claim. The fact is that one has to deal daily with a prison population of more than 100 000 people. Let it also be clearly understood that it is not the Prisons Service that is responsible for the fact that those people find themselves in prison but that they do in fact end up there as a result of an independent judicial process. Indeed, the Prisons Service has no say whatsoever in regard to whom it will accept as guests. The moment they arrive there they become the sole responsibility of the Prisons Service.

One must also bear in mind that the mere fact that someone finds himself in prison does not mean that he becomes a different person. Many of these people, as the hon member for Kroonstad indicated, are in fact people on whom other sentences such as a fine or a suspended sentence have had no effect whatsoever, and a large number of them, as is quite apparent from the Van Dam Committee’s report, attempt to continue with their illegal activities while in prison. When one reads the report, one discovers that that assumes alarming proportions. It is clear, for instance, that gangs are formed which even for the slightest offence—the hon member for Mossel Bay referred to the mere treading on a blanket—comdemn a fellow-prisoner to death and then actually carry out that sentence.

In Barberton matters were taken so far that in one case the gang carried out the death sentence imposed on an officer whose discipline in their opinion was too strict. They actually proceeded to carry out the sentence in practice by attacking him in a cowardly fashion from behind and inflicting such serious injuries with a home-made knife that it is doubtful whether that officer will be able to continue with his career. I want immediately to extend our sympathy to Col Grundling and his family and also express the hope that he will recover and will in fact be able to continue with his fine career. These may be extreme cases, but they do indicate the wide spectrum of conditions within which the Prisons Service has to carry out its task. This task is in itself a difficult and sensitive one which makes heavy demands of knowledge, competence, independence and perhaps especially self-control. The primary aim is at all times to ensure the safe custody of the prisoner. Secondly, within the framework of safe custody an effort must be made to rehabilitate him so that on his release he will be able to adapt to society and lead a useful life within the community. To achieve these goals it is essential that attention must at all times be given to his well-being and his safety and that he must receive decent treatment at all times. That that is in fact the aim of the Prisons Service is evident from the fact, for instance, that the whole prisons system is based on the guidelines of the International Standard Minimum Rules as adopted by the UN Congress for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. These guidelines were established on 30 August 1955. Another aspect from which this is evident is the fact that a mere 0,0037% of the average daily prison population escapes. The events in connection with the Barberton prison are also indicative of the fact that the goal I referred to is pursued conscientiously and with dedication. The swift action taken by the hon the Minister and the Prisons Service to overcome the problems experienced in Barberton also deserves our highest praise.

Against this background I want to refer briefly to the realities of the staff position in the service. It is a source of satisfaction that in the year under review there was a net staff gain of 10,8%, and that at one stage there was so high a level of enrolment in the service that recruitment could be temporarily suspended. I believe that one of the reasons for this, apart from the economic conditions, was in fact the more realistic package of service benefits which could be introduced as a result of occupational differentiation. Other factors which played a role are the positive approach to the optimal utilization of manpower, the availability of training facilities, the goal-oriented development programme and an objective system of promotion on merit. All of these contribute to the positive and healthy spirit which now prevails in the Prisons Service, and this fact makes a career in the service a worthy and challenging one.

I want to conclude by referring to one matter which gives cause for concern, namely the staff-prisoner ratio on the basis of the existing establishment. In South Africa this ratio is at present 1:6 on the basis of the total establishment. However, on the basis of the number of staff specifically engaged in the task of looking after prisoners the ratio is sometimes as high as 1:14. In Western countries like the USA it is 1:3 and even 1:1. I want to ask that this imbalance be rectified as soon as possible. One realizes that the Prisons Service forms part of the overall State framework which imposes its own restrictions and priorities, but we want the hon the Minister and the Prisons Service to know that they enjoy our full confidence. When the hon the Minister negotiates with his colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, he can tell him that.

Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in following the hon member for East London City who made a very solid contribution. In fact, he made the speech we were promised the hon member for Green Point would make about the Van Dam report. I am sure the hon member will forgive me if I refer to another aspect, because I want to come back to the report of the Hoexter Commission.

In the implementation of its terms of reference the commission heard certain evidence which, among other things, had a bearing upon certain problems of the South African Prisons Service. According to the commission itself, this fell outside the ambit of their terms of reference, but they nevertheless thought fit to react to it. All right-minded persons will agree with the commission’s concern about the large prison population, the limited accommodation, overcrowded prisons which create a dismal social situation, the imprisonment of breadwinners etc.

I want to refer to paragraph 5.3.3 of the report because in my view it contains a very contentious statement which I want to ascribe to the fact that the whole matter was possibly being dealt with just in passing and that it was very probably not dealt with in depth. I quote the paragraph:

This is a very bold manner in which to express an opinion. I maintain that the commission was at fault here and that the whole system of parole is placed in the melting pot. In the first place this view of the commission is directly contradicted by the hon the Minister himself, and he did so in a speech which he made a year before the commission published this point of view. In 1982 the hon the Minister made a speech on the occasion of the opening of the Advisory Release Board and expressed himself as follows:

The Commissioner of Prisons also commented on this standpoint of the Hoexter Commission, as follows:

As far as I am concerned, the commission appears to be guilty of an oversimplification in this regard, or has come to the wrong conclusions or has made a mistake. The matter is not as straightforward as the commission seeks to make out. This compels us to go into the system of parole and the system of release as such.

After conviction there are several ways of sentencing that can be followed. One of these possibilities is of course imprisonment, and I want to refer to what Fox says in this regard:

If this matter is considered with a view to determining what is really envisaged with imprisonment, I believe that there are various aims. Some of the most important are of course retribution, acting as a deterrent and rehabilitation. That is the dilemma centreing around the cause of the crime and the treatment of transgressors, and it is best illustrated by something that was said by Mr Justice Steyn in this regard, namely:

As we all know, prisoners can be released in two ways, namely conditionally or unconditionally. Distinctions are drawn between short-term and long-term prisoners. Those who serve sentences of more than two years are referred to as release board prisoners. These are the cases referred to by the Hoexter Commission as well. In this regard the statistics for the 13 years up to and including 1980 bear witness to a very big success story as far as the system of parole is concerned. It was found that 73% of release board case prisoners who were released were not again admitted with sentences of two years or longer. It seldom happens that a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years receives a less severe sentence on a subsequent occasion. It can therefore be said with a reasonable amount of certainty that almost 73% of release board case prisoners do not again commit serious crime. This is most certainly a big success story. It is in contrast with the standpoint of the Hoexter Commission as is erroneously, in my opinion, reflected in paragraph 5.5.3.

I want to suggest that these successes are the result of a sound policy followed in this connection. On the one hand we are dealing with the interests of society but on the other hand also with the prisoner’s claim to a just and fair aid scheme to bring about his reintegration into society. A healthy balance between the interests of society and those of the prisoner is therefore sought. The processes which are followed in these cases, start with the committee of the institution where those persons who work with the prisoner daily on a personal basis make certain recommendations to the Central Release Board which, in its turn, acts in an advisory capacity to the hon the Minister and the Commissioner. After Mr Justice Viljoen’s report was published, the Advisory Release Board was established with the specific purpose of acting in an advisory capacity to the hon the Minister in respect of policy matters.

I am therefore convinced that we have, over the years, developed and refined a system of parole which fits in with our level of civilization and which weighs up both the interests of the public and those of the prisoner thoroughly in assessing his conduct in the interests of the value systems of society. Because of the finding of the Hoexter Commission, suspicion is now possibly wrongfully being cast on this system.

Mr Chairman, I suppose it is easier for most of us to talk about the task of the Department of Prisons than it is for the people involved to carry out that task successfully. It has already been said here that it is easier to send a person to prison than it is to decide what to do with him once he is there. We know that we have in our prisons those unfortunate people who would normally not have been there if circumstances had been otherwise. There are also the common criminals who can perhaps be rehabilitated but also those who cannot be rehabilitated at all.

On behalf of the Conservative Party I want to thank the hon the Minister and the department for having acted so swiftly after the unfortunate events at Barberton Prison, for not having covered up anything and for having conducted a thorough investigation into the matter. What is more, the result of that investigation was revealed in full so that everyone could consider it. This is in fact the reason why there has been so little criticism in this regard in this debate. Believe me, as I know the hon member for Houghton, if there had been the slightest chance, she would have grabbed it with both hands and perhaps also with her feet.

Do not be so stupid.

Perhaps I do not know her as well as I should.

It has been my privilege to visit this particular prison which is situated in my constituency on more than one occasion, and on the last occasion in the company of the hon the Minister. I do not want to refer to the hon the Minister’s impressions now, but I was particularly impressed with the high standard that was maintained under the most difficult circumstances, in particular in respect of a certain group of prisoners. There are people in this prison who are dangerous and who must be allowed the minimum amount of freedom and movement. There are also long-term prisoners in this prison who move around freely, almost without supervision, in the fresh air and in the fields. This only goes to prove that the treatment the prisoner experiences in prison is in the majority of cases not simply as a result of those whose task it is to guard him, but for rather as a result of his own actions and his own attitude. I think that we as the public accept too readily that the law has to take its course and that people are committed to prison. We simply pass the flotsam of society on to the Department of Prisons to deal with as best they can. I do not think that we are always aware of the extremely difficult circumstances under which the officials of the Department of Prisons have to operate.

Mr Chairman, if I may make a personal confession, I want to say that on the occasions when I had to visit a prison as an attorney in order to speak to a client, I always became somewhat claustrophobic the moment the door was locked behind me. I do not know how it must feel to have to spend one’s life behind closed doors, not just as a prisoner but as a warder as well. On the day we visited the particular prison I told the hon the Minister that I admired the people who had to work there. I admired them for being able to retain their good judgment and a balanced outlook under those circumstances. I think that the talent which one must have to be able to render that particular service to society is exceptional.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that there are transgressions in every sphere of fife. In this case too things happened which should not have happened. However, I am convinced, and I think all of us are convinced, that this is the exception to the rule. We are grateful that the hon the Minister, his department and all concerned have taken the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of these transgressions as far as humanly possible.

Mr Chairman, I find it very pleasant to follow the hon member for Barberton. This is the first time that I have had that privilege since I have been in this House. He made a good, well-balanced and calm speech and it was pleasant to listen to him.

Mr Chairman, I want to discuss just one aspect of the responsibility of the Prisons Service, namely the custodial function. The primary function of a prisons service is twofold. On the one hand it should be geared towards inculcating in the sentenced prisoner the habits of diligence and labour. This is required by the Prisons Act and has as its aim the improvement and the rehabilitation of the prisoner. The aim must be to return a useful citizen to society. If this aim is successful, the prisoner as well as society benefit from it. That is one aspect of the matter.

On the other hand the Prisons Service aims at protecting society during the rehabilitation process by detaining the prisoner securely. This part of the function is therefore purely society-oriented. If large numbers of prisoners were to escape from custody the service would be failing in its responsibility to society.

In the process of evaluating the record of the Prisons Service in this regard one must appreciate certain realities. Firstly, one must realize that many of the prisoners are hardened criminals. The term “hardened criminals” is used by the Hoexter Commission on page 582 of its report. The report also refers to “vicious thugs” and to “old and wily gaolbirds”. These are people who do not lose their criminal inclinations merely because they are locked up. It has been found that many of the prisoners try to pursue their criminal activities in prison. In this regard one has only to read the report of the Van Dam Committee. The realities are outlined clearly in that report. The committee refers, inter alia, to two gangs in the Barberton Prison, namely, Air Force 3 and Air Force 4 whose sole purpose it is to arrange escapes. In connection with these gangs, I quote from paragraph 3.5.4 of the report:

When one hears about these harsh realities, the statistics on escapes speak volumes for the efficiency of the Prisons Service. Only 10,09% of all escapes during the year 1982-83 took place from prisons themselves. This represents 110 persons of all races and comprises 0,02% of the total number of prisoners admitted during that year. This means that 89,91% of all escapes took place while the persons concerned were outside the prison.

Mr Chairman, it must be realized that it is sometimes necessary for prisoners to leave the building in which they are detained. In this regard we can look at just one function and one ideal of the Prisons Service, namely the ideal of rehabilitation. As a result of this all physically able prisoners perform duties outside the walls of the prison. They do it, for example, in work teams on prison farms and on prison premises. They are, of course, also hired out to private persons and bodies. Provision is also made for the welfare of prisoners, and for that purpose there are visits to hospitals and doctors. Some of them have to leave to sit for trade tests with a view to meaningful training. Others leave the prison temporarily to be transferred to another prison. Some have to stand trial for further crimes and have therefore to visit the courts.

All prisoners venturing outside the walls of a prison are under guard. However, it so happens that the opportunity for flight is better outside than inside. Those who wish to escape and who plan escape then jump at the opportunity. Fortunately, as a result of experience and good observation, the Prisons Service knows its customers by now. High risk cases are therefore identified in good time, and such persons leave the prison only when it is absolutely necessary. They do not, for example, work outside. When they do have to leave the building, it is sometimes deemed necessary to shackle them hand and foot. They are then also escorted by armed members of the service. This is done simply to protect society and not to injure the individual’s dignity.

Mr Chairman, the Prisoners Service takes a serious view of escapes; every case is investigated thoroughly, and every lesson learnt is taken to heart. As a result of this the Prisons Service has a record of increasing success. From the year 1979-80 when there were 1 595 escapes, the number of escapes decreased during the year 1982-83 to 1 090. This is a decrease of 11,79% on average per year over three years. The incidence of escapes during the most recent year under review was 31,66% lower than during 1979-80. In 1982-83 the total number of prisoners admitted was 560 334. The total number of escapes which took place during that year was, as I said earlier, 1 090. This means that there was a security and protection efficiency of 99,8%. This is truly a remarkable achievement. I want therefore to congratulate the Prisons Service and to thank them on behalf of all peace-loving people in South Africa for the way in which they perform their protective function for us.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to continue by making a few points regarding the investigation by the Van Dam Committee, that has been referred to earlier. I have made the point that I feel the committee has been appointed timeously and appointed in spite of other investigations that were pending at the time. I feel that was the correct procedure.

Mr Chairman, as far as the two occurrences on 20 and 30 September 1983 are concerned, I must say that, on the basis of the evidence as it appears in the report, I cannot come to a different conclusion from what the committee has in fact found. Tragic as the deaths and injuries that occurred on that day may have been, I cannot see that it could in fact have been avoided, certainly not if one looks at the considerations in the short term. One does not know, in terms of long-term causes, what gives rise to that kind of event.

One point highlighted by the committee was the importance of visits, particularly by families, to prisoners in custody. They recommended very strongly that every effort must be made to keep such prisoners at prisons close enough to their homes so that visits can take place. Much as this may strain the overpopulation difficulties further, I believe that this is a recommendation that must be taken very seriously indeed. The committee’s further recommendations in respect of sport and the provision of music and so forth are, as far as I am concerned, quite correct and it deserves the serious consideration of the hon the Minister.

As far as the negative aspect of the report is concerned, I want to say the following: I believe that the terms of reference of the committee was unnecessarily limited. I do not have the time to refer to it in any great detail, but I believe that it would have been correct to ask for a more extensive investigation, also with regard to the events at Pretorius Dam, and not to limit the terms of reference in any way whatsoever.

Will you please repeat that? Did you say “Pretorius Dam”?

That is correct.

Mr Chairman, furthermore, another point that was made by the committee—which, in my opinion, was inadequate—was that it should be accepted that the safety of Prison Service staff cannot really be improved and that it should be accepted as a risk peculiar to their profession. I believe that there is possibly a slight cynical attitude there and I believe that certain measures can be taken and should be taken further to improve their safety. There is reference to a feeling of fear on the part of Prison Service officials in certain circumstances. I believe a person with that kind of feeling cannot react sensibly and cannot react correctly. Therefore, also in this respect, I believe that further measures have to be taken. Some of them are recommended in this report; I wish I had the time to refer to them. I believe that the hon the Minister and his department should take note of at least some of those recommendations.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point will forgive me if, owing to a lack of time, I do not follow him in his argument.

However, the hon member for Houghton stated that she receives smuggled letters from all over. Among other things, they are complaining about inadequate medical treatment. I must say, without referring to the age of that hon member, that I think the use of the word “gaol” is a little bit old-fashioned. That hon member is one of the privileged women, being married to a medical doctor. Therefore, if I talk about the sensitivity amongst the medical fraternity regarding this matter of the treatment of prisoners, in South Africa as well as outside South Africa, she will know what I am talking about. I think that, literally speaking and figuratively speaking, she knows more about the medical fraternity than most.

When I talk about the treatment of prisoners, I also talk as a member of the Medical Association, a body that is also very sensitive about this problem. The Medical Association of South Africa was readmitted to the World Medical Association, but countries like the United Kingdom left the World Medical Association, mainly owing to this particular issue. Therefore, there is very good reason for us to have this sensitivity.

*Mr Chairman, I also spent four years in the Defence Force where I was involved in matters affecting detention barracks and everything related thereto. Subsequently I was district surgeon for many years, during which time my most important duty was prison work. As district surgeon I performed relief duties in prisons until as recently as a year or so ago. Therefore I am not merely talking on the strength of what I have read; I am talking about things with which I am acquainted and of which I have gained a thorough experience over the years.

The chairman of the Council of the World Medical Association, Dr Wilson, visited this country a few weeks ago for a fortnight or so. I want to refer again to this hypersensitivity which exists among members of the medical corps. What did Dr Wilson say? He is quoted in Rapport of 6 May, as follows:

He added that further improvement was necessary. This is something with which I agree, and accordingly I will refer to it again later in my speech. In my opinion nothing is ever so good that it cannot be improved. Dr Wilson is quoted verbatim in the said report as saying: “Baie is egter al in dié verband gedoen.”

It is stated in the Van Dam report that the legal aspects insofar as the treatment and handling of prisoners are concerned, cannot be improved. As far as the medical aspects are concerned, section 6 of the Prisons Act, No 8 of 1959, deals with the appointment of medical officers, district surgeons and so forth. These aspects are also referred to in certain other sections of the Act. Regulation 111 states that:

Unfortunately I do not have the time now to read it in full or to refer to all the sections. However, section 71 of the Act, regulations 92 to 95, regulations 101, 111, 114, 120, 132, 134, 136 and 139 all deal specifically with the treatment of prisoners.

As regards medical treatment in practice and the administration of such treatment in prison, the quotations I am making here are borne out by my own personal experience. Chapter 15 of the Prisons Service Regulations deals with medical treatment. Paragraph 15.2.1 reads as follows:

Last year R5 319 000 was spent by the Prisons Service on the treatment of prisoners but this amount does not include costs relating to district surgeons’ services and also does not include costs in respect of treatment in the prison sick bay or the prison hospital. The total amount is therefore in fact considerably higher.

Furthermore the Prisons Service Regulations deal with additional medical treatment, State pathological laboratories, State and provincial hospitals, private medical practitioners whose services can be used when necessary, and the transfer of prisoners for medical reasons. It is rather interesting to read what is stipulated in paragraph 15.2.11, namely:

Other regulations deal with medical examinations on admission and transfer, with corporal punishment, with solitary confinement and with the release of prisoners. Proper attention is therefore given to the health of prisoners. By way of example I quote paragraph 15.3.9 of these regulations:

Paragraph 15.3.12 of the regulations reads as follows:

Paragraph 15.3.14 reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, I can continue in this vein in order to point out that attention is given to these matters in such detail that there is even mention of the number of times a baby in prison has to be weighed.

Chapter 16 of the regulations deals with injuries to prisoners. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into it in detail. There are, however, strict regulations in this regard, and the policy is carried out meticulously.

In the Van Dam report it is also pointed out that prisoners sometimes behave aggressively towards the medical practitioner. I must say, however, that I did not experience anything of the kind. I believe the prisoners identify the medical practitioner with a completely different person. As a matter of fact, I used to have my hands full quite often with prisoners who did not want to abuse my position but who in fact frequently offered me diamonds and so forth.

That brings me then to the changes suggested in this report, to wit that the medical corps in the prison should actually be developed as a separate unit. In the Defence Force members of the medical corps wear a maroon beret and epaulettes, and can be distinguished in the same way as a clergyman. Therefore I suggest that this could perhaps also be done in the prison in order to enable the prisoners to recognize medical practitioners and members of the medical corps.

I also believe that in the bigger centres, such as Pretoria and Cape Town, liaison between the Prisons Service and for example the Defence Force could be improved. We have for instance a hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte where the most up-to-date facilities are available, and it would be extremely useful if a link could be established between that hospital and a nearby prison hospital so that use can be made of all this facilities. Over and above this the available manpower could also be used in order to ensure security in certain circumstances. This, to my mind, will be a great improvement.

In view of the expansion of the Prisons Service I am of the opinion that the service should have its own medical corps. The Van Dam Commission was appointed in order to establish what shortcomings there were in the Prisons Service. Reference was made to the problem of the ranks not being high enough but during our visit to a prison I discovered that a nursing sister without the rank of officer was a rather strange phenomenon. This does not happen in the Defence Force because the members of the medical corps are normally highly qualified people, and I consequently agree with the recommendation relating to the ranks of the members of the medical corps in prisons. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me right at the start of my reply to the discussion of this Vote to make certain remarks in connection with a number of senior officers. We have with us here today the Chief Deputy Commissioner: Safe Custody, Lt-Gen M C P Brink, who will be reaching retirement age later this year and who has indicated that he is considering taking advantage of the opportunity to retire. He has already had 34 years’ service and has occupied his present post for the past six years. He is a highly decorated officer with a great deal of experience, and he has a particularly thorough knowledge of the service. Everyone who has come into contact with him up to the present has in effect come into contact with a walking encyclopaedia. He is still able to quote verbatim from Act No 13 of 1911, and that is undoubtedly more than either you or I can say, Mr Chairman. We esteem him as an officer and we can assure him that his services are greatly appreciated. He is in fact an officer who with his outstanding mental and organizing ability has known no other loyalty than that to South Africa and the SA Prisons Service.

Maj-Gen Gert Cilliers who is also present here was formerly head of the Division of Finance at a time when the Prisons Service started computerizing its financial system and experienced so many growing pains. Hon members will remember that two or three years ago there was the possibility of the hon member for Houghton asking me a number of questions in this regard on the Additional Estimates but, because the time expired, she did not get to it. The fact remains that that officer together with Brig Coetzee and others in his team have since that time controlled the division and have achieved such a measure of success that I make so bold as to say that this division of the Public Service accounts is usually the first one ready for audit and is also usually absolutely correct.

I also welcome other officers to this debate, among others Lt-Gen Reitz who has been appointed as Chief Deputy Commissioner: Staff Services with effect from September 1983. I want to congratulate him on his particular achievements to date. I appreciate the presence of these officers most sincerely.

Hon members referred to the Van Dam report, and I referred to the liaison service yesterday at the start of the debate. Hon members all mentioned the fact that they had received a full set of the Van Dam report and other supporting documents on their desks. There was previously liaison with the Press on an ongoing basis, and it is also well and good that we should always refer to the liaison service that operates so effectively, but I also think it fitting for us to tell Brig Botha that his services and also those of every other officer whose names I have not mentioned here are highly appreciated. I think that we should record that fact in this particular case.

I have no important announcements or statements to make. The truth is that we have had a very interesting debate today. It was a very meaningful debate, interesting ideas were exchanged, and every speaker was particularly well prepared. This augurs very well for the future, but it has also meant that it is hardly necessary for me to reply to hon members of the Opposition except perhaps here and there. Hon members on this side were extremely effective and I want to thank them for it. Besides this, hon members of the Opposition actually started replying to one another very well and in perspective at a later stage. That is as it ought to be in a debate of this nature where we are dealing with a sensitive matter. I also want to thank all hon members for the spirit that has prevailed up to the present, namely an understanding of the SA Prisons Service’s extremely involved task of the guarding of prisoners for the sake of the safety of the public but also in the implementation of their statutory task. However, the Prisons Service also renders an important educational service. Let us look for a moment beyond the concept of rehabilitation and let us give some consideration to the educational task. How many certificates are not issued to people who can again mean something to society? How many people do not receive in-service training in prison? How many people leaving prison cannot do skilled work but with more experience than previously and with something of an advantage?

The hon member for Uitenhage referred to the large number of long-term prisoners who do not again find themselves in prison. All this is due to the quiet work of the Prisons Service.

When we look at the scope of the Prisons Service, at the material that goes through their hands and at the relatively limited number of incidents that occur, I want to say here today that the State—not the Government—the State in all its constituent parts is grateful to the Prisons Service for the proper implementation of their statutorily imposed task. My hearty thanks to the Commissioner, to the top management and to every member of the SA Prisons Service.

We do not pretend to be a perfect body. The hon member Dr Vilonel referred to some or other visitor who said that the medical care at our prisons was impressive, or that it impressed him. It appears from the Van Dam report and from other observations that the time has come now for us perhaps to look a little more intensively at the medical care of patients in prison. We say that we are moving along with the demand. The hon member Dr Vilonel said here that we should also give them their own medical corps and so forth. I do not have such great visions and prospects at this stage except to say that we must strive for efficiency. If that is where it is to lead, then that is the road we have to follow. In the meantime, I have however consulted my hon colleague in the Cabinet, the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare, and we have agreed to appoint an interdepartmental committee to institute a thorough investigation into the efficacy of the present dispensation in terms of which the medical care of prisoners is undertaken, and that recommendations be made to the Government in regard to possible systems that will ensure that the safe custody of prisoner patients will come more into its own without any prejudice to the already existing positive and effective medical care of prisoners. At the same time I want to say that the district surgeons of South Africa are also performing a mighty task. This service is also being rendered most efficiently in their very busy program. The hon member referred to this in passing. This is not a motion of no confidence; on the contrary, it is the intention to give more stature to this service. Therefore, we will report back in this regard in due course.

I think the hon member for Houghton is anxious to hear what I have to say to the Committee, apart from what the hon member for Kroonstad has already said. I hope the hon member will forgive me if I miss out one or two points. As in the past, we will peruse the report of the discussion of the Vote and reply by letter to those points remaining unanswered. However, I think that the hon member must acknowledge the fact that as far as those prisoners are concerned in respect of whom she contends she has received complaints, she received an invitation from the Commissioner of Prisons. I shall read it out to hon members. It is dated 28 July 1983 and reads as follows:

I think the hon member acknowledged receipt of this letter, and in fact on 1 August 1983. I have had it checked and I think the hon member still owes us a reply. I want to be very courteous towards her. This was some time ago. We have proved to her over and over again that if we receive a complaint of any substance at all—and also otherwise—we shall investigate it. This was almost eight or nine months ago, and I think it was very unfair of the hon member to intimate that she had knowledge of a very large number of complaints while she did not even accept this offer and make use of it. Therefore, I want to tell the hon member once again that she is very welcome indeed to do the necessary.

The hon member intimated that she was not happy with the handling of matters that followed upon the Van Dam report. To tell the truth, she intimated that it was in fact not adequate and that a detailed monitoring system should henceforward be applied by the Prisons Service.

Outside the system.

She says “outside the system”, and is saying by implication therefore that she does not trust the system. She does not even trust what she herself observes. She told us—and I want to give her credit for it—that the conditions on Robben Island had changed dramatically. The fact is published in the foreign Press that the hon member for Houghton has said or written publicly that the conditions have changed dramatically. Then she came along—and I want to thank her again for having done so—and highlighted the situation at Pollsmoor. She said that the conditions there and the circumstances of a particular individual were not as they had been stated to be in the world Press.

Right, but then you should let me go more often.

However, the fact remains that those standpoints of the hon member followed upon the gossip and the untruths that had been disseminated. The hon member made use of the opportunity and replied very well in this regard. I thank her for her fair rectification of misconceptions, which was the right thing for her to do. However, does she want to tell me that if one person visits the prison, it would be credible provided complaints were made, but that no other person could be believed if there was silence? If there is no silence, does it mean that something is wrong? I shall say why. The Prisons Service is open to members of Parliament from time to time.

Oh, from time to time.

Mr Chairman, may I appeal to you? Ministers of religion of a large number of denominations can visit the prisons. Do hon members think that they will allow anybody to disappear? Do hon members imagine that officers who make inspections of prisons and place a high premium on their careers will continually allow those careers to be jeopardized? Will magistrates who conduct hearings in prisons place their careers in jeopardy by not making things public? Prisoners are eventually freed, and they are free to talk and they do talk. I want to ask hon members what can happen. Can anybody disappear?

There are deputy sheriffs, messengers of the court and legal representatives in terms of the regulations of the Prisons Service. Besides this judges and magistrates can at any time make an unannounced visit. I may just mention a few figures in regard to visits of this nature over the past while. I do not necessarily say that these were all various judges who paid these visits. In 1983 there were 83 visits by judges. In terms of these regulations we had 555 visits by magistrates. From 1 January to 31 March 1984, eight judges and 197 magistrates, a total of 205, made visits. Here again I am referring to visits and not necessarily to individuals. What happened? I have here before me reports by a judge who says, for example, that a prison is overcrowded but that it is neat and clean, that discipline is good and that it is well-managed. In other cases judges have reported to me in detail in regard to the situation of inmates. I bring this to the attention of the Commissioner and he attends to it immediately, possibly by moving certain prisoners. We even call in the Department of Justice to see whether we cannot take specific steps in regard to the trial side of things. A while ago we fine-combed the whole Prisons Service to give prisoners the benefit of a provision in the Criminal Procedure Act, which we amended last year, namely the provision that prisoners can take advantage of being able to pay fines on a deferred basis. We have seen to the needs of those people in this way. However, the question still arises whether a person can disappear, and how open the prisons system is. I can also refer to the visits of district surgeons. After complaints are received and have gone through the necessary channels, the district surgeon makes his periodic or special visit. We can go on in this way. I can understand it when the Commissioner tells me that the Prisons Service is geared up and ready to handle any repetition of the isolated occurrences at Barberton or at any other place. I am satisfied that our external monitoring system which I have explained to hon members is operating very efficiently. Our inherent control system in the Prisons Service itself is a very interesting system. Over and above the active participation of the officer in charge of the prison, the regional officer in charge, the regional commissioner, reports are made to the Commissioner of Prisons and myself in regard to anything out of the ordinary that happens in South Africa by means of an incident-reporting system on an ongoing hour by hour basis. I can give the assurance that the Commissioner, his top staff, the regional commissioners and officers in charge of prisons have geared themselves to this system in order to prevent incidents taking place. When we talk of incidents, are we only talking of incidents involving warders? No, that would be to give the situation a completely distorted image because one has to deal here with an absolute minimum number of isolated cases. There is a far larger set of possibilities that come into play here, namely prisoners who assault one another, suicide attempts which are prevented with the greatest difficulty and which subsequently require medical care, escapes and foiled escapes and so forth. It covers the whole spectrum and it would be wrong to say that the whole system is concentrated entirely upon what the warders do, as the hon member for Houghton would like the position to be. The fact is that through the medium of this monitoring system the progress made by prisoners in their various programmes to which they are exposed namely training programmes and programmes to keep them occupied, is also monitored. In this way we came to the conclusion that specific groups of prisoners, particularly C and D prisoners, had to be kept occupied more and more. A proper investigation is now being undertaken in this regard.

I should like to put a question to the hon member for Houghton. She has undoubtedly read the Van Dam report. I see that in paragraph 8.5.5 on page 46 it is recommended that:

Now there are people who give to understand that the Prisons Service ought to be able to exercise better control over the gangs. I want to state that there is in fact control at the prisons where these gangs operate otherwise the number of incidents of this type would be far higher. However, if we accept the fact that paragraph 8.5.5 contains a recommendation to protect life in prison and to exercise control over the leadership of gangs, I want to ask the hon member whether she supports the recommendation, yes or no.

Yes.

She supports it. Can I therefore have an undertaking from the hon member now that as long as she remains the chief spokesperson on prisons—and I hope this will be so for many years because that will mean that we will still be in Government for many years—she will not again complain about solitary confinement?

But this is all in the report as well, you know. The report did not say everything is wonderful, did it?

Sir, in the past the hon member construed detention in single cells to be solitary confinement, which she branded as barbaric, but I can remember that in specific cases the hon member asked me to remove people from single cells and to place them in a community...

That is not true. It is solitary confinement that I object to. That is different from single cells.

Order! No, I cannot allow this dialogue to continue across the floor.

So I have the hon member’s undertaking, if I understood her incorrectly, that she will not do it, and if I understood her correctly, she will also not do it.

No, that is not solitary confinement.

I want to come immediately to her colleague, the hon member for Green Point. The hon member objected to the terms of reference of the Van Dam Committee which are apparently too narrow, but is the hon member not aware of the fact that I formulated the terms of reference specifically to ensure that certain aspects of the occurrences at Pretorius Dam would also be investigated? Is he aware of that fact?

I see that that is what it says here, but the point is that those aspects are not mentioned. It is very difficult to discover what aspects they are.

The fact remains that we had a court case here which dealt with virtually every aspect under the sun, in which every possible facet was dealt with. The hon member knows that the finding was welcomed. The hon member is aware of the fact that it would then have held good for another prison. The hon member is also aware of the fact that the result of every occurrence at Barberton was dealt with here. I am satisfied in this regard that we ordered the widest possible investigation because it was very specific. The committee also made inquiries at the 12 other maximum security prisons, made an investigation and arrived at certain findings in that regard. I can therefore assure the hon member that in no way are we dealing here with an effort to inhibit this inquiry. I hope that that is not what the hon member is intimating.

The hon member for Houghton again raised the question whether the 7,09% that we mentioned in a previous debate was a correct figure. The fact remains that this figure was obtained after warrants had been certified correct by 242 heads of the prison. I want now to make the hon member an offer. The hon member and every spokesman of every party on prisoners can apply to the office of the Commissioner to look at those certificates. What they did was that they went through the warrants for each prisoner to ascertain which of them were there for control offences. We repeated the exercise on 30 April. It was a murderous exercise going over every warrant, not to satisfy the hon member for Houghton but simply to enable me to be able to stand up in this very important debate and say that on 30 April 1984 there was a total of 3 844 sentenced prisoners and 1 619 unsentenced prisoners in prisons because of control offences, a total of 5 463 or 5,19% of the total prisoner population of 105 313 on that evening.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question?

Is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

Just let me complete my argument.

The hon the Minister is not prepared to answer the question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I knew they were wrong; they took the total population.

Sir, it is very clear to me that the hon member for Houghton based her entire plea on an understanding and acceptance of the fact that everyone with up to and including six months imprisonment was a control offender. That must be roughly the basis of her assumption. Just try analysing her Hansard, just look at the grip that she is trying to get on the annual report. It is very difficult to analyse her argument precisely, but in general it boils down to the fact that she accepts that everyone serving this sentence is a control offender, because otherwise she could not refuse to accept our statement. After all, she does not know what other actions there are; she did not even ask how many people had paid a fine; she did not even ask that. She did not even ask how many people had been freed on parole. She did not even ask any question about why there was the difference. All she says is: “You are wrong.”

However, the hon member for Houghton made a few other interesting points. These were in regard to her objection that she encounters too many problems in trying to visit prisons. I certainly am not going to issue an open invitation to the hon member for Houghton to visit prisons as and when she wants to do so. I shall tell you why I am concerned. I am concerned that we will have to take her to Robben Island, Pollsmoor and Pretoria Central every day. We cannot afford to do so. Nevertheless, I do not think the hon member was very much in earnest in this connection.

The Hansards of the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Green Point differ materially in regard to their approach to the release of security prisoners. They should study what they said. The hon member for Green Point originally said: “Release as far as possible”, and then he qualified it by saying that all security prisoners should as far as possible be considered for the benefit of release. The hon member for Houghton did not even advocate “as far as possible”; she simply said that those people who have been there all their lives should be released. She did not qualify the statement by saying as far as possible or as far as it was in the interests of the public or as far as it was in the interests of the safety of the State or as far as had been indicated in such a person’s sentence by the court. They must study their Hansards. There is a real difference between them in regard to this matter, and I must say that I prefer the view of the hon member for Green Point, in spite of the fact that we had a slight misunderstanding a little earlier. In spite of that fact I prefer his approach. Therefore, my reply to him is positive. In terms of the policy which we adopted on 12 May 1982 all prisoners are considered from time to time in the normal course of events, because it was by means of that policy that we envisaged normalization in the sense that in terms of the security laws of South Africa a security prisoner is not entitled to special treatment. They are not all indiscriminately allowed newspapers or a number of visits and so forth. In ordinary language: They have to work for those things just like any other prisoner. That is the policy that we apply. That is also my reply to the hon member for Jeppe. That is the policy we apply. If a person is a C or D prisoner, he has to work for the privileges received by an A and B prisoner. Without that incentive the Prisons Service will not be able to carry out its task, will not be able to run. There is work, work, work, because not only are there people who are in fact trying to become members of group A or group B and who in fact accept their punishment but also those who in fact once they become members of group A or group B make use of every opportunity to make it possible for the Prisons Service to normalize their situation. As a result of various considerations which always hold good on parole and release, since we announced the policy about 92 prisoners have been released in this process. When one considers that on the penultimate visit of the hon member for Houghton there were only slightly more than 200 security prisoners, it begins to appear to me as if we are not doing too badly because 92 were freed.

Were those 92 prisoners who had been sentenced as a result of crimes against the State?

These were in respect of crimes against the State since 12 May 1982. I also want to express myself strongly in favour of the attitude that it is not a right to be released or to be placed on parole or to receive a remission of sentence; it is not a right; it is something that has to be earned. There are a large number of factors that come into play here. Time does not permit me to spell everything out now, but it probably has to do with the intention of the person who imposed the punishment; it has to deal with the prognosis, in other words, that he has turned his back on crime; it has to deal with his adaptability; it has to deal with a variety of factors, and each of those factors is considered. It is a fact that it is the task of the Executive Authority to decide in this regard from time to time, and that is also what is being done.

Finally, I want to direct a few remarks to a few other members, and I want to thank the hon member for Mossel Bay in particular for his contribution. He assisted me greatly in the debate. The hon member also pointed out specifically that the hon member for Houghton was not so much concerned about the overcrowding of prisons but was particularly opposed to certain statutory crimes. This is not the forum for a discussion of that nature.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Roodepoort who gave us a large number of interesting facts. I agree with him that we must move ahead now with our staff planning while we are on the crest of staff improvement. A little while ago we did in fact highlight certain professional groups. The Prisons Service is extremely sensitive to those factors that have an effect upon the staff situation from outside. The Commissioner and I receive a monthly graph of current trends. This enables us to request management timeously to do specific advance planning.

The hon member Mr Schutte spoke about the question of safe custody, rehabilitation, the various professional divisions and the highly specialized services which the Prisons Service has available. This brings me then to the hon member for South Coast. As opposition speaker on this subject he asked us a number of very interesting and valuable questions. He pointed out that we have to deal with prisoners who, as he expressed it, are “tough cookies”. That is so. He then asked a few questions to which I should like to reply. We do of course have the possibility that community service sentences can influence the number of prisoners, and we have taken steps to find alternatives so as to avoid imprisonment. He was particularly concerned about prisoners awaiting trial. I want to assure him that I am as concerned as he is about this situation, but once again it depends upon the availability of judicial officers to dispose of a case. It also often depends upon the period that is required to investigate the case properly. This is a matter to which we are giving ongoing attention. I hope the hon member is aware of our sensitivity in this regard. He spoke about community services in this connection. It is true that we should like to make our community services very much stronger. There is a shortcoming in this regard. It is a shortcoming that is experienced throughout the country, and I want to make an appeal to all population groups to make social workers available as far as possible to serve their own people. We are geared to handling this situation. The hon member also spoke about aftercare and about other persons and bodies. Aftercare is not necessarily a function of the Prisons Service. There are 17 bodies such as Nimro and others which concentrate on aftercare. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is also engaged in this work. The Department of Manpower also has a task. Therefore, what we are talking about here is a combined responsibility of the public and private sectors. It is my personal ideal that they should all be geared towards accepting responsibility for this work so that we can achieve the following: That prisoners who do not belong in prison, for example, first offenders, should be returned to the community at an earlier stage where these persons and bodies will accept responsibility for them. That is my ideal. As the matter does not actually fall within our jurisdiction, I can only say that we have sought liaison in this connection although we have not been particularly successful in this regard. A community feeling must be generated in regard to this matter. Having said that, I must issue the warning that if there are any of these organizations that have in mind accusing the Prisons Service of apparently not having carried out its task properly, then we will have a problem. We had this experience in the past. We were repeatedly maligned in the past in regard to the product that they received and which perhaps had again fallen by the wayside. That is why it is not my intention to accept responsibility for everything that happens outside of the prison. Neither is it the intention of the Commissioner and his team to accept responsibility for this. It must be a combined action together with numbers of other people in the private sector. I want to refer to the point made by the hon member when he said that one should inform a prisoner’s family that he is in jail. It is a fact that families are informed in writing if bail is payable or even a fine. I have already discussed the question of single cells. In regard to the question of community care, if the hon member is prepared to help us on the part of the private sector, we should like to involve him in this matter.

That brings me finally to the hon member for Kroonstad and the hon member for East London City. As is his wont, the hon member for Kroonstad dealt analytically with the hon member for Houghton. I do not think she enjoyed it very much. In fact, I think the hon member for Kroonstad summed up the matter correctly for us in regard to the figure credibility. He will most probably peruse those documents together with the hon member for Houghton who has been invited to do so. The hon member for East London City referred to Col Grundling and I want to join him in wishing that officer everything of the best. We trust that his health will improve to such an extent that he will again be able to lead a healthy life. The hon member for Uitenhage referred to the very small percentage of people who return to prison, and that this was due to successful rehabilitation programmes. He set out the whole philosophy of imprisonment very well, and I thank him for having done so. I thank him for having become involved in this group. It is a good group to belong to. Every now and again they travel to Robben Island.

The hon member for Barberton has given me the opportunity to tell him that I appreciate his attitude in respect of the prisoners in his constituency. I think that is an attitude that every Opposition member should have. Perhaps the hon member for Houghton should take a leaf out of the book of the hon member for Barberton. Having said that, I also want to say that I agree that we do not want a repetition of this sort of thing. The hon member for Stellenbosch also made a knowledgeable speech. It testifies to study. He dealt with the safe custody function of the Prisons Service. The hon member for Green Point also merits the following note: The Van Dam report referred to the retention of family ties as being very important for the morale of prisoners. These ties are in fact maintained, but it is unfortunately true that while it is recommended that we deal with the question of gang leadership and effect transfers, one cannot simply place them near their families. Then so many other members of the gangs have also to be placed elsewhere. Apart from this fact, it is not always possible for prisoners to be placed near to their families. Prisoners are placed in the nearest and most suitable prison having regard to classification, training requirements, the risk of escape and the availability of accommodation. Nevertheless it is still our ideal that contact with the family should serve as part of the training and rehabilitation programme. That is how we see it and that is how we promote it. While I am dealing with this matter, I also want to say that it is true that as far as security prisoners are concerned we recently placed them on the same level as prisoners with an A classification. They now have the privilege of family visits. I had hoped the hon member for Houghton would raise this matter. I gave her a whole morning and a whole afternoon to do so, and now I have to struggle to make her admit that she is satisfied in regard to this one point. However, we did not do this for the sake of the hon member for Houghton; we did it as part of the implementation of our policy. If there is any hon member whom I have missed out, I really want to apologize to him. We will peruse Hansard to see who it is to whom we still have to reply. Looking around me now, I see nobody whom I have missed out.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? The hon the Minister mentioned the point of the possibility of ensuring that the released convict has an identity document. However, he never referred to that again. Can the hon the Minister say something more about that?

The fact is that we are in the process of studying the possibility of coming to that very correct stage which will enable people to identify a prisoner very swiftly and take steps accordingly. We are attending to that need. If the hon member will accept that, I put it to him that we will probably be in a position to report back to him in time to come.

*Mr Chairman, I want in conclusion to say something about an idea that is unfortunately gaining ground. This is the conception that when a prisoner enters a prison he is no longer the same person as when he was sentenced by the judge. He then becomes a person with no record, he does not have a history, he does not need to be guarded for the sake of the public. For some or other reason there is an excessive sympathy for prisoners. I think it is fitting that everyone should be sympathetic in respect of people who have committed a crime against society. People ought to be sympathetically disposed towards them for the sake of themselves, their families and also the opportunities that they have lost. They are given every opportunity in South Africa. That is why we must have sympathy for them. They are then placed under the control of the Prisons Service in regard to their daily routine and everything they do. All that we ask is an understanding of the fact that the Prisons Service takes over the task firstly of guarding these people and secondly including these people in educational programmes. I think that we must maintain a balance in our view of prisons by realizing that the Prisons Service is carrying out this very difficult task in a very praiseworthy way.

Votes agreed to.